Wikipedia:Peer review/Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)/archive1

===Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)=== This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because Beyonce is one of my favourite artist. I have worked a lot on it. I know, how it is now, it can become a GA but i want to make it a FA. I will try my best.

Thanks, Jivesh boodhun (talk), Candyo32 (talk), Adabow (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)/archive1.

I'm absolutely not a Beyonce fan, so hopefully I can help with a completely different perspective. ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * The lead is super-long, possibly much more than it needs to be. I don't think it needs to be more than two paragraphs long. Considering how it's longer than most of the body sections, I highly recommend splicing it. ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For example, at the end of the first paragraph, just say that it was met with high critical acclaim or something instead of listing so many awards. In fact, I'd recommend just taking out the entire final sentence, as what you have before sums it up quite nicely. Look at Hey Jude for a really good example. ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "The song was released simultaneously as the album's first single alongside "If I Were a Boy" to U.S. radio on October 8, 2008. The song was later released to other international markets as the album's second single after the worldwide hit "If I Were a Boy"." this sounds really awkwardly written. ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The entire second paragraph has a lot of elaboration in what could easily be summed up in two or three sentences. Also, the line about being the "first new dance craze of the millenium"... really? Are you sure? I've NEVER seen this song in performance, and I am a dancer. I know that personal anecdotes are no substitute for empirical evidence, but I find that line very, very iffy; doubly so since it has no citation. ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You mention awards again at the end of the second. I know that's for the video, but it's kind of out-of-place after reading the first paragraph. ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Really, really need to summarize the third paragraph. The line about it being covered by so many artists really doesn't need to be there. Hell, simply saying "used in various media" would be good enough, then elaborate on what media later on in the article. I did that with mine. ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Background and Release
 * Some of the syntax in the "Background and Release" section is really dry or awkward.
 * For example, "It appears on the "Sasha Fierce" disc of I Am... Sasha Fierce, as Knowles portrays her alter ego in the song." Huh? Well, yeah, but... huh?!? ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "... was initially targeted to debut on US radio stations on October 7.[4] However, both songs premiered the following day." What about simply "debuted as a US radio release on October 8." Your original is pretty awkwardly written, and it not premiering on October 7 sounds like pointless trivia, especially without any notion about why that's important. ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "... in almost all european countries." Like which? ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Go over the punctuation hardcore: some quotes start without ending, capitalization is missing, etc. Usually I'd do it myself but I've gotta cook dinner soon ^_^ ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "... to demonstrate her two completely different dueling personalities one being her more intimate side and the other being "Sasha", her alter ego." How about just "to demonstrate the concept of dueling personalities highlighted by the integral album." ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Composition
 * For the "Composition" section, why not split it into two paragraphs: one detailing the explicit musical characteristics of the song (time, key, etc.) while the other contains the lyrics/quirks/influences. Again, Hey Jude is a great example. ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no details on recording locations, techniques used, etc. Although a shorter article, Slay Tracks (1933-1969) has a pretty good "Recording" section. It's a lot different than what Beyonce's would be, I'm sure, but at least it can point you in the right direction.  I'm working on it
 * No citation for the resemblance to "Get Me Bodied". At least put a quote or something so it doesn't look like something you just put in. ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Critical Reception
 * Actually, for the most part, I really like the "Critical reception" section. Take all the excess critical reception from the lead and put it here. If it's already there and I missed it, then take it out completely from the lead. Don't split up the information - readers will either have to scroll a lot to get the information they want or just get sick of it. ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, make sure you copy-edit the article. A great example is the first sentence of the "Award and Nominations" subsection, which reads "Rolling Stone magazine named "Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It)" the best song of 2008 writing, "The... " ." Put a comma after "2008", and it fixes the grammar. Just trying to help! ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not swap the "Chart performance" and "Music video" sections? That way the charting can appear right after itself.


