Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Beyoncé Knowles/1

Beyoncé Knowles

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Pass - The GAR has long exceeded the time needed to address the concerns of the nominator (now into 5 months), which mainly centered around problems with summary style, and has seen no activity for almost one month. The concerns of criteria 1a and 3b were ultimately unfounded, apart from minor spelling/grammar errors. —Jennie | ☎ 19:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Goes into too much detail about awards, stats, and is no longer neutral (absent of controversies), thus violating GA criteria 1a, 3b, and 4. thanks--Aichik (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the article I would say you have a point about the focus criteria. We would really need to see some examples of controversies and why they are relevant to deem this non-neutrality. Also have you notified the main contributors and the Wikiprojects? AIRcorn (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Really? Can you provide a *rule* that indicates "controversies" are a) needed and b) a neutral addition to a BLP? And, excluding the Kanyegate, Knowles has other controverises? Also, I recommend you to compare Ricardo Arjona and Ricardo Arjona. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure. There's this, this, this, the video she did with Jay-Z where she simuilates fellatio that upset the African-American community (I've forgotten the name of the song but fans would know), and Laurie David's campaign against her singing at the recent inauguration due to her multi-million dollar Pepsi campaign when she was part of Michelle Obama's anti-obesity Move Your Body campaign.

Do you even realize what you have just written above? This is an encyclopedia, not the Page Six section of The New York Post. All those controversies are found in the songs' articles they are related to. This is a bio page. And why does Beyonce's deal with Pepsi concern you so much? Every artist endorses some brands or the other. Just because Pepsi is sponsoring her upcoming tour, it does not mean Beyonce is encouraging obesity. Sincerely, I cannot believe such short-minded points are being brought up here, on an encyclopedia. This is not a tabloid. We have Perez Hilton, Media Take Out and a bunch of other irrelevants for all those BS which are fabulated most of the time. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

As I was trying to write in as you were raging on about tabloids, obviously we would pick and choose and not list all the criticism in detail (unlike the chart placements of some of her songs and Twitter information in the article as it stands now?!) but for the first two for example we would couch them together under an improperly-crediting-people-for-major-video-concepts idea. The problem is NOT singular to Beyoncé, of course, but the complete absence of mention of ANY criticism of her work in her article is dishonest.

And where do I find the main contributors to the piece? Are the ones who helped it reach GAR still monitoring the article? Where to start with Wikiprojects? There are just so many rabid fan-editors (Note even just the tone of User talk:Tbhotch (User talk:Jivesh boodhun above): It's hard to know even where to start to look for good editors on this.--Aichik (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You can find the main contributors here. I would notify the top three active ones. The GA nominator and reviewer should also be notified, although since there is no GA subpage that can be hard to find (I think it was nominated by Efe (talk · contribs) and reviewed by Giggy (talk · contribs), who has since retired). If you drop a note here that should cover the Wikiproject requirement. You can just copy paste {{subst:GARMessage|Beyoncé Knowles|GARpage=1}} to the talk pages. You can't stop the fans commenting, but the article should ultimately be kept or delisted according to the criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Listen, there is no need to get to "Look at his tone... he is a fan" or whatever. Who do you expect to be editing Beyonce-related articles? Madonna stans fans or people fascinated by meteorology? I would have said the same for any other artist simply because this is an encyclopedia not a tabloid. Those controversies have been discussed in the songs' respective pages. There is no need to bring them on the bio page. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Not convinced, sorry, and the snideness does NOT help. Who reads individual pieces on the songs except Beyoncé fans? The effort to separate Beyoncé from the tabloids is hilarious when you yourself know she USES the tabloids to feature herself and her music. The article itself notes how many tweets went out when the world found out she was pregnant: Clearly NOT an article about some statesman! Jivesh boodhun, I just saw your talk page so I know you're not going to be objective about this. You'll continue to nag and bully. (Why are you doing free PR for her anyway? Did you start then her people rewarded you with free tickets or a backstage pass?) --Aichik (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we keep this focused on the criteria and getting the article to meet them.

