Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/4 (Beyoncé Knowles album)/archive1

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 not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

4 (Beyoncé Knowles album)[edit]

4 (Beyoncé Knowles album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —JennKR | ☎ 19:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My first FAC; after working on this over on my namespace, I believe that after tightening the references, improving the prose and considerably reducing the bloat of the article, it is worthy of featured article status. A lot of the source material of the article was good, however, I felt that at one stage it had unnecessary sections and too much detail. I would appreciate any comments! Thanks! —JennKR | ☎ 19:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wikipedian Penguin[edit]

Just returning the favor with a prose review.

Lede

  • "Knowles co-wrote and produced the entire project..."—remove "entire" since it is redundant.
  • "Knowles' fans influenced her to name the album 4 for the number's prevalence in her life and career..."—linking "fans" to BeyHive is somewhat easter eggy. I would suggest unlinking. Anyway, the BeyHive article defines the term as "fanatical devotees", which seems to be more than just "fans".
  • "...although more than 10 studios were used during the course of recording."—"during the course of recording" seems redundant and "recording" is used twice in this sentence. I'd suggest removing the phrase and if you want, say something like "although sessions were held in more than 10 studios."
  • "...with the finalised album leaking on to the internet weeks before its official release."—avoid the noun+ing construction (with x y-ing).

Development

  • "...Knowles decided to take a career hiatus in 2010..."—avoid state-of-mind expressions (ie. decided to). Just say "Knowles took a career hiatus in 2010".
  • "During which, Knowles 'killed' Sasha Fierce, the alter-ego of her previous album, as she felt she could now merge her two personalities."&mdas; seeing a relative pronoun expression like "during which" open a sentence seems a bit awkward sounding. Perhaps "During then"?
  • "She also severed professional ties with father and manager Mathew Knowles..."—remove the unneeded "also".
  • "...musically Knowles said musicians Fela Kuti, The Stylistics, Lauryn Hill, Stevie Wonder, and Michael Jackson had greatly influenced the project."—IMO, "musically" would be better moved to after "project".
  • "Knowles added that she was influenced to use hip-hop for a broader sound and looked to bring soul singing back stating..."—remove hyphen in hip hop. Also, not sure what is meant by "broader sound" and perhaps a comma after "back".
More to come. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Composition and recording

  • "Knowles was pleased with his work ethic, and he would become involved with the rest of the album."—use past tense "he became involved" since this isn't conditional.
  • "although a total of over ten studios were used over the course of the album."—"a total of" is redundant and "over the course of the album" is awkward.
  • "Knowles served as 4's executive producer,"—typo? (comma or period here?).

Music and lyrics

  • "'Best Thing I Never Had' is a midtempo pop and R&B ballad with "cascading piano work" which addresses the end of a relationship between Knowles and her lover; a situation that suits both of them."—misuse of "which". Should be "that".
  • "...philosophizing about his own career." → "...who philosophizes about his career."
  • The structure in this section is a bit too repetitive as it employs the (x is a y song). Maybe vary the sentence structures creatively? Even something like connecting short sentences together (eg. X is a Y song that Z, while A is a B song that C) helps.
  • Another thing is I really like what you say in the lede regarding the album's theme ("Lyrically, the album concerns the enjoyments and struggles in monogamous relationships.") Could we have this stated in this section as well, and perhaps discuss more of the general theme of the album and what ties the individual tracks together? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 09:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Release and artwork

  • "In 2013, it was reported by NME that Sony Music were suing a 47-year-old man from Gothenburg for $ 233,000 concerning the leak of 4."—"it was reported by NME" should be "NME reported". Also why the spacing after "$", and what currency is this? US dollars?
  • "In an interview with Billboard..."—interviews are with people and for publications.
  • "She also described the number four as being 'special' to her..."—remove "also".
  • "...holding her hands in her hair"—this should be preceded by a comma.
  • "For its artwork, she opted to for clothing made by lesser-known designers of the time."

