Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Déjà Vu (Beyoncé Knowles song)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:44, 4 July 2008.

Déjà Vu (Beyoncé Knowles song)

 * previous FAC (00:38, 27 February 2008)

Self-nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because there has been substantial edits to address the concerns on its first FAC and its now FA ready. It was also peer reviewed (although none of the "opposers" dropped comments on the PR room). --Efe (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - très bien :) -- Moj ska  07:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I will leave other editors here to decide wether or not http://www.aCharts.us/ is a reliable source (It has been removed, but the charts table is still based entirely on information from it!) — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 13:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, part only of the second para under chart performance. --Efe (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * You could probably remove the doubled up footnotes to About.com, just leaving the one footnote that refers to the review.
 * Removed. --Efe (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And likewise, you'll probably need to replace the aCharts references, unless someone comes up with third-party reliable sources that use/rely on the site.
 * Trying to find. Please note that contents being supported are not very contentious. --Efe (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise sources look good. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Not all of the publishers need to be italicized – only the ones that are on the list at MOS:TITLE. Gary King ( talk ) 15:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please not that I am using the Cite news and Cite web ref templates. Entry in the word parameter is formatted to italics while in the publisher parameter is not. --Efe (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Meets all the criteria, prose is succinct and compelling, article is informative and well written. Good job. Oran e   (talk)  16:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments -- I remember copy-editing this article the last time it was at FAC
 * Me as well. Thanks for that. --Efe (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

indopug (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "The collective shot parts of the video" Huh?
 * Collective refers to the artists and the production crew. --Efe (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Credits and personnel section is very awkwardly formatted. It should "Beyonce – vocals", I believe. In any case, your previous FA, "Baby "Boy" didn't even have such a section, so why is one needed here? If all the instrumentalists are already mentioned in the prose, it becomes slightly redundant.
 * It is required per WP:SONGS, but the formatting is user preference. Anyway, using the name-credit style would make this part a bit long. --Efe (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you've gone overboard in the qualifying the websites and publications. "The international webzine", "a multimedia news and reviews website", "an online music database"... its quite obvious ven to a lay reader that since it is the "Reception" section, most of the names are some sort of publications; which is all they need to know really. While "The New Yorker magazine is fine, there's no need to call The Washington Post "an American newspaper" (its also evident from the title).
 * I removed what is obvious: The Washington Post "an American newspaper". For others, I did not. Many do not know about those. --Efe (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought About.com is not reliable? Is Bass Player reliable?
 * The content being supported of about.com is a review. Bass Player specializes in bass guitars and its an interview with Webb who is credited on the song. --Efe (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The publications are mostly incorrectly formatted: Allmusic and NME?
 * Regarding allmusic formatted in italics, please refer to the above answer. NME is fixed. --Efe (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The UWC has been deleted and non-notable and all... Their rating system has been deemed arbitrary too (see the AfD); I believe it shouldn't be used anymore?
 * Wait. The article was deleted not because it was deemed non-reliable but because no third-party sources that could support its notability and in keeping its corresponding article exist in WP. Anyway, I'll try to consult WP:RS noticeboard. --Efe (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed per Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. --Efe (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Knowles begins the song calling three instruments: bass, hi-hat and 808." - awkward.
 * Fixed. Any suggestion? --Efe (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments. - I remember this article from its previous FAC last spring and I'm pleased to see that it is vastly improved. Just a few points:
 * The song is purely instrumental, using a variety of live instrumentation from the bass guitar, conga, hi-hat, old-school horn, and Roland TR-808. - I don't understand this, in my day, an instrumental was a track without any vocals. What does it mean here, no samples, no synths? It can't be the latter because a Roland TR-808, (albeit a drum machine) was used. Please clarify this.
 * Song is changed to music (referring to the song's sound). --Efe (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Déjà Vu" also took lyrical contributions from songwriters Delisha Thomas and Keli Nicole Price; Makeba Riddick made her way onto the B'Day production team after co-writing the song. - Can you be clearer about this? Does it mean she sang?
 * I think the supporting part "onto the B'Day production team" makes it clear. Hmmm. I tried to fix it: "and Makeba Riddick who was then enlisted on the B'Day production team after co-writing the song". --Efe (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What does took lyrical contributions mean? Graham Colm Talk 16:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That was fixed by an IP. Thanks to him/her. --Efe (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops, I just made a very similar point to Graham's on the article talk page. I think a source dealing clearly with the lack of sampling (if such it be) would be good, and it would be useful to avoid labelling the 808 as "live instrumentation". I made some changes to that effect. Edit: my edits were reverted.
 * I will remain on saying its live instrumentation because its music is largely based on it. I tried to fix; please see the page. --Efe (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As regards his second point, I agree that sentence needs clarifying. There is no source that I can see for Delisha Thomas's and Keli Nicole Price's involvement, and the source cited suggests that saying Riddick made her way onto the B'Day production team may be putting it too strongly—rather it says that by writing the song and recording a version of it, she became part of the "team" that made B'Day, a turn of phrase that we need not emulate.
 * The album notes is the source itself for Ms. Thomas's and Price's contributions. --Efe (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, good. Are they credited as lyrical contributors? Or co-songwriters with Riddick? Or something else...? 86.44.27.243 (talk) 01:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The first one. --Efe (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Knowles enlisted ... Rodney Jerkins' Was she the one directly responsible for his working on the album, or is this a figure of speech? I'm not convinced popstars select their own producers, so a source for this would be good.
 * Fixed. --Efe (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