• Focus (3B). As Jivesh says above this is a biographical article. It doesn't need to document every little incident or ones that could be covered in other articles. It should summarise as much as possible. It suffers a lot from recentism (as you work down biography the section headers cover less time, but have increasingly more paragraphs devoted to them). They generally devolve into a diary format with month by month details. For example the first three sentences in 4 and motherhood are about being offered a role and then not taking it up and there is a whole paragraph (a large paragraph at that) about her singing the national anthem at the Presidents second inauguration. There are too many quotes in the "Stage and alter ego" and "Legacy" sections, which contribute to the bloated feel of the article. A large part of the legacy section consist of just short statements from other musicians presented in the repetitive "Such and such stated that ....". There should not be a Philanthropy section. It is the reverse of a controversy one, and should be incorporated into the main article somehow.

• Neutral (4). The problem is that if you are going to go into detail about minor achievements or opportunities, you will also have to do the same for the minor controversial issues. I don't think this is solved by adding information to the article, but by trimming back and condensing the current information. Two birds with one stone.

In its current state I think it fails the focus criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Aircorn, I must say that I agree with you. This article definitely suffers from recentism and badly needs some trimming. Coming to Aichik, you really need to stop. You are the one bullying. Just like you say I am a fan, I can assert you nominated this for re-assessment because you are a pressed hater. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. You buy an album and you are suddenly a troll fan, or using your own words a "toned fan"--and I didn't tell you to shut up. Per GAR's "Before attempting to ... Fix any simple problems yourself." If the information is in Wikipedia, add it by yourself, don't waste community time. Also, per Arjona and Madonna biographies, just to cite "recently" good articles. There is no rule that indicates a controversy section is needed, at most the essay Wikipedia:Criticism--if you manage to make it a policy or guideline we can talk again about this. The exclusion of negative content won't make an article biased, but its inclusion won't "equilibrate" it to a neutral tone either. If you believe it is "necessary", as you have denoted, use Michelle Obama's bio as a guideline how criticisms are managed. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comments - Chaosdruid

Any material which meets notability can be included as long as there is no undue weight, and it is a balanced and neutral paragraph/section.

I do agree that these aspects of her career are missing. If they have any real significance on the course of her career, as I suspect one or two of them do, then they should be included here in summary. To emphasise this, one could place see also or "main" links to the relevant sections in the other articles - not only would this stop people from expanding it here, but it would also encourage traffic onto those other pages.

This article passed GA four years ago and it is probably why there is a difference in compaction of timelines. I would suggest looking at that GA version to see where the expansion has taken place. Having read through it, most of the material in the career timeline, and indeed most of the other sections, seems relevant and appropriate, I cannot really see much that can be trimmed without major surgery. Maybe the legacy section can be cut down a little ...

I would be more concerned about things like "Knowles has also ventured into [...] various perfumes." (last para lead), the missing commas off the end of dates, dead links (though I only found 1 so far), and citation style uniformity. There are other issues, such as images without the "alt=" parameter, but those sort of things should be caught on a thorough GA copyedit.

Images should not be on the left at the start of a sub-section, quotes should not be altered from the original and any cut parts should be marked by [...]

(I will add more if I find them) Chaosdruid (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that any material which meets notability can be included in a Good article. Imagine the size of the article on Barack Obama (a featured article) if this was the case. Writing succinctly and knowing what to leave out is just as much a skill as expanding an article. On the plus side, trimming is a lot easier than expanding it, although likely subject to more editor resistance. Also images don't need to have alts in good articles. AIRcorn (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is just that. Unfortunately if you read Mos images you will see that the minimum 4 include the alt= parameter as the third, with suggested text as it cannot be left blank. Meeting MoS is a GA requirement - it has also been discussed on talk pages with experienced GA and FA reviewers. If that policy has now been changed I would appreciate a link.

As for material included or not, if something else is less notable, or had less influence on her career/life, then it can be cut for the material to be inserted. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Not just my opinion, but longstanding opinion of most GA editors. That is why it is not mentioned at the WP:GACR page. Also see the top of the WP:GAR page ("compliance with 90% of the Manual of Style pages, are not covered by the GA criteria"), the image mistakes to avoid at the Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not essay ("Requiring compliance with MOS:IMAGES"), and the archives of WT:GACR (Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria/Archive 3#Question about alt-text, Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria/Archive 3#Alt tags, Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria/Archive 3#Alt texts part of WP:WIAGA? and Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria/Archive 3#Picture question) AIRcorn (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep and speedy close reassessment. There is no need for it. The article is in great condition and continues to be one with the help of great contributors. The fact that an article about the woman herself doesn't include information about others getting upset at things she has done is irrelevant. That belongs in its own article. A biography is to sum up a person, not to float it with things people may have not liked that she has done. This isn't a forum.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Why speedy close? This is not an out of process nomination. AIRcorn (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Because it's ridiculous, of course. I fail to see any issues brought up that would make the article GA guidelines.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 06:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Then you say keep. Speedies don't really apply here unless it is a mistake or obvious vandalism. In fact none of the AFD speedy keeps reasons even apply. AIRcorn (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep As the writer of the Ricardo Arjona GA, I can safely tell that this article meets the GA criteria, and is well written as a bio page. Controversies should never be added to the article unless they are big and significant, and they have a lasting impact on the person's career. For the rest of them, we have Perez Hilton. And yes, I am a big big fan of Beyoncé. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

