Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/4 (Beyoncé album)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

4 (Beyoncé album)

[edit]

4 (Beyoncé album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —JennKR | ☎ 22:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is American recording artist Beyoncé's fourth studio album 4. Significant in her discography as it is the first time she truly vied for artistic credibility, her subsequent release Beyoncé (released twelve days ago) has garnered critical acclaim and has been far more commercially successful, although arguably this is where she "turned the corner" so to speak. I'd like to nominate this for the second time as it came very close to passing. The first time I nominated this I rapidly reduced the article and nominated it with 24 hours, thankfully the commentators of the candidacy pushed more content to be added to it and it's fully comprehensive now. I'd obviously appreciate any comments or suggestions and I hope to build a stronger consensus this time round. Thanks! —JennKR | ☎ 22:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor


You've delivered a strong article. I spot-checked some references along the way, and they were all in order. After the pointers I've outlined above are addressed, I'll be happy to give my support to the nomination. Good work! WikiRedactor (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WonderBoy1998
  • It seems like a nice article, but I feel the Singles section is a bit thin on information. Only chart information for a few singles, two if I am not wrong, is given. And I believe it is important to include information regarding the fact that 4 is Beyonce's only studio album not to spawn any top 10 hits in the US(considering the very likely possibility that "Drunk in Love" from her self-titled album will chart inside the top 10). If even the new album does not yield any top 10s, then you can frame the sentence as "...Knowles' first studio album not to spawn any top 10 hits in the United States.." or something similar
  • There are a few instances where WP:ORDINAL guidelines are not followed, most prominently in the Singles section. According to the guidelines, "in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine," thus the sentence "It faired much better on national charts, reaching number 16 in the United States, number 5 in New Zealand and number 3 in the United Kingdom." would become "It faired much better on national charts, reaching number 16 in the United States, number five in New Zealand and number three in the United Kingdom." Other than this (and perhaps more if I realise later), This article is definitely an improvement from the shape it was in before. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chart performance of lesser singles is not vital info about the album, and would result in bloating of the article. Readers can visit the respective articles of the songs for their commercial reception; chart peak positions can also be found at Beyoncé Knowles discography. With respect to the second point, please consider WP:ORDINAL in full; "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." Adabow (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I see. However, I will still emphasise on mentioning the fact that 4 did not spawn any US top ten singles. It is clearly something surprising for an artist of the commercial calibre like Beyonce. As for the second point, it is indeed an interesting observation. I should have read the policy in full, my bad. I do thank you for the information. Also, regarding what you have pointed out about the guideline, there seems, perhaps at only one occasion, where the article does not follow that too. This is a line from the "Commercial performance" section reading "On August 1, 2011, the album was certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), having shipped one million copies to retail stores.[135] As of May 2013, 4 has sold 3 million copies worldwide and, as of July 2013, 1.4 million copies in the United States." I have striked out those points which I now feel are not important. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe I didn't leave a comment yesterday after I made the WP:ORDINAL corrections. Yeah, I concur with Adabow, and I made a conscious effort to limit the information about singles in this article, mainly because it was bloated but also a lot of album articles seem to focus on this too much when it should really focus on the album. I'll be sure to correct the remaining WP:ORDINAL issues and put in the fact 4 didn't yield a top ten single in the US, I also think it may be Knowles' first album without a number one single Dangerously in Love ("Crazy in Love"/"Baby Boy"), B'Day ("Irreplaceable") and IASF ("Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)"), but I'm not sure if this can be sourced. I'll have a look. Cheers! —JennKR | ☎ 18:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. Hence I support this article. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is ready, in my opinion. Great work, Jenn. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 16:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reinstate my support for this to become an FA. I admit that I overlooked some of the comments and fixes suggested here, but after taking another look, I think it is up to standards. The article is compehensive enough without bordering on extensive length considering how much content is out there, has an excellent prose and is written using high quality sources. My only caveats would be to expand a bit the first paragraph in the lead, and the reception section as well. But these are not necessary, though. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 16:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments: A very good article with great prose. Though, I reccomend you to collapse the additional track listings for other editions; plus the critical reception has a minor error ("Knoweles"). prism △ 23:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note I find some of these later reviews shallow and unhelpful. Without more critical commentaries as to why this article satisfies the FA criteria the prospects for this candidate's promotion are poor. Graham Colm (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Prism
  • Visual aspect
Recording: Does the article really need a picture of a recording studio? The quote itself would be fine, plus if you remove the photo, the text won't be sandwiched.
Done—moved this around. —JennKR | ☎ 17:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose
Release and artwork: One paragraph should be about the release and leak; the other one should be about the photoshoot and other packaging details. That being said, could you move the sentence regarding the deluxe release to the end of the first paragraph? By the way, since the section also discusses the reasoning behind the album's title, could you change the section title to "Release, title and artwork"?
Partially Done—moved the sentence, but I don't think two sentences on it being called 4 warrants a subheading.
Promotion:
"on Good Morning America as part of the "Summer Concert Series" in New York City." → 'the' should be 'its', assuming the Summer Concert Series are organized by GMA.