Commercial performance

  • "...were more than the combined sales of its three nearest challengers, being Adele's 19 (2008) and 21 (2011) and Lady Gaga's Born This Way (2011)."—it's more concise to replace "[comma] being" with a colon.
  • "For the week commencing July 4, 2011..."—unclear. "week of"? How can a week commence a date
  • "...giving Knowles her highest ever chart debut there."—remove "ever"; it's redundant.
  • "This gave Knowles her fourth consecutive solo debut at the top of the chart and makes her the second female artist and third artist overall, to have her first four studio albums debut atop the Billboard 200."—the inconsistent tenses here are awkward. Maybe use past tense for both?
  • "However, Keith Caulfield of Billboard magazine commented that the album was not released during the festive season and that Knowles was so far lacking a hit single, which could help explain the album's softer entry."—I don't find "however" useful here.
  • "It marks the third-largest sales week of the year, after the [number one] bows of Lady Gaga's Born This Way and Adele's 21."—why the brackets? This isn't a quotation.
  • "4 became the ninth solely-numerical titles (including roman numerals) to have reigned since the chart launched as a weekly survey the week of March 24, 1956."—awkward grammar. 4 because the ninth solely-numerical titles...?
  • Done (Rewrote sentence) —JennKR | ☎ 14:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for shipments of one million copies to retail stores."—awkward "shipments of".
  • "As of July 2013, 4 has sold over 1.4 million copies in the United States and as of May 2013, 603,548 copies in the UK."—comma after "and".
Jenn, it seems there is more work to be done here with regards to prose quality. This is definitely GAN material, but needs the tightened fit and finish of FA standards. Did you work with a strong copy editor before nominating? I hope you understand. Cheers, and more to come. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't work with anyone, which may be why the prose is padded out in places. With one prose section to go, do you think article would need much more work on this? Thank you for taking the time out to go through that! —JennKR | ☎ 14:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I figured there's no point in opposing at this point since the article isn't that far off. You're welcome! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

  • "Michael Cragg of The Observer called it her 'most accomplished album yet.'"—best to say "Knowles'" here instead of "her", since the pronoun is ambiguous.
  • I'd format the table to have plain row headers (like the chart tables). Also consider making the table sortable. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done [Well..I think I have...tell me if I haven't!] —JennKR | ☎ 16:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the "scope=row"s. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support—on prose and media. I haven't looked at sources, but the formatting seems good at a quick glance. BTW, you might want to have refs 105 and 108 looked at. Great work. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank-you! I've fixed those! —JennKR | ☎ 20:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's alright Jenn, I'd like to temporarily withhold my support until the updating as per below is complete, as I see this as a major concern. Thanks. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I have re-added my support; see below. The Wikipedian Penguin 09:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media check - all OK fair-use needs some work (all issues addressed)

  • Only a suggestion, but Template:non-free use rationale should be used to organize the various fair-use arguments.
  • A specific non-free use rationale for this article "4" is completely missing. Each article usage needs a separate non-free use rationale with a separate, specific purpose of use per WP:NFCC.
  • ref #9 doesn't cover the caption's information, especially the "bass line" part and "End of time" as specific song. Needs another source to avoid WP:OR.
  • Information from the caption should also be present in the article text itself.
  • Fixed (hopefully!) —JennKR | ☎ 12:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine, thanks:
  • Tweaked FUR a bit more - see diff [2]. The purpose of use should be stated in your own words with specific details for the article (Done).
  • Caption is OK (found the information in the interview, it's a bit hidden in the attached Q & A). Duplicated ref for clarity. GermanJoe (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Beyonce_4_Promo.jpg - not OK. (Replaced) A simple description of the image is not sufficient for fair-use, the article would have to contain some more detailed discussion of the photo (f.e.: did the outfit cause some media uproar? was it praised or criticised and why? did it influence fashion in general?), and the reader would need to see the image to understand that section (WP:NFCC). GermanJoe (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed and I've requested its deletion; replaced with a Flickr image. —JennKR | ☎ 12:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—a good article, but not one of Wikipedia's best in my opinion.