By that reasoning the philanthropy section should only contain big and significant information. Also, what about the focus? The only keep !votes are addressing the missing controversies, not the major issue with the article. AIRcorn (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

My comment on controversies was additional. My main reason to vote was: "I can safely tell that this article meets the GA criteria": it covers all the main topics, is neutral, referenced and verifiable, meets the correspondent MoS guidelines, and it's well-written. Apart from that, it has images accompanied with captions and has no copyright violations. I see no reason why this should be delisted, if the main contributors work day and night to keep this up to standard. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That still doesn't address the focus criteria "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". I think it goes into too much unnecessary detail (gave examples above). AIRcorn (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that, although it may get into too much details here and there, it meets that guideline too on an overall basis. Beyoncé is one of the most notable and diverse artists out there, and she ventures into everything almost as much as Jennifer Lopez. In my opinion, we can remove the unnecessary detail with no controversy, and I don't believe that they are of enough weight to make the article lose it's little green ribbon. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess we will have different opinions on this. I think the legacy section itself is particularly bad. Why not say that "Such and such, and so and so have all been influenced by Beyonce" instead of the quote farm we have at the moment. If it is really that important a Legacy of Beyoncé Knowles article could be created (summary style is part of the criteria). I am willing to have a go at trimming the article. I am not a fan, but I don't have anything against her either. I would be uncomfortable giving this a pass in its current form. AIRcorn (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That is indeed true, but where opinions differ is that it is a GA guideline issue (this GAR really wasn't needed at all, a simple discussion on the talk to trim some information could otherwise take place). But while we're here, something that has bothered me about the article is that "Other ventures" and "Philanthropy" should be merged into "Life and career", as that's what it is. They shouldn't be separate.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 07:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be a improvement. AIRcorn (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Had a go at trimming the Biography. I found the prose a bit jarring, it sort of jumps from talking about an album, to a film, to something else all within single paragraphs. Also the chronology in early life was all over the show. It was hard to work out what occurred when, so I appologise if I made a mistake in there. The first sentence in this section seems wrong. From reading the article her parents only became professionals in the design, music industry after she was born.

I am wondering if there could be a better way to set up the sections. Maybe divide by Early life and career, Destiny's Child, Solo career and Movie career and keep all this information grouped together. An alternative could be to move the Life and career into this section. At the moment it is a mish mash of both. I would favour the second option. AIRcorn (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The previous subsection titles were the best in my honest opinion. All the article needed was trimming. But as it stands now, I don't even understand what it is talking about. Sometimes it is her career in music, then her movies, then her other ventures in cosmetology, her charity work...... Forgive me if I am sounding rude, this is NOT my intention. I sincerely appreciate all the work and effort that have been put on here but this article is getting messy. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No that's fine. I think we should go with one or the other though. For example Peter Sellers is an article that combines all aspects of a persons life into biography, while John Lennon tends to split it into different headers. BTW the movies were always mingled through the songs (I actually tried to group them within each section) and I have only removed the Philanthropy header, although a couple of other editors have been edit waring over another one. However, I did move some information around the sections. AIRcorn (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The Legacy section is still a mess... and it's longer than the one for Diana Ross! Not sure what wealth has to do with legacy, either, as that has more to do with current status. Here's a Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of legacy: It usually implies that the subject in question is dead or has a long career, no?--Aichik (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Legacy is what the artist leaves behind after they die, they don't have to be dead. The earnings part should be merged into "life and career", but everything else looks OK to me.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

In case someone is watching this page and not the talk page, I started a discussion about possibly renaming the legacy section or splitting out achievements ob the talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This edit war

Needs to STOP! This article is currently undergoing a good article reassessment. Discuss changes here.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Current state of the GA

Hello,

I thought I'd perhaps put forward my view at were we're at now in terms of the GA. I would say that there were definitely problems with the length of some sections, and there was a need for summary style in some, but I don't think there was anything substantially wrong the article. Furthermore, the initial claim that the article is no longer neutral because it's absent of controversies sort of goes against the criteria here.

