Talk:Cater 2 U/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 18:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Infobox

 * I have made an edit to the image's rationale. There are no other issues.

Background and lawsuit

 * I wonder if the lawsuit paragraph should be given a section of its own, or perhaps if Lawsuit could be a third-level heading and "Background and lawsuit" changed just to "Background".
 * In reference #11, HipHopDX can be wikilinked.
 * Reference #11 hints at this article about Rowland's response to the lawsuit. This magazine article also talks about it. Is Rowland's anger at Knowles notable enough to be mentioned?

Composition

 * Audio file is less than 30 seconds/10% of the length; rationale is fine. No problems.
 * I wonder if linking the musical notes A and B, and term "key", is excessive. I see other GA/FA music articles seem to link these too, but the link to D major should be good enough to remove the need for a link to key (music).
 * On a similar note (pun intended), I don't like this bit: . B4 isn't what I would call a high note — it's barely an octave above middle C. If the "low note"/"high note" is just intended to illustrate that A3 is the lowest note used, and B4 the highest, then I think it's redundant and can be removed — "... span from A3 to B4" would be fine.
 * — I assume "it is complete with" means "it contains". The sentence tripped me up the first time I read it; I think "contains" is less confusing.
 * — I think this is redundant; you can have "the song's theme was supplication", or "the song was about supplication", but not both.
 * — one of?
 * — change to "neither ... nor", or "not ... or".
 * — Does "concluded" really work there? I suppose "He said" is too boring, but "concluded" sounds too formal given the quote.
 * — I'd use a colon instead of "that" ("similar criticism: "[The song]...").
 * Is it worth explicitly stating that the song won neither Grammy it was nominated for?
 * EDIT: In reference #18 (TWP), there's also a  parameter issue; I think it's because "August 11, 2007-08-11" is repetitive; remove the "August 11". — Bilorv (talk)(contribs) 19:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Chart position

 * I'd link ringtone.
 * — Change to "it last appeared".

I'll try to review the rest of the article soon. — Bilorv (talk)(contribs) 18:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Music video

 * Is the  in the caption needed?
 * —> "large parts were filmed"
 * — remove (see MOS:NOTED).

Live performances and cover version; Credits and personnel: no comments.

Formats and track listings

 * Link Scott Storch from the "Storch Remix Edit" on the Maxi CD Single.
 * It has been linked before in the article, but I'd link to Maurice Joshua again in "Maurice Joshua "U Go Girl" Remix".

Charts; Certifications: no comments.

Release history

 * The "Format" column is confusing me a little bit: I think "Music download", "Music download" and "Extended play" are the words which belong under the heading, and maybe a separate heading is warranted for "Dance mixes EP", "Remix EP" and "EP".

I'll finish the review tomorrow. — Bilorv (talk)(contribs) 20:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

See also; References; Bibliography; External links: no comments.

Lead

 * — I'm not sure this needs to be mentioned in the lead at all given the information appears concisely in the infobox (and later under Background).
 * — I talked about "complete" in the Composition section. Is "instrumentally complete with [x]" a common phrase?
 * — Change to "... music critics who, despite generally praising its composition ..."
 * — I thought the objections were more based on the song's lyrics being (in some people's opinions) sexist.
 * There should be a comma, form of punctuation or connective before "further receiving a gold certification".
 * — Change "it" to "the song" (for a split second I thought it meant "performed the music video").
 * — Remove "to that".

Other

 * Add the article to Category:Destiny's Child songs.

The article is now being placed on hold. — Bilorv (talk)(contribs) 10:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I addressed most of your comments, but wanted to clarify my opinion about three of them. From my experience on Wikipedia, every reviewer demanded from work published by New York Daily News to be excluded as it is considered untrustworthy. The inclusion of information about the writers and producers of the song in the lead is also obligatory and done on all song articles. I Am...   ***D.D.  18:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A search for "WP:nydailynews.com" yielded lots of spam reports, but also several situations where New York Daily News articles are used as references in articles, or were the reason an article was kept in an AfD (e.g. 1). Why have other reviewers deemed it untrustworthy?
 * I still disagree with the writers/producers information (since it's in the infobox, it is in the lead), but my problem seems to be with more general conventions rather than just with this specific article. Leaving it in is fine.
 * Finally, you said "three" of my comments weren't addressed. These four are still unclarified: "criticized the lyrical content ...", my suggestion of de-linking "key", "he further concluded" being too formal, Grammy nomination not win could be explicitly stated. I retract the first idea: I don't think "sexist" is any better than "contradictory", although I still don't really like what's currently there. The last might possibly also be original research, so maybe that's not relevant either. — Bilorv (talk)(contribs) 11:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please check again and tell me whether everything is addressed. I Am...   ***D.D.  14:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You haven't responded to my comments on the New York Daily News, but everything else has been addressed. — Bilorv (talk)(contribs) 15:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been asked to remove the tabloid New York Daily News from all Beyonce articles because many of the articles published in it are speculations and rumours. I Am...   ***D.D.  13:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine. Pass for GA. — Bilorv(talk)(c) 16:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)