  • The prose needs work. Consider, for example, the overuse of semicolon in the introduction; one is even used incorrectly (i.e the first sentence in the second paragraph). Or consider this one that jumped out at me: "'Best Thing I Never Had'" is a midtempo pop and R&B ballad with "cascading piano work" that addresses the end of a relationship between Knowles and her lover; a situation that suits both of them"
  • The article lacks a slant. Every article must have an underlying conclusion or idea. As major fans of Beyonce, both you and I know the statement that she attempted to make with this album. We've watched the interviews, we've read the news stories. We saw her documentary. This album for her was about artistry, rather than chart success. About pushing her musical boundary, about making timeless music. It was about womanhood, family, her child. Finding her voice. What did critics say about this? Did she achieve her goal? To be honest, each of these two articles gave me more information about the album than your entire article.
  • The article lacks depth. It doesn't even have a single quotation from the singer herself about the processes when constructing the album. I was watching an interview where she discussed the approach she took when recording the vocals for many of the songs. Not only did she sing differently, but she also used a different compresser/recorder, which emphasized her "live" sound (Knowles herself said she got the idea from reading all the youtube comments that suggested her sounded better live than on her record).
  • The "music and lyrics" section is repetitive and underdeveloped and no one reading the article can get a sense of what the music sounds like. The discussion of the individual songs, for example, needs a lot of work: "Miss You" isn't just a power ballad. There's so much more to that song thematically, musically (ambient keyboard, percussion, her restrained singing).
  • The article just scratches the surface. Dig deeper, do more research, and restructure the entire article. Orane (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for taking the time to write this, I definitely agree that the article only touches on Knowles' creative vision for 4. Your comments will go along way in improving some of the underdeveloped parts of the article and I will look at two sources in particular—Year of 4 and Life is But a Dream—to expand upon her creative process. —JennKR | ☎ 12:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Journalist: Hello, I've made some improvements in relation to Knowles' artistic vision for the album (in the Development and Composition sections) and re-wrote the Music and lyrics section. I would appreciate any further comments or improvements. —JennKR | ☎ 21:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love what you've done with the article. The quotations that were included and the expansion of the composition and music section greatly improved it. Just a matter of personal taste, but would it be possible to include a sample of "Countdown", just to show the musical experimentalism? Despite the wealth of information there, there are still a few issues: The prose could still use a some work. Keep working at copyediting, and I'll provide some specific examples soon. Also, resist the urge to include critical commentary in the music section. For example, you wrote that a song was described as "saccharine". That's not necessary: all you need to include is what critics said about the sound (instruments, lyrics), regardless of their appraisal. Leave the actual reviews to the critical reception section. "Composition and recording" could use some fleshing out; half of that section is just a list of studios at which the album was recorded. I don't mean to get as technical as "DJ Swivel: Recording Beyoncé's 4", but try to salvage more from various sources for that section.
  • Here are a couple articles that could provide a few examples of what I'm talking about. The first two, The Way I See It and Aaliyah (album), are FAs and written excellently. Another, 21 (Adele album), needs a lot of work with prose, but the ideas there are fully fleshed out, regarding the actual recording of the songs. Hope that helps. Will be back soon! Orane (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Journalist:—Added the "Countdown" sample, expanded the Composition and recording section and copyedited. Any updates, comments or improvements? —JennKR | ☎ 19:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, I've struck out my oppose, but at this time I still cannot support it, because of deficiencies in the prose. Here are a couple examples:
  • "She desired 4 to contribute to changing that status commenting". "Desired" being used as a verb is awkward.
  • Incorrect colons are rampant throughout. When introducing a quotation, use a comma. For example "In an interview with Billboard magazine, Knowles stated, "I worked hard on the album."
  • I googled the expression "During then", and could not find any article that contains that phrase. I make no case for its grammatical correctness.
  • "She stated she felt influenced to use hip hop for a "broader sound" and looked to bring soul singing back, stating:" "Stated/stating" used twice in the same sentence...followed by incorrect use of a colon.
