Talk:Check on It/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 04:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): (MoS):
Some problems.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): (citations to reliable sources): (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): (focused):
Organization is a problem because of the lead not representing the body in order. And the "Chart performance" and "Live performances" should be separate.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
One sentence, " [...] which was considered a bit risqué for Knowles", has no source and doesn't seem like an objective point of view without the identification of who considered it to be like that.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No problems.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Stated in "Music video" section
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lead[edit]

It lacks organization. Here, the music video information is stated first when it is the last section in the article. Re-order to comply with the order of the article's body. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 07:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completed. Jivesh • Talk2Me 08: 11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"'Check on It' is a song performed by American R&B singer Beyoncé Knowles, [...]" Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last sentence of the opening paragraph: Columbia Records should be all one link and records should be capitalized. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Her bootylicious body"? Funny but you should probably make it sound formal. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The date of the 2006 VMAs isn't needed. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In February 2006, the single the summit of the Billboard Hot 100." You skipped a word between "the single" and "the summit". Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Hot 100 number-one" --> "number-one in the US." Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It tied for that position. Make it clear in the lead. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At "number on" in New Zealand? Also, make the use of the hyphen consistent. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The hyphen is still not used consistently. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 07:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite an example? Jivesh • Talk2Me 08

06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think i have done it. Jivesh • Talk2Me 08: 48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Background and release[edit]

"[...] 'Stand Up for Love' (recorded by all three members of Destiny's Child, including Knowles) which became a commercial failure." --> "[...] 'Stand Up for Love', a song recorded by all members of Destiny's Child that became a commercial failure. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Because of this." Because of what? It's needed to be restated since there was a lot said about the previous single. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Meanwhile". Meanwhile what? Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remove information from the third sentence to the sixth sentence, before the B'Day inclusion. It's completely not needed and way too long.

I did not really understand what you meant. Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of information about release dates. Remove release information after the second sentence. However, keep the information about the song being included as a bonus track for B'Day. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 07:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i removed some but not all. I am trying not be rude. Please do not get me wrong but some should remain. For instance, Beyonce did not release in Australia only. Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks long and confusing. Remove Germany information and New Zealand. Say it was not release in Australia. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 07:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finished. Jivesh • Talk2Me 08: 13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Composition[edit]

"welcome to come and look at her bootylicious body when she is dancing." Re-phrase to sound formal. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Bill Lamb of About.com, who treated "Check on It" as not being a "weighty effort", Knowles' vocal arrangements on the song are smooth as well as alluring." Sounds like critical reception. Maybe just saying commenting "The song features smooth vocals on Knowles' part" would suffice. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Bret McCabe noted that her pace could be compared to that of American singer Donna Summer." Also sounds like critical reception. No doubt there. Just move it to the "Critical reception" section.

Such things like comparison etc, are normally placed in composition. I have always been doing this on my Beyonce articles. I strictly edit Beyonce related topics, especially songs in Wikipedia. Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I would place it on "Critical reception." But add it as you wish. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 07:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The synopsis of the song is great, but there are too many lyrics quoted. Size it down.

What can i remove? Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Beyonce's tease could use a few less lines and Slim Thug's second appearance can be left without using lyrics? -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 07:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception[edit]

Add introductory sentence about the overall critical reception. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"may not be as good as" --> "was not as good as" Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Lamb ranked it as the seventy-first position [...]." Move About.com review down, right before this sentence. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Link the International Dance Music Awards. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any bad reviews?

This song does not have many reviews because it was inserted in a greatest hits album. I can assure you that i found no mixed review. Jivesh • Talk2Me 06:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly believe you. Greatest hits don't have many reviews and if they do, they are mostly good. Also, there are some songs that you really can't find bad reviews. Maybe this is one of them. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 07:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comprehension. You seem to be a very comprehensive and friendly person. Jivesh • Talk2Me 07

55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :))) -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 22:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chart and live performances[edit]

I don't understand why these two would be in the same section. The section mostly discusses charts and has two sentences about live performance. Remove the live performance information. Place it below the music video section. And expand on the topic. There is surely more information since it was performed on two world tours.

There is nothing more since the singer has no liking for the song. She rarely performs it. And whenever she does, she only sings the last verse.Jivesh • Talk2Me 06:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I mean expansion on those two performances on tour. Describe costumes, what she did onstage, background videos and the DVDs could serve as as sources. See "Party in the U.S.A.", "4 Minutes", "Womanizer", etc. for reference. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 07:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how to describe all that. Actually, i am not a native speaker of English. I can add the locations only. Can you describe it if i give you a link? Well, i do not know if i can ask you this... Jivesh • Talk2Me 07

39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help. Just give me the links. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go....... [1] Jivesh • Talk2Me 18:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a sudden jump from the debut position to the peak. Add something like "After [however many] weeks on the chart," Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The tune has been certified." Don't refer to songs as "the tune." It doesn't sound professional. It sounds like something from a magazine. And replace "has been" with "was." Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Nielsen BDS" --> Whatever it stand for. And link it. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The songs were released in 2006 not 2005. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which songs?Jivesh • Talk2Me 06:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Check on It" and "Irreplaceable" -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 07:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not link the country itself. And do not link the chart if you are going to use the phrase "In the United Kingdom". Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 08:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same goes for Norway, Netherlands, and all the other countries. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 08:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Music video[edit]

The image is way too large and a six-frame image is certainly not needed for such a simple music video.

I do not want to sound impolite but it is the best i could find and i inserted such an image to show the pink background which is the key concept of th video. Jivesh • Talk2Me 06:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry you're not sounding impolite at all. I know it's hard to find a picture that's really good. You can just take a screenshot yourself if anything. The whole pink concept can clearly be shown through one image. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 07:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found this but she looks like a ghost here. Is it fine? Jivesh • Talk2Me 07

50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the subsection. The section isn't long enough to break-up into subsections. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where was the video premiered... as an MTV, her official website, etc. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"which was considered a bit risqué for Knowles." That's certainly something you need to back up with a source. And who considered it to such?

I removed it. Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Polka dot wall" --> "Polka-dotted wall" Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Release history[edit]

Delete. It's not needed. "Release history" is a never-ending list because it is impossible to include every single territory the single was released to. FAs and GAs like "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Déjà Vu" tend to avoid it.

Please do not get me wrong but are you sure? This is not my first GAN.Jivesh • Talk2Me 06:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally oppose against these. But if you want to include it it's fine. Just remove everything after Austria. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 07:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not done. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Book: B'Day thing makes it really hard to read reference. Make an "External links" section, add a link to the YouTube video and place the book thing there. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 11 and 12 are messed up. Use the nowiki template around the brakets. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 55 is not done correctly. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations[edit]

Congratulations, the article has passed. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 05:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]