Talk:The Cookbook

The Cookbook has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 25, 2005	Articles for deletion	Kept
December 14, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum

Hip-hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip-hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip-hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip-hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip-hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip-hopHip-hop
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in hip-hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in hip-hop, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in hip-hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in hip-hopWikipedia:WikiProject Women in hip-hopTemplate:WikiProject Women in hip-hopWomen in hip-hop
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

R&B and Soul Music Low‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

VFD results

This article has survived a VFD nomination with the result of Keep. --Allen3 ^talk July 5, 2005 15:47 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Cookbook/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Review

I'll be reviewing the article. — Realist² 16:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a few general points I would like to make.

The article doesn't have an international perspective, it's too US focused.
The singles section is too small, good, just too small. You could easily expand this.
There should be a section on music videos, Music videos have played a huge part in her artistry and image, much like Michael Jackson. Remember that you can use this to provide a summary plot of the videos if you don't have sources.

My only other issue is the lead, it's nothing major though.

Give the first release date, 4th July, and remove "in the US".
Notice how the lead section dedicated to the singles is as big as the section in the article itself. We definitely need to expand that singles section, it's too small.
The critical reception info should come before the commercial reception info (like it does in the article body). The critical reception info of the lead could also do with some expanding.

OK, everything else in the article is good, including references. I just feel that we need more details, less American viewpoint and some minor alterations to the lead. — Realist² 17:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article. I've resolved most of the issues, I just need to work on the music video information, which I'll do later on tonight. DiverseMentality 19:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I've done everything now. Hopefully.

DiverseMentality 06:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please go back and note the changes I just made to the article. US-formatted dates need commas after the year (much like the US "city, state" construction needs a comma after the state) when not ending a sentence. The POV phrases should have been caught. The other copyediting was just to make the article read better; there were too many "Reviewer A gave the album _ out of _ stars, saying, '.......'" instances. (Also, including all the ratings in the prose isn't necessarily frowned upon, but only the reviewer's rationale is insightful.)

There are some other things that need to be addressed, however. While WP:ALBUM allows for a release history section, it is rarely necessary. This information easily can be included in the prose: "The Cookbook was released in the UK on July 4 and a day later in the U.S." (Nobody cares when it was released in the other countries...except maybe Japan if there was some important difference in that country's version.) Also, the Gold certification was already mentioned in the prose, and it is the only certification so far, so let's remove those columns from the chart table. —Zeagler (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article passes, Zeagler has brought up some interesting points, points I would have rather got to after the additional content was added, I like to review articles in stages, rather than bog the candidate down all at once. So cheers for doing my typing. The other issues are not important for GA criteria and I would look rather DICKISH for holding the article to ransom over it. If D Mentality wan't to take the article further, to FA, I'm sure he will consider it. Happy editing. — Realist² 15:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the edit and extra comments, Zealer. I went ahead a removed the extra columns from the 'Charts' section. I wouldn't "Nobody cares when it was released in the other countries", and though release histories aren't required, I keep them in articles, so it doesn't seem like English-speaking countries only matter when it comes to anything on the English Wikipedia. But if my some crazy circumstance this article does make it to become a FAC, I will consider removing it and altering the lead as you've written.
Thank you too, Realist, for review the article and also giving me my first GA.

. DiverseMentality 17:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big deal, really. I just see it as trivia. The U.S. release date is important because Missy Elliott is American, and of the countries that released the album first, the UK is most important (in terms of contributions to the music industry). So that would be my rationale for including those two. I can't think of a compelling reason to include any others...unless, again, other countries' versions differ significantly. Just trying to make you think about what's relevant and what's not. Congrats on the good article. —Zeagler (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Cookbook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150109064413/http://www.billboard.com/charts/2005-07-23/billboard-200 to http://www.billboard.com/charts/2005-07-23/billboard-200

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Cookbook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Cookbook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in The Cookbook

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Cookbook's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BPI":

From This Is Not a Test!: "BPI Certified Awards Search" (insert "Missy Elliott" into the "Search" box, and then select "Go"). British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved 2012-06-13.
From Missy Elliott discography: "Certified Awards" (enter "Missy Elliott" into the "Keywords" box, then select "Search"). British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved September 3, 2013.
From Ciara discography: "Certified Awards Search" (enter "Ciara" into the "Search" box, then select "Go"). British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved December 23, 2012.
From M.I.A. discography: "British certifications – MIA". British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved 21 July 2015. Type MIA in the "Search BPI Awards" field and then press Enter.
From List of music recording certifications: "The BPI". British Phonographic Industry. Archived from the original on 2013-01-24. Retrieved 2013-11-19. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]