  • There's still a lack of narrative in the "Composition and recording" section—not like the examples I gave (i.e the featured articles). I just find it a bit choppy and get no sense of how each song came into existence. This archived version (information-wise) is closer to what I'm talking about. I don't mean stretching the article to the point where it's overly detailed, but I just want a more comprehensive outline of the production process. For me, for a featured article about an album, the production/recording and the music sections take precedence over everything else, including chart performance and "release and artwork etc". Maybe it's just me. What are your thoughts?Orane (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Journalist: I've rewrote that section with the intention of giving it a lot more structure than it previously had. One thing I noticed the Aaliyah article does well is discussing the making of songs, although I don't think that's achievable here. Firstly because I don't think the sources exist, but also because this is an international project. Looking over the credits, almost all songs are recorded in two or three studios, and so I don't think we can write about songs coherently without veering into repeating the credits. With Aaliyah and The Way I See It—both using 3 studios—there is a sense that the recording/production had an atmosphere that people wanted to talk about. However, with 4, the production is on a larger, drawn-out scale; with some tracks, the vocals are recorded in one studio, its produced in another and mastered in another. Saying that, how the instruments, vocals and songwriting were carried out should help the reader build a picture of the recording process. Thoughts? —JennKR | ☎ 20:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've done an amazing job with the suggestions I've given. Simply amazing. I haven't reviewed the prose yet, but I love how the section is coming together. I do agree that the vastness of the album's production poses many problems in providing a cohesive narrative. But here is an example of the ways in which you could approach this: Be specific. You said, "with some tracks, the vocals are recorded in one studio, its produced in another and mastered in another". Well, mention that in the article: which songs and what studio? Not a long explanation, but that information needs to be explicit. Other examples: "For 4, Knowles emphasized the use of live instrumentation..." (which songs specifically can you mention that would indicate this?). A general sentence like that could turn into "For 4, Knowles emphasized the use of live instrumentation, as explored on such songs as "End of Time", "Love on Top" and "I Care"." Or, She also requested Frank Ocean to write for 4, saying to the same publication, "[Jay-Z] had a CD playing in the car one Sunday when we were driving to Brooklyn. I noticed his tone, his arrangements, and his storytelling. I immediately reached out to him—literally the next morning. I asked him to fly to New York and work on my record. How about specifically mentioning the song they worked on ("I Miss You") and/or the specific studio. In the United Kingdom, they worked at Peter Gabriel's Real World Studios in Wiltshire—particularly utilising Gabriel's multi-instrument room—and at Metropolis Studios in London. To compose what song(s)? And with whom? Not a long list, but just work in the details somewhere. I've always found Discogs (see the credits as well as the notes section at the bottom of the page) to be a great source for this bit of information. Saying all this, there isn't a lot of improvement that's needed (information-wise). That section for me is 85-90% there. It just needs a bit more specificity to give the reader a sense of what was done, where it happened, and who Knowles did it with. Hope I'm not asking too much. As is, that section rocks. My suggestions are just to put it over the edge. Orane (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Journalist: Using the Discogs credits was a great idea in combination with the more technical sources, and I've made some additions which should indicate how the songs were conceived. Any thoughts? —JennKR | ☎ 20:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. That's exactly what I was looking for. Reading this section, I really do get a sense of the grand scale of the project, but was still able to follow how each song was conceived. Now that the information is all there, prose is the next thing you need to tackle. It's good, but could use improvement in places, mostly because you've been so involved/familiar with the material that you may overlook some of the more awkward areas. These include words and phrases that seem minor, but in general tend to detract from the overall quality of the article. Examples (from that section only):
  • "Knowles also requested Frank Ocean to record and write 'I Miss You'"— to be clear, it's "to write and record", not "record and write".
  • "Young began to formulate beats using their recordings and those from Fela"-- did you mean their own recordings, and those from Fela?
  • "MSR Studios was the final New York City-based studio used, and where most of the album was recorded—only "Party and "I Was Here" were recorded elsewhere"--Unclear. They were recorded at another city, or another studio?
  • "including drums, keyboards and guitar and bass work".
  • "After hearing songs, Knowles would often request the use of specific instruments"-- After listening to the recordings, she would request the addition or the use of these instruments?
  • "Jay-Z assisted Knowles again when songwriter Diane Warren called him and played "I Was Here" down the phone"
  • Split infinitives: "The production team strategically placed Knowles' microphones", "The album was mostly mixed at MixStar Studios"
This is just one section. I'd say take a day or so to detach yourself from the article, read out loud and try to do a thorough copy-edit. You'll get there. Orane (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Thank-you for spending the time to write out these improvements! I'll go over the prose thoroughly over the next few days and iron it out. —JennKR | ☎ 01:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I think part of where the prose fell short was that it seemed a little too robotic and stiff. I'm doing edits in varying places, but here are some examples of what I mean:

  • "The album is distinguished from her previous releases for its mellower tone and attempt to contend artistic credibility."—"contend artistic credibility" is rather inaccessible and difficult. Is there a far more simpler way to say this?
  • Done—Is "contention of artistic credibility" better? Or are you looking for it to be rephrased?
    Needs to be simpler. I still do not understand this unfortunately. The Wikipedian Penguin 22:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Done—Made a similar point, but with reference to the music.
  • This article should comply with AmEng. I see "finalised" and "homogenised" but "emphasized".
  • Partly Done—I'm British so these usually slip in, so I'll keep an eye out for them. "Homogenised" is within a quote from a British publication (The Guardian), so I think this should stay the same?
    Yes, quotations stay as their original. The Wikipedian Penguin 22:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid "the majority of" when this can be said as "most" or "most of".
  • Done
  • "leaving her production team to bring cohesion to the sounds."—again, odd way of wording. Perhaps "leaving her production team to make the sounds cohesive."
  • Done
  • Try to reduce your use of passive voice. I see it quite a bit in the Composition and recording section and it's just nicer-sounding to have it from front to back, in active voice.
  • Done—I've made some edits that should reduce this, but if you have any specific examples that stick out then put them up here. I'll go over the prose again and see if there is any I can see.
  • Never use the word "utilise". Always try to simplify the prose to make it more accessible to a wider range of readers. Instead, "use" is plainer and more elegant.
  • Done
  • Since you end the Composition and recording section with how Columbia was overwhelmed with the number of recordings presented, perhaps begin the next section with something like "The final cut of the album comprises x tracks", with x being a number. Something along those lines would "bring cohesion" to the article IMO; link one section to the next, to create unity. Focus on the overall narrative.
  • Done
  • "leading them to combining it with elements of electronic music and synthesisers."—"combine", no need for two participles in such close proximity.

