Wikipedia:Peer review/Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)/archive3
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of this, two oppose for an external issue and for not add my self-thoughts. Also, was pretty clear that prose was a problem. Any comment is welcome. Tbh®tchTalk © Happy Holidays 05:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: I peer-reviewed this article in November, and I find it much improved. However, I'm not sure what fresh ideas I can add. I've read the FAC comments, and it seems that the biggest remaining issues involve the fair-use rationale for the lead image and the depth of the musical analysis. I don't see how a peer review can resolve either of these issues directly. Here, however, are a couple of thoughts.
- FAC can be a difficult process, and issues unanticipated by the nominator often arise. In my experience, when a reviewer raises an unexpected issue, it's best to consider the reviewer's suggestions with an open mind and not to rush to defend or rebut. It seems possible to me that the fair-use rationale issue might be resolved by giving a more complete answer to the reviewer's questions about the rationale. If I understand the situation correctly, the reviewer wants to know why you think the image is necessary for an understanding of the article and why you think the fair-use rationale is precisely right. To say that all similar articles have such images and that the rationale is generated by a template may be perfectly true, but it is also evasive. If you re-nominate, you will be faced with these questions again. My advice would be to try to answer these questions more directly, without reference to other articles, template authors, or projects. Do you think the image is necessary? Why? Do you think the template language is exactly right? If so, why? If not, why not change it? (You are not obliged to use the template, and some of its parameters allow its language to be altered.) Please understand that I am not taking sides in the debate; I'm suggesting a way to negotiate toward consensus.
- To address the questions raised about the depth of the musical analysis, you need to be reasonably sure that your research on this question is complete. If the article is comprehensive, then it's comprehensive. However, it's risky to say that no more relevant analysis has been published unless you are reasonably certain that you are correct. My advice is to try to make certain that you have not missed any important criticism of the song's music and lyrics, in The New York Times or Rolling Stone or The New Yorker, for example, or in published books (if any) about B.K. If no such sources exist, then you can say so in a calm voice at FAC, and an oppose based on non-existent sources will not be actionable. Finetooth (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)