• 1a - I'm not sure why 1a was cited as something that this article is in violation of, as this refers to the way the article is written, not its content. The spelling, grammar and paragraphing are all secure here and were beforehand.

• 3b - I think this was were the problem lay, specifically with the Legacy section that incorporated a broad coverage of almost all of her achievements. Moving the list of artists out of the section (to List of artists influenced by Beyoncé Knowles) has helped (and could go further if needed). I think the section about wealth doesn't seem to fit with someone's legacy; "legacy" usually refers to someone's achievements with impact on others, perhaps this could move into Other ventures to become Success and other ventures?

• 4 - As I said earlier, articles don't need controversies, but if instances can be reliably sourced and are - key, here - widely reported and verified then they should be included. There are minor instances of this through the article, perhaps not to the extent that some would like, but this perhaps arises from Knowles not being much of a controversial figure and someone who goes through very little of it. The inclusion of some of the controversies you listed (e.g. the "Countdown" video and Billboard "Run The World" performance) would probably violate the need for summary style throughout, but anything controversial to her - widely reported and verified - should be added in (e.g. her fake pregnancy, inauguration). On the whole, I think this criteria is fulfilled. Thanks. —Jennie | ☎ 20:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

So what happens now? I could move the wealth stuff and add in the personally controversial, but then the 10+ editors canvassed by Jivesh will just keep loudly taking it out. So why don't you do it? (And I'll help to keep the changes in.) Or shall we leave it in limbo for awhile? Doesn't this mean it's no longer GA? (GA's never lose status right, they only change up or stay?)--Aichik (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep as a good article. I think in its current state it is close enough to the criteria that it can be kept. There is potential for improvements, but a Good article is not a perfect article. It would be nice if someone could look into the couple of tags on the article though before this is closed. AIRcorn (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep discussing and editing to be a good article. Jennie, I was going through your points about its status now and I have to respectfully disagree with you that it passes 1a of GA assessment. Just this paragraph on her image for example (with my emphases) alone:

"Off stage Knowles likes to dress sexily and carry herself "like a lady".[191] Due to her curves, in the 2000s, the media often used the term "Bootylicious" (a portmanteau of the words booty and delicious) to describe Knowles.[192][193][194] The term was made widely known by the Destiny's Child single of the same name, and was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2006.[195] Knowles is fond of fashion: According to Italian fashion designer Roberto Cavalli, she uses different styles and tries to harmonize it with the music while performing.[196] The B'Day Anthology Video Album showed many instances of fashion-oriented footage, depicting classic to contemporary wardrobe styles.[197] People magazine recognized Knowles as the best-dressed celebrity in 2007.[198] Knowles' mother co-wrote a book, published in 2002, entitled Destiny's Style: Bootylicious Fashion, Beauty and Lifestyle Secrets From Destiny's Child,[199] an account of how fashion had an impact on Destiny's Child's success.[200] As one of the most media-exposed black celebrities in the United States, Knowles image has received some criticism that Emmett Price, a professor of music at Northeastern University, says is due to her race.[201] Toure of Rolling Stone stated that since the release of Dangerously in Love (2003), "[Beyoncé] has become a crossover sex symbol a la Halle Berry ..."[202] In 2006, the animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), criticized Knowles for wearing fur coats and using fur in her clothing line House of Deréon.[203]"

There is no overriding logic, and the chronology is completely off. And the beginning sentence: "Off stage Knowles likes to dress sexily and carry herself "like a lady". Isn't this self-contradictory? What does this even mean? Instead of an explanation, it then jumps into two lines on "Bootylicious" stuff, which is now dated.