I hope these help. This is very close to being FA material since it's much more comprehensive and interesting. The Wikipedian Penguin 12:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some more:

  • To someone not familiar with music colloquialisms, "retro nods" is an odd phrase.
  • Done
  • The Promotion section needs some form of opening. It just begins off the bat with a mention of Knowles' performing a particular track. The Wikipedian Penguin 11:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, incredibly meticulously sourced, balanced by a nice concise and easily readable lead intro section. This is not an easy feat, and it's quite impressive. Nice job, overall, — Cirt (talk) 03:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support—happy to reinstate my support now that the article has been updated and further polished. Great work. The Wikipedian Penguin 09:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Although I won't oppose, I'm still not completely satisfied with the prose. Here are a few examples:
  • Awkward sentence structure at the beginning: "One song was recorded—"Party"—as Knowles wanted to see what working relationship would develop with engineer Jordan Young." The dash (break in the sentence) should come immediately after the object it attempts to specify (i.e. "One song—'Party'—was recorded").
  • "Party" was somehow mentioned in at least 4 or 5 different areas throughout "Composition and recording". Seems just a bit repetitive and/or disorganized.
  • Not Done— I disagree, the alternative would be to include all the "Party" information at the beginning, which I think would disrupt the flow of reading about the recording process.
  • "Jay-Z assisted Knowles again when songwriter Diane Warren telephoned him and played "I Was Here"." Sentence is stiff and awkward.
  • Not Done— I don't think there is anything wrong with this sentence, it's factual and to the point.
  • "After hearing songs, Knowles would often..." Try "After listening to each song". "Listening" conveys a more active, conscious and analytic process, whereas "hearing" does not.
  • "The album consists mostly of mid-tempo R&B songs....The other half was seen as more eclectic, exploring a variety of..." So... was it half and half or not?
  • "The Guardian saw the album's music as different from the "layering Euro-synths on pop-step woomphs to create homogenised commercial R&B" that Knowles' contemporaries had used."— the italicized portion is awkward/repetitive.
  • "Start Over"—which features dramatic vocals—is a song set against a dramatic and futuristic beat". — the italicized portion is awkward/repetitive
  • ""Run the World (Girls)" was seen as the "red-herring""..."A female empowerment anthem, it was seen to be reminiscent". — the italicized portion is awkward/repetitive
  • "The theme is demonstrated through the production of "Dance for You", which is formulated to allude to Knowles' sexuality through breathy vocals and electric guitars"--So many things wrong with this one: what theme? Theme of female empowerment? And are you saying that the song's production is "formulated to allude to Knowles' sexuality through breathy vocals and electric guitars"? Can this be said more clearly ("the production alludes to"..) And the sentence that follows reads, "It also sees Knowles forgo her typical empowerment lyrics"...You just said the female empowerment theme is demonstrated through the song, but the sentence that follows says it also forgoes it. How?
  • "'Countdown' was seen to be..." "The chorus of "Countdown" sees the protagonist".— the italicized portion is awkward/repetitive
  • "The tracks "Countdown" and "End of Time" were noted for their musical and lyrical experimentalism." "Other tracks were noted for their retro stylization"— the italicized portion is awkward/repetitive
  • This protagonist chooses to express her love for her partner by singing she needs him more than life itself. "Party" achieves this through minimalistic production." Achieves what? And through minimalist production? How?

Done (all, except where noted) —JennKR | ☎ 01:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

