Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)/archive3

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 Karanacs 02:59, 19 July 2011 [1].

Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)

Nominator(s): Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song) to be a featured article because I'd like it to have its own bronze star in the corner. As I noted on its previous failed FACs, "Halo" is my favorite song, and it is the article I've contributed to the most. "Halo" is currently a good article, and it has been copy-edited by a GOCE member, and other users as well.

If you have some doubts about its references, please refer the previous FACs. Thank you so much. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time - the article has improved since its previous nomination, but I feel it still falls short of the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the discussion at the previous FAC, I still question the use of the Yahoo! blog and About.com. You're welcome to disagree, and I'm not opposing over their use
- Adabow (talk · contribs) replaced them. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OVERLINK and other manual of style issues need to be addressed
- I've reduced the first a bit, for the latter see below. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image captions should meet similar standards for prose and sourcing as article text
- Added. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Halo.ogg - "Purpose of use" section could be clearer
- Improved (I think). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further copy-editing is needed for clarity and flow. Some examples: "includes a moderate tempo" - no, it's written in a moderate tempo; "received positive reviews by music critics, receiving comparisons" - repetition; "It has been noted" - passive voice and very vague; etc
- I'll contact a GOCE member in the afternoon. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still needing one? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Background section is very limited. For example, the caption says the single was written and recorded in three hours, which isn't in the article text, and that this was done at Tedder's studio. Is that one of the studios mentioned in the text, or another one? Somewhat confusing
- It is already there: After the lyrics were written, the song was composed in Tedder's studio and completed within three hours. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No - composed in three hours is not the same as written and recorded in three hours. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Changed Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Accolades" should be replaced with "Awards" or similar in section heading
- Not necessay but changed. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.
What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
- Nikki really, or you write an essay describing what is a "high-quality reliable source" or you start saying why the links are not "high-quality reliable source". Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Ealdgyth/FAC,_Sources,_and_You#Ack.2C_you.27ve_gone_.22What_makes_this_a_reliable_source.3F.22 might be helpful, although my philosophies do differ slightly. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Removed. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing format remains somewhat inconsistent. For example, compare refs 11 and 16
- I do not know why in some links the references add a parenthesis in the publisher parametre. If you know why, told me. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in what is wikilinked when in references
- Ironically, you are saying that the article is overlinked, so if you want me to overlinked it more I'll do. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't. For the most part you're linking on first occurrence only, but not always - should be done consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, what I did was add a link in either the work or publisher space the very first time it is mentioned in the references, per WP:OVERLINK. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 40: page(s)?
- added Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Multi-page PDFs need to include page numbers. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as normal with songs the release date information is both failing WP:WORLDVIEW and in this case is a work of fiction. Note the release date given for the UK is two months after it charted! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked the UK release date as WP:SYNTH, the references likely refer to the physical release date, not the release of the single as a download. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why "Halo" charted two months before its release as a single on January 20 is that the album was released on November 17, 2008. Thus, the song charted thanks to downloads in that month. This is not dubious nor a sythesis as you tagged the article, but adding what I commented is WP:OR. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the album was released for download on November 17, 2008, then the release date for the single is no later then that date. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very obscure statement. A single is released when the record labels release and/or promote it independently of the album. The fact that an album is released digitally with every track available for download by itself is irrelevant. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A song offically becomes a single when it is recognised as being a single by the respective chart company of a given country. In the UK, since 2007, at the point it can be bought in a recognised format (which specifically includes unbundled album downloads) the single is 'released' and can chart and in this case(like so many other singles) in fact did. There is nothing obscure in my statement, only a lack of understanding by wiki editors who cling to a pre-download era interpretation of a single inspite of well established and documented operation of the music industry since the introduction of downloads. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong with this, and actually delaying this FAC. Please take this to "Halo" talkpage and read WP:Promotional singles to know what is a single. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if a song is leaked and charts from airplay, it is "released"? Sorry, album download sales do not equal single release. What about album tracks that are downloaded but don't chart? Or tracks that chart but are never formally released as singles? Are they considered singles? Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adabow, you are asking some decent questions that require a reply. I take it from your user profile you are based in New Zealand, or at least not the UK. Your location is important because the rules differ greatly from country to country. Specifically here, I am talking about the UK charts. "if a song is leaked and charts from airplay, it is "released"?" - In the UK, charts are all based on real, genuine sales so airplay doesn't count to charts ever, so issue does not arise. "Album download sales do not equal single release" - in the UK since Jan 1 2007 they do yes, here and see here. "tracks that chart but are never formally released as singles" - nothing can chart unless it's given an release date, it has to be registered with a release date to the Phonographic Performance Limited(PPL) three weeks before release see The Offical Chart Company Register Releases, part 4(note the specific data includes a release date), so everything that charts in the UK has a release date, it's part of the process required to qualify for the official charts and ensure the relevant artist gets paid royalties. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tbhotch and Adabow, SunCreator you are plain wrong in your assessment of a single's release date. Please don't tag articles based on your opinion. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose article contains original research in respect to the release dates given and therefore does not meet the FA criteria, nor GA critiera either. The release date provided in the article is disproved because the date it charted cannot preceed the release date in the UK. The mechanics of this is documented by the music press as well as The Official Charts Company information pack. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tbhotch disagrees with this oppose; for extended discussion, see talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.