86.44.27.243 (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * The audio sample is slightly distorted
 * Oh my, I dont know how to do this. --Efe (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Music and lyrics" section: "The first instrument to enter, the bass guitar slides into the main two-bar ostinato." -- need a comma after guitar
 * I think its fine. If added, it will read like this: "The first instrument to enter, the bass guitar, slides into the main two-bar ostinato." If the part inside the comma will be removed, it will read like this: "The first instrument to enter slides into the main two-bar ostinato." Thoughts? --Efe (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Charts" section: U.S. Billboard Hot Dance Club Play1 -- why is a remixed version listed above the original version? --IE (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Re-arranged per suggestion. --Efe (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments regarding criterion three: Oppose: music video fair use issue needs resolution.
 * YOur oppose is too unreasonable. --Efe (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:DejaVuSample.ogg is not low fidelity (WP:NFCC); why is 130 kbps necessary?
 * I'll try to contant the uploader. --Efe (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How much kbps is needed. --Efe (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Kbps should be as low as possible while reasonably maintaining the medium's abilitiy to fulfill its purpose. Examples of kbps in recent FAs include Strapping Young Lad (uses 74, 67 and 65 kbps) and Year Zero (album) (uses 73).  Generally, kbps in the 60s is fine.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 14:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Ill try to contact the uploader. --Efe (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Already contacted; see here. Regards, --Efe (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note, also, that may be able to assist with a reduction.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 12:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion of the music video includes descriptive comments including, among others, "couture-motivated outfits, vigorous footwork and sexually-themed routines" and "over-the-top wardrobe choices". A music video image may be warranted, but surely this capture (Image:Dejavu-video2.jpg) does not adequately depict the important/notable elements of the video, as articulated by the text.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 01:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I opted to use that image to partly depict the reasons why fan reacted negatively of the video. Also, its pretty hard to depict all the discussions in just one screenshot. --Efe (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The image needn't depict all such elements; the issue is that it doesn't seem to depict any. The article identifies "a lack of theme, dizzying editing, over-the-top wardrobe choices and 'unacceptable interactions'" as well as "erratic, confusing and alarming [dancing]" as fan concerns; how are any of these elements depicted in this image?  "Unacceptable interactions" is the caption and, presumably, the issue you're attempting to depict.  This phrasing is too vague; what is "unacceptable" about the interaction?  Too passionate, too indifferent, too inconsistent?  What, exactly, is going on in this image?  The boilerplate purpose of "The screenshot is intended to represent the nature of the single" is entirely inadequate in articulation the intended purpose; WP:RAT and WP:NFCC require rationales to be detailed, clear and relevant to each use.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 14:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * About the interaction I do not know. Thats how the source is written. As for the image, please note that a single screenshot cannot capture all important details of the video. So I think its fine. --Efe (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read my comments critically; I'm not asking for all elements to be captured. ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 12:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you want a clearer caption? --Efe (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Read my comments. Compliance with NFCC is mandatory and an explicit requirement of the featured article criteria.  I've identified issues and asked questions which you have failed to answer.  If you don't even know what "Unacceptable interactions" means, how can you possibly believe that this image is illustrating that point?  It's unfortunate that you're unable or unwilling to obtain an alternative screenshot.  The current image is not in compliance with WP:RAT, NFCC#8 and NFCC#10C; the oppose is thusly not "too unreasonable" or even "unreasonable".  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 14:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * weak Oppose for now.
 * In the first paragraph of Release and reception section, the Freemasons club mix is mentioned before it is described. This might need a bit of reorganization.
 * fixed. --Efe (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * About.com is not a reliable source. As that information can be posted by anyone, I don't think that it should be used, even for a review.
 * Not actually a big issue. While its not a fact being supported, the writer is disclosed. --Efe (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether the writer is disclosed or not does not make the source reliable. Including this review is roughly the same as including a review posted on some random person's personal website.  Unless the writer is well-known for music reviews (published in reliable sources), then his opinion should not count any more than, say, mine.  As an unreliable source, it should be removed. Karanacs (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Should there be quotation marks in here somewhere deemed the lyrics a confusing view of memory?
 * No, its "perplexing view of memory". I just changed "perplexing" to "confusing". --Efe (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is too close to the original source. I would suggest changing back to "confusing" and including the quotes around the source. I have no idea what that means, either. Karanacs (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * interesting phrase "couture-motivated outfits" - should this perhaps be "couture-inspired"?
 * fixed, as suggested. --Efe (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no publisher for current ref 35 "Beyoncé Interview Backstage On TRL video. Retrieved on 2008-04-05. "
 * Fixed. --Efe (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I clicked the link to this one to try to figure out if the source was reliable, and the link is dead. Karanacs (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with elcobbola that the fair use rationale for the video screenshot doesn't quite meet the standards. Karanacs (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Refer to the above reply. --Efe (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose, basic issues with prose, original research, sources, MOS, image use, and narrative.
 * Unacceptable fair use for Image:Dejavu-video2.jpg. True the video is discussed in the article, but it's arguable that what you've illustrated is an example of "unacceptable interactions".
 * The citations are riddled with formatting errors.
 * ""Déjà Vu"'s instrumentation is varied, including bass guitar, hi-hat, horns and Roland TR-808 drum machine." Grammar.. terms like "drum machine" require a preceding article like "a", check the article for more of these.
 * The descriptions of the songwriters in "Background and production" diverges from what's in the infobox. You mention "composer John Webb" who is not listed in the infobox, and then you mention that Knowles "approved" the song but she is listed as a writer in the infobox.
 * Your description of the key and "tempo" of the song are incorrect, and you should not be gleaning such things directly from the sheet music anyway.
 * "The first instrument to enter, the bass guitar slides into the main two-bar ostinato." Does not flow well, please reword so "bass guitar" is closer to the beginning.
 * You travel among "Roland TR-808", "808", and "Roland 808". I'd advise tossing the last two and sticking with long-form Roland TR-808 and short-form TR-808.
 * In "Background and production" you mention that Jay-Z recorded "a rap verse" but later you talk about first and seconds raps.
 * "... four weeks after Knowles informed Columbia, her record label, that the album was already finished." Suggests some context that is not present in the article.
 * Your collection of sources for the negative song reviews is wholly unspectacular. You open with Fox News (almost comically unreliable), About.com, and Allmusic, none of which rate high on the reliability scale.  I'm positive there are many printed reviews in respected music magazines. -- Laser brain   (talk)  05:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.