—This is just two sections. I don't mean to nitpick. But the article is not ready. Orane (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I just wanted to get your thoughts on a previous version of the music and lyrics section. This is a version of the article from about a year ago. Compare it with the section as it is now and see if you could salvage or merge the two. I'm asking because while the article at present may be shorter and more concise, it omits a lot. Songs are described as "dramatic" or subtle and intense, but what does that mean, especially in a section that is supposed to talk about music or lyrics? In the present version, all that is said of "Party" is that it achieves this (whatever "this" is) through "minimalist" production and heavy synthesizers. The previous version states "'Party' is a midtempo R&B song that exhibits elements of funk and soul music... [and] according to David Amidon of PopMatters ...uses "scooping, gliding multi-tracked" 1990 girl-ground harmonies, a 808-retro beat, a 1980s style smooth groove ... and bubbly 1980s keyboard tones." The current version describes "Rather Die Young" as "a throwback to 1960s doo-wop", while the article previously writes, "'Rather Die Young' is an R&B and soul power ballad, that refracts a dramatic Philadelphia soul ballad through gauzy modern production... Thomas Conner of Chicago Sun-Times noted that the heavy programmed drums used in the song were inspired by the material of American band Earth, Wind & Fire". Nothing was said of "Miss You" from a musical standpoint ("sang to exhibit subtle tension" isn't musical-- and by the way, it should be "sung"). Previous version: "'I Miss You' is a midtempo R&B ballad with some influences of pop music. Built on a metronomic beat, its instrumentation consists of layers of atmospheric keyboards, synthesizers and 808 drums" (amazing and insightful description of the song's musical foundation).
Which version do you think better explains the songs/album from a musical standpoint? I realize that the reintroduction of material would stretch the article, but you have room...if you were to remove the table from the accolade section, since you don't need a table illustration where prose would suffice. Thoughts? Orane (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to make to take note of those prose errors, I know they're important to the FAC. Although this is just two sections, it is likely to be where most of the errors are as I wrote them completely from scratch and they haven't been reviewed by anyone. I think the previous music and lyrics section could be provide some more specific information about the music/lyrics of some songs, but as it stands, I don't want to expand this section much greater than it is currently. Looking at some other album FAs such as Kala (album) or Love. Angel. Music. Baby., their music/lyrics sections are equally weighted (or thereabouts) with other sections of the article, and although I agree that this section is undoubtedly one of the most important, the level of detail that this section previously held or may hold if expanded, I think is too much. It is also the case that some songs are discussed more than others: "Countdown", "End of Time" are afforded a section, whereas "I Miss You" is described within a sentence. I think this is because they were seen as some of the more provocative songs on the album, and the five/six sources I used for the section referred to them more (which is different to the previous version that used a lot of sources based around each song). In short, I'll see if I can pull out some more specific and interesting description of certain songs, but I don't think this section needs any serious tailoring. —JennKR | ☎ 01:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Corrected sang/sung. —JennKR | ☎ 01:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong: I'm not necessarily suggesting that you "expand" the section— I'm saying that the description of the songs need more musical specificity. And if you need to add a sentence or two to the descriptions to achieve this, then it's something worth considering. Personally, five/six sources for that section is inadequate, but if you choose to use only these, then you need to really make use of them. The other FAs that you selected are well written, but you should understand that they are either a bit outdated (LAMB was written about 8 or 9 years ago) or the article's slant is different: this article in particular is making a case of the singer exploring genres and expanding her repertoire and trying to think outside of the box. And the descriptions of the songs must at least attest to this. Rather than being understated, the first thing that hits you about "I Miss You" is the ticking beat and the ambient keyboard. Rather than just exploring 1960s do-wop, you hear the Philly soul sound and the Earth Wind and Fire influence on "Rather Die Young". Don't be afraid to make these connections. Don't expand per se—be concise, but try also to be comprehensive. I know I'm asking a lot, but just see what you can do, please. Orane (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just realized, the "Release and artwork" section doesn't give any release dates at all. not even for the US. It tells when the released dates were confirmed, but never the dates themselves. Is this intentional? Orane (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was intentional to not include the various release dates in that section, but unintentional to not include the US dates. I've added the US release date to clarify the sentence about it being confirmed. —JennKR | ☎ 02:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Journalist: Thoughts on this section now? Regards. —JennKR | ☎ 23:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The section has definitely improved. The musical specificity that it lacked has been sufficiently addressed. I do think, however, that another copy edit is needed for flow and clarity. To solve this, I think you should ask for a bit of help, or read the article aloud to hear the potential disharmony in the prose. An example is just a couple phrases repeated throughout the section, which becomes increasingly jarring as I read along: "The balladry of the first half of the album demonstrates much of Knowles' vocal ability and the use of live instrumentation. "1+1" demonstrates her vocal-flexing". Or Start Over" is set against a futuristic beat; "I Was Here" [set] against simple backing music; "Best Thing I Never Had" [sung] against a soft rock beat; "Run the World (Girls)" is set against a military drumbeat; "Countdown" is set against a brass arrangement.
Or awkward phrasing
  • "Elements of Prince's style were found on "Schoolin' Life", which musically is 1980s pop, as Knowles encourages the listener to live life to the fullest, albeit reminding them the consequences of doing so too much".
  • She first performed "Run the World (Girls)" live for the first time on May 17, 2011.
  • Punctuation errors:"'Love on Top' was sung at the 2011 MTV Video Music Awards on August 28, Knowles finished the performance unbuttoning her blazer and rubbing her stomach to confirm her pregnancy". Comma slpice— there should be a period/full stop after August 28. Or "According to the Official Charts Company data, was more than the combined sales of its three nearest challengers; Adele's 19 (2008) and 21 (2011) and Lady Gaga's Born This Way." You need a colon after "challengers". Semi-colon cannot be used to introduce listed items.
These are just examples. Read throughout and a couple more pop up. I don't mean to nag, but while the article passes comprehensiveness, it lacks in the prose department. Keep at it, though. You're almost there. Orane (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2013 (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_Knowles_album)/archive1&oldid=1142499562"