Talk:B'Day/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   However, the project was put on hiatus ...' "put on hiatus"?

   ...she employed techniques for faster collaboration, and completed B'Day in three weeks... This is semi-literate

   In 2002, Knowles had generative studio sessions in the making of... "generative studio sessions in the making of"?

   prompting her to begin working without telling her father-record label manager Mathew Knowles. you might be wanting a longer dash there