Done —JennKR | ☎ 17:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should write that the Live at Roseland DVD features recordings from the series of the 4 Intimate etc. concerts.
Done—(made this more obvious) —JennKR | ☎ 17:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Singles:
"4 was Knowles' first album that yielded no number one single in the United States; no song from 4" → the semicolon could be replaced with ", as"
Done —JennKR | ☎ 17:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • References
R1 – Beyonce → Beyoncé
Done—Adjusted. —JennKR | ☎ 17:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
R2/R10/R11/R13/R37/R68/R74/R76/R117/R119/R132/R133/R134/R135/R149/R166/R183/R184/R187/R188/R190/R – Billboard needs publisher parameter, which should be Prometheus Global Media. Only link the publisher in R2. That being said, unlink the parameter in R88.
R3/R4/R14/R18/R35/R71/R72/R75/R106/R120 – MTV News needs publisher parameter, which should be MTV (Viacom Media Networks). Only link parameter in R3.
R5/R43 – Los Angeles Times needs publisher, which is Tribune Company. Only link in R5 (this goes for the rest of the references in which something similar occurs).
R7 – Complex needs publisher (Complex Media).
All references that link to Rap-Up (and there are a lot of them) should have publisher (Rap-Up, LLC.). Plus, why is the magazine wikilinked in R49 while there are references before that don't have it wikilinked?
Done—Adjusted wikilink. —JennKR | ☎ 17:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
R9 – USA Today's publisher is Gannett Company.
R15 – Sound on Sound needs publisher (SOS Publications Group).
I don't think Discogs is a reliable reference.
Comment—it's widely used on Wikipedia, especially on album articles. —JennKR | ☎ 17:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
R20/R46/R94 – NME is published by IPC Media.
R138 – Hollywood Reporter needs publisher.
Not done (all that refer to publishers)—Template:Cite_news#Publisher does not require it; the reputation of the sources is based on editorial content, not corporate ownership. —JennKR | ☎ 17:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(to be continued) prism △ 12:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Since all the changes have been made, I give my Support. prism △ 18:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prism, as a FAC coord, I've taken the liberty of striking/replacing your earlier bold 'support' since you've added further comments and another support immediately above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing FA coord—This page has been moved following a consensus at Beyoncé. The page is now titled 4 (Beyoncé album). —JennKR | ☎ 00:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The sentence "4 was Beyoncé' first album that yielded no number one single in the United States" in the "Singles" section makes me confused: should "single" be in its plural form? — Simon (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, Done. —JennKR | ☎ 21:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done → "fared" —JennKR | ☎ 10:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, although that's the conventional way to do it, I feel the critical reception section aims to sum up the content of the album and by providing this overview, it fits with the description of what it sounds like, which is ultimately derived from the "Music and lyrics" section. —JennKR | ☎ 18:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so how about the sentence "In May 2011, Beyoncé submitted seventy-two songs to Columbia Records for consideration, twelve songs of which appeared on the standard edition"? I think the sentence should be mentioned before the critical reception? — Simon (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't necessarily have to be chronological, I've tried to separate the album's content with its more commercial aspects. —JennKR | ☎ 12:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done—incorporated 2 WikiBooks and a portal into a "See also" section. Cheers, —JennKR | ☎ 11:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can't spot any major issues anymore. The article deserves to be an FA. Well done! — Simon (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image (and other media) review: The song recording is under 30 seconds and the non-free rationale is appropriate. The album cover is fine as well. As for the other three images, one is an older free upload from a trusted user and two are free use per flickr, so everything checks out. Wizardman 03:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotcheck of sources -- As this is, I believe, potentially your first FA, Jenn, I spotchecked a few sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, and I think there's room for improvement. My eye is always drawn to words and phrases that sound like they might have come from a professional review/article, so I checked the following:
    • "Her microphones were placed strategically to achieve a blend of sounds with clean quality.[16]" -- In this case you've repeated the term "strategically" when I think what's meant is simply "carefully" and you could paraphrase using that word instead. I think also "clean quality" might be better worded as "a clear quality".
    • "exhibit subtle tension and intense emotion.[25]" -- "Subtle tension" is borrowed directly from the review; you should be able to come up with your own words for that or else lose it. OTOH "intense emotion" is fine, you've clearly taken the review's description of the song's emotional qualities and distilled it into a phrase of your own.
    • "The song incorporates a military marching drumbeat, synth pangs and African percussion, while Beyoncé's staccato, near-chanted delivery encompasses her full vocal range.[37]" -- I would've hoped you could avoid repeating the source's "full vocal range"; also I couldn't see any allusion in the review to synthesizers and Afro percussion, only the marching drumbeat.
    • "Horns also feature prominently on "Lay Up Under Me", in which Beyoncé's vocals recapture a feel-good flair,[33]" -- "Feel-good flair" sounded like it might have been lifted from a review but following the citation's link led me to a blank article, and I stopped there... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done—thank-you for this Ian. I've fixed all of the above, including an archive link to the reference that returns a blank page. I've been going through the sections where there are most likely to be instances of close paraphrasing (Recording and Composition) and editing them out. I am still unsure about one sentence, however. Line 8 of Composition: ""I Miss You", with its "layers of atmospheric keyboards",[29] ambient synthesizers[30] and tinny 808 drums[31] was sung"—is this problematic? Thanks, —JennKR | ☎ 12:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it may win a prize for most single citations in a sentence, but I don't have an issue with it from a paraphrasing point of view... ;-) Anyway, tks for your responses and for going further into the article than just the examples I gave you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/4_(Beyoncé_album)/archive2&oldid=1138453566"