And your point about 4, "that anything controversial to her - widely reported and verified - should be added in (e.g. her fake pregnancy, inauguration)." I agree and those are not in, as of yet so, no, this article's still reads like a press release on Beyoncé.--Aichik (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think saying the article reads like a press release is nonsense. To make my point about controversies clear: does the article need them? No. Should they be included if they are notable (that is, widely reported and verified)? Yes. I therefore see criteria 4 as always being fulfilled. I agree with you raising the point about that paragraph, and I've reorganized the sentences, although I don't think it was anything major or anything that violated criteria 1a. For that reason, I think we should close and keep the article as GA. —Jennie | ☎ 14:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no rush. They're still tons of examples of WP:RECENTISM in the article. The number of tweets her pregnancy got in one week in 2011, for one. And while you half-heartedly fixed some of the chronology problems (Notice how when you did that, there was a way you could connect the Cavalli quote with the PETA thing? It's amazing what you can do with good writing from the start, isn't it?), you still didn't answer my point about the "Off stage Knowles likes to dress sexily and carry herself 'like a lady'." sentence. It is now followed by a boring sentence about her mom authoring a book about her style. If no Beyonce Wikipedian can illustrate one interesting point about what that book showed, I vote to take it out: the photos that accompany this article do more. (I doesn't seem flattering: Just shows how much of a stage mom her mother is.)--Aichik (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"an account of how fashion had an impact on Destiny's Child's success". Come on, guys. H O W. Illustrate, by an example.--Aichik (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

In paragraph about Pepsi endorsement: "Following her performance at the Super Bowl halftime show on February 3, 2013, Knowles will appear in a global television commercial for Pepsi — Live for Now, her fifth for the soft drink since 2002. Knowles' image will also be used in life-size cardboard cutouts in stores and on a limited-edition line of soda cans, which will launch first in Europe in March 2013." Update please, are the global TV commercials out or on hold?--Aichik (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

None of this seems relevant to the GAR AIRcorn (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] are pure examples of WP:OR. How can someone be biased to this extent? An award, sales etc are not important but this "mess" (which is in fact false) deserves so much attention that Aichik is even interpreting the information and writing his interpretation on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Aichik calls me a "rabid fan" but his edits just proved how much he is bothered by Beyonce. Since when do we have the right to write our interpretation on Wikipedia? I really think he is the one who take time to get familiar to rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. I would be very happy if an admin other than User:Kww further digs the matter. Thank you. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 21:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC) It appears as if he just wants to create a negative impression into the article... removing achievements and replacing them with rumors... (Dailymotion, really?)  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Not really, Status. Read a little more closely.--Aichik (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC) If I read more closely into it I'd have a hell of a lot more to say that what I did. How about you stick to the issues you are creating and stop turning things on to others user who comment, K?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Huh? I have no idea what you're saying. "stop turning things on to others user who comment"? Maybe I shouldn't care because you're one of the ones that Jivesh canvassed to get his way in the first place. I don't like your tone, in any case.--Aichik (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Oh my god... What I say doesn't matter because someone asked me to comment? Actually, I became involved in this when you made a personal attack against Jivesh in an extreme measure in which I had never seen before. He then let me know about a discussion I would have commented on anyway. Stop hiding behind irrelevant words and answer the goddamn question.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Hell to the no. I never asked you a damn question, Jivesh asked you to explain your removal of content, and you're just completely ignoring it.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Listen, if you want a better tone from anyone here, watch your own tone first. And do not always accuse others when you have done something wrong. Just accept it. Learn to accept your mistakes and please stop imposing your preferences. This article has not been written only for you or people like you. That's the best answer I can give you in a tone which is not unpleasant. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• I had a go at rearranging the Image paragraph and I think it flows much better now. The other issues are relatively minor and I don't think rise to the level of failing the criteria. The only other recommendation (that I was going to do but never got around to) was merging the products and endorsements section into the biography as it appears a little undue given its own section. I don't think it is enough to delist the article though. House of Deréon is probably alright staying as its own section. This reassessment is again divulging from its intended purpose so I think it is probably best to close it and continue discussing the other points on the talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Agreed, close and keep and the article as a GA. —Jennie | ☎ 17:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• I disagree. It still reads like a long list of accomplishments. I picked apart one section as an example of a part standing in for the whole but no one else is bringing up anything about the other sections! The GAR's been about responding to my criticisms: It's lazy copyediting. Other non-Beyoncé-fan editors should look at this. Since it's a Copy Editors Drive month, we should wait till next month.--Aichik (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's an example of poor writing in the intro with my emphasis:

Knowles' work has earned her numerous awards and accolades, including 17 Grammy Awards, 12 MTV Video Music Awards, and a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame (as part of Destiny's Child). As a solo artist, Knowles has sold over 13 million albums in the United States and 118 million records worldwide (as well as a further 50 million records with Destiny's Child),[3] making her one of the best-selling music artists of all time.[4][5] The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) recognized Knowles as the Top Certified Artist of the 2000s.[6][7] In 2009, Billboard named her the Top Female Artist and Top Radio Songs Artist of the 2000s decade,[8][9] and ranked her as the fourth Artist of the Decade.[10] Following year, Knowles was ranked first on Forbes list of the "100 Most Powerful and Influential Musicians in the World".[11]

The way the sentence is constructed that includes the ital'ed, it would seem that the ital'ed happened in 2009. But the reference contracts this. A sentence later, "Following year" which should be "The following year" would refer to 2011 if the change were made. Is this still accurate? Did anyone bother to check? No.--Aichik (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Which part(s) of the article reads like a long list of accomplishments? —Jennie | ☎ 20:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Try printing the whole article out and reading it aloud. That's usually a good test. Not joking or being sarcastic.--Aichik (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I am striking my previous keep !vote. One of the major problems has just been reintroduced with the re-addition of the Philanthropy section, plus an unnecessary political views one. AIRcorn (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Aircorn, I respectfully disagree with your opinion about the addition of political views. It's good whenever a performer acts more responsibly in the world, and dispersed with all those chart stats, makes the article more readable. Beyoncé's fame rests partly on her image as a "good girl" so it's very much related, how she acts in the world. Now just as we are getting this article to fit point 4 of GA, that is, neutrality, I have to unfortunately add another critique, #5, that discounts this article as a GA: Its contents change daily, and I don't see this changing anytime soon. So alas, we are at 1a, 3b, and now 5.--Aichik (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Aichik, criteria #5 (stability) refers to edit wars on contentious articles; in fact, listed as one of the "mistakes to avoid" when reviewing GA's is "discouraging normal editing activity for the convenience of the review." When reviewing GAs, single-purpose editors (like the fans of celebrities) will often fight over what should/shouldn't be included, and the reviewer is allowed to suspend the review if it becomes too difficult to read. To be frank, I see 1a and 3b as fulfilled for a long time now; in which sections do you think these problems are present? —Jennie | ☎ 17:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Then you didn't follow my suggestion about printing this out and reading it aloud. Frankly, I wish its 1a and 3b issues had been ironed out at this point too--there are many other interesting topics to address in Wikipedia--but whatev. Regardless, outlining all of the 1a issues myself would be alot of work. So instead I'll create a kind of synecdoche, with the 2002-07 section standing in for the whole, after which I suggest you submit this up to GCE.

• debut is spelled début (throughout the entire article)  Done (Although not part of GA criteria, it's definitely relevant)
• More spelling examples in just this section: The albums lead single; left-over tracks.  Done (Corrected)
• "46th Grammy Awards". Who cares what number award ceremony it is? A year would be better.  Not done (This is standard practice on Wikipedia, and again, does not contravene either 1a or 3.)
• Mentions that aren't further explained: the song "The Closer I Get to You" with Luther Vandross. Sounds interesting, involves another well-known singer, so what album was it on? Where was it used (movie, commercial)?  Not done (It was a Grammy for a performance)
• Another example of the above: David Foster as cowriter on "Stand Up for Love." In his article, it's indicated that he's a songwriter for her. Which other song(s)? So it'd read: "She also wrote 'Stand Up for Love', along with her co-writer on blah-blah David Foster, and his daughter..."  Not done (I think that was the only instance)
• General updating: Destiny Fulfilled as the group's "final studio album." In fact, lots of places throughout the article that needs this. In the Philanthropy section, her being in the 2013 Pepsi campaign. We say that it will roll out in February, so did it?  Done (Changed; this is addressed in the Fifth studio album section more comprehensively. You could update "Destiny's Fulfilled" if you think it's more explicit.)

I'll address 3b when I have a moment.--Aichik (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Aircorn, your objection to a "Philanthropy" section is your personal preference (which I have no problem with), but a section like this, which is reliably-sourced, presents no problem to the GA. —Jennie | ☎ 17:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I do think it impacts the neutrality, but not enough to suggest delisting. I am not however confident enough to say keep either. So I guess you can consider me neutral at the moment. AIRcorn (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Aircorn's objection to the Philanthropy section is a personal preference. We call it a "venture" above her clothing line and product placement and that doesn't read arbitrarily. Leonardo DiCaprio, who's a bigger philanthropist, with millions of dollars donated rather than hundreds of thousands, and who narrates and actual hosts environmental events, his philanthropy is couched with his environmental activism and the very bottom of the article Beyoncé's Philanthropy subhead should be changed to "Causes" and go below [House of Dereon] and all the product placement stuff, because those separately involve more money anyway. It's in this order on the Kanye West article.--Aichik (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Moved. (My objection to Aircorn was that this section presents no problem to the GA, not its position). —Jennie | ☎ 21:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of changing it to causes, it sounds a lot less peacocky. However, I had a look through featured article biographies and found Gwen Stefani, which has a Philanthropy section. I stand by my reasoning (I would also object to a controversies section), but it is not a deal breaker to my mind. The biggest problem I had was with the focus and while not perfect I think it has improved. AIRcorn (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless there are genuine issues with either 1a or 3b, and as this GAR has extended beyond 4 weeks (is it 4 months?), I intend to close this discussion and keep the article as GA quite soon. Aichik was right to initially address the bloat in this article; there were sections, particularly, with "Legacy" that went into too much detail, were repetitive and were unsummarised, I now feel that this issue has been addressed thanks to the help of many editors on this page. As for the other criteria, (1a, 3b) no significant parts of the article have been flagged up as holding these issues, and citing small phrases/one-line examples are not of great concern; normal copyediting has and will iron this out (perhaps a good look over in the next few days will ensure everything is tight). Furthermore, arguments that the article is boring or there are sections that people do not like, do not form part of the GA criteria and should be addressed through the talk page and/or normal editing. Thanks. —Jennie | ☎ 23:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I hinted to another editor that they should close this. Basically I suggested if they close some earlier ones the one they are involved in might be closed faster. There is nothing wrong with you doing it per the instructions, but it ideally should be someone uninvolved. If they don't do so in the next few days I say that you should just go ahead. AIRcorn (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I would prefer someone else to do it, but I wonder whether other editors have had the time to read the whole page to make a decision to or not (as it is rather long). I'll give it a few more days. Thanks! —Jennie | ☎ 17:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

What about asking Kww (talk · contribs)? AIRcorn (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

What the hell, Jennie. I just outlined 1a and said I was getting back on 3b! I said the work I did on the one section was a symptom of the article's larger copyediting issues. Not to pull rank (but Tbhotch always does) neither you nor Aircorn are not a copy editors. Case in point: I disagree with your treatment of debut, again a synecdochal symptom of the bad copyediting in this article. Début's generally being phased out: Don't rely on Wikipedia's disambiguation page. See this and this. Note in the Merriam Webster's definition of a word that truly has interchangeable spellings, donut (v. doughnut), the fact of it being the variant is mentioned at top of the page as its loading. It doesn't do this for debut.--Aichik (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Aichik, it's been 4 months since you've raised both criteria and neither 1a or 3b have been flagged up in any significant instance other than the occasional grammar or spelling mistake. Considering these things can be closed after 4 weeks, we've given a long time for editors to present any substantial problems and none have. Please continue copy-editing on the article, though. —Jennie | ☎ 20:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for debut, I completely misunderstood your point. I thought you wanted the opposite; "debut" changed to "début" (as the former was more common throughout) so I changed every instance. I'll r/vt that edit and make sure the Anglicized version is throughout. Thanks. —Jennie | ☎ 20:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Whew! Don't forget to read what I said about the Philanthropy section above, after Aircorn's bit. Sorry it's taken me awhile to address the reassessment again: I participated in a copyediting drive last month and have been spending time defending myself against other editors to this article as you probably know.--Aichik (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime Jennie, it'd be great if you could edit the intro down. VH1 should be used minimally, I think, since we already have Golden Globes, Grammys, MTV Music Video awards, Billboard and others. I would cut the bit about her ranking fourth and third in stuff too, it bogs the other awards down: It can be put in the text (if they're not there already). I'm asking you to do it since Jivesh threw a fit last time I cut one bit from the intro, and we want to keep this moving. I'll keep copyediting the other sections.--Aichik (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've padded the lead out a bit more, and dropped some of the lesser needed statistics. I think it needs another sentence on her live performance ability as the concerning which presents this as quite significant. Thanks. —Jennie | ☎ 20:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)