 * Chart Performance
 * Chart Performance is very awkwardly written.
 * "It kept on climbing the chart steadily, reaching number at number twenty-eight based solely on airplay." This doesn't even need to be here. Just say "peaked at number 28." A good writing tip (and one of George Orwell's five tips on writing, if I remember correctly) is to say no more than you need. Also, if what you're saying can be written in fewer words, then do exactly that.
 * Following this... "In its sixth week on the chart, the digital component was released and debuted directly at number one on the Hot Digital Songs chart, selling 204, 000 digital downloads." The first clause doesn't even need to be there. Working on it
 * "The song became Knowles' fifth solo number-one hit on the 'Billboard Hot 100." should be somewhere else than in the middle of the page. This is arguably one of the most relevant facts in the section, yet it's buried so far down that you can't even tell. ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Music video"
 * "The music video for "Single Ladies" was shot concurrently with the one for "If I Were a Boy" because both singles were released together to demonstrate the contrast between Knowles' two conflicting personae." Like I said before, don't say more than you need. Let's use "The music viceo for "Single Ladies" was shot concurrently with "If I Were a Boy" to follow the concept of conflicting personalities." It's a lot simpler and says the exact same thing.


 * "Knowles revealed that the budget for the videos was spent almost entirely on "If I Were a Boy". Consequently, the producers were forced to downgrade for the video of "Single Ladies"." Again, this is just really awkward. What about "Since "If I Were a Boy" garnered most of the budget, "Single Ladies" was produced on a smaller timescale and a lower production value."


 * On that note, there is no elaboration on the effects of the lower budget on the video, so I'd almost recommend deleting that line since it does absolutely nothing but open more questions.
 * I believe the statements later on about how it was a very minimalistic concept and taking place in an infinity cove should cover that. Candy  o32  - Merry CHRISTmas :)  13:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The entire part on Bob Fosse is extremely difficult to follow.
 * Put the "Synopsis" subsection in the beginning rather than the middle.


 * "The video of "Single Ladies" is mainly about dancing." ... Well, yeah. That's pretty obvious.


 * Make two paragraphs to separate the topics of the video's physical composition and the actual progression of events as two different features.


 * There is a HUGE difference between a popular video and a viral video. Be very careful with that wording. A popular video is exactly that. A viral video is one that spreads quickly and effectively around the Internet with multiple applications and responses (Source: my New Communications Technology course). In this vein, "Baby" by Justin Beiber would be a popular video, but "Numa Numa Dance" would be a viral video. Again, huge difference, especially when you consider the Internet subculture's animosity toward Justin Beiber and pop music in general. I still have some doubts but you must be right
 * Combine "Accolades" with "Release and Response" ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Live performances and promotion
 * The "Live performances and promotion" section is pretty good, but again it's rather dryly written. Then again, it's hard to embellish that as it is... ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Cultural impact
 * Ah, so there is a quote about it being "the first major dance craze of both the new millennium and the Internet." I still highly disagree with this though... I mean, for all intents and purposes, OK Go's extremely famous music video for Here It Goes Again is likely the first true Internet dance viral video. It's even been used in course curriculum for some universities (Florida State University, University of Florida, New York University to name a few) because of its low budget, ridiculously fast spread, and popularity within the Internet subculture. I know that this is all subjective, but be extremely careful when you write in claims like that, even if it's from a source. It can be construed as advertising, and as I just pointed out, it's very easy to disagree with.
 * Also, dances can be popular for every song that comes out, but is it really a craze unless it keeps perpetuating? That's probably the weakest argument I have against this article though...
 * "After a few hours, a video surfaced on YouTube showing a twenty-six year old man, Iman Crosson, who looks just like the US president, doing the dance choreography of the song" ... what? I mean, I understand what you're saying, but "looks just like the US president" doesn't need to be in there at all, to say nothing of it being subjective.
 * I really don't think I can accurately judge the importance of the "Legacy" section simply because it's extremely difficult for someone of a different music background (like me) to view it objectively. I know that you're a fan of Beyonce, and I think that comes across very strongly in your writing. It sounds like you're advertising the song's popularity. Again, refer to the "Hey Jude" article. It says a lot about the popularity of the song. I mean, come on, God knows how many "Hey Jude" covers there are in the world; but it doesn't go into unnecessary detail of performers like this article does. You don't need to list EVERY artist that has covered this song, just like we'd be here forever if we talked about how many people have covered "Hey Jude", made videos using "Hey Jude", done dance routines to "Hey Jude" (I saw one on-stage in October, actually), etc. Seriously consider summarizing or splicing information from this.
 * I really liked the writing on "Kanyegate." Good work!
 * Concerning the caption on the black and white photo: "Knowles flashes her $5 million worth marriage ring worn on her "Sasha Fierce" roboglove."
 * Is that really necessary?
 * removed.

Hope I helped. Haha, sorry to pick apart so much, but I can tell you've put a lot into it and I want to help as well. --Silverskylines (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That being said, the caption for the image comparing "Single Ladies" to Bob Fosse's dance is great.

Comments from Lil-unique1
I would like to comment:
 * Infobox
 * 1) Writers should be credited by their legal name... thus The-Dream = Terius Nash not Terius "The-Dream" Nash - its messy. ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) However producers should appear by their producer names. so in the writer field its Terius Nash, in the producer field its The-Dream. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  23:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * 1) Eventually, the music video of "Single Ladies" prompted a legion of imitations and parodies from people all around the world as well as celebrities and the American president Barack Obama. (this makes it sound as if parodies were inevitable and thus needs correcting). ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) The introduction in general is not all-encompassing. See 4 Minutes (featured article) for an example of a better more fluid introduction that speaks of each aspect of the song which, the existing introduction does not.
 * Background ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The last paragraph is written informally.
 * 2) Also can you decide what is this section actually about? it starts of telling us who wrote the song but then goes into the concept and then into release of the song. But then composition section starts speaking of lyrcs it gets quite messy to follow. the two sections combined have no flow. ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Composition
 * 1) Dancehall and bounce influences do not constitute dance-pop and bounce in the infobox. ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing bounce, but dance-pop is sourced separately and is not constituted in the infobox from dancehall. Candy  o32  - Merry CHRISTmas :)  16:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC) ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

 Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  05:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Chart performance
 * 1) This section, especially about the US, needs pruning. It was agreed long ago that only interest facts, broken records, certificates, peak chart and debut chart, a week by week countdown is not appropriate. {{done}] Jivesh boodhun (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Please have a look and share your views
 * Music video ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Please have a look and share your views
 * 1) Entire section needs copy-editing.
 * 2) Image needs to be reduced in size.
 * 3) Background and conception need to be split up as there is too much information here. Additionally the massive quotes need to be reduced and block quote formatting reduced as the paragraphs do not flow properly.
 * 4) *This still needs addressing. Reduce the size of the first quote ("I saw a video on YouTube...). --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  23:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) *Remove quote from ("I've been blessed this year to have 'Single Ladies' become a video people really connected with and responded to. I've spent so much time watching all the great versions people created all around the world. It's beautiful to feel you touch people and bring a song to life with a video".) Re-paragraph. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  23:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Live performances and promotion
 * 1) Rename to just Live performances. Promotion is deceptive as it implies advertising or some sort of product placement/endorsement.
 * Cultural impact ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Please have a look and share your views
 * 1) Reduce Kanyegate section as there is a whole seperate article on this. Several sentences would suffice just explaining that Kanye West interrupted Taylor Swift during the award ceremony to say Beyoncé deserved the award instead. Also things like Kanye and Taylor's albums benefiting from the incident are not relevant to the song (they're relevant to the incident's article).
 * 2) * remove ("West's outburst resulted in an Internet meme, which saw images of West being superimposed onto other images alongside text in the style of his MTV Video Music Awards outburst ("X is one of the greatest Y of all time", or variants thereon, in some cases preceded by "I'm really happy for you" and/or "I'mma let you finish").[146] The incident was also parodied several times, including at the 2009 Country Music Association Awards,[147] and when Taylor Swift hosted Saturday Night Live in 2009."[148] West apologized numerous times therefater, as Swift said that she received a call from the rapper and accepted.[145] She would respond in the form of a song, "Innocent" from her 2010 album, Speak Now.[149]") as all of this has nothing to do with "single ladies". --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  23:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Certificates
 * 1) Do not follow current formatting standards. See recent GAs to see how certificates should be formatted. ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * External links
 * 1) Discogs is a bad source. remove please.✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Beyoncé's "Single Ladies" Dance Moves is not official. remove please. ✅ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Jivesh boodhun (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Another observation
 * 1) When embedding files in the article e.g. music sample, images and quote boxes they should appear in in zig zag. therefore the music sample appears on the right, chart performance image on the left, music video image on right, live performance video should appear on left etc.... Alternating positions please per other FAs. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  23:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

All done. All about Beyonce  at Jivesh  &bull;  Talk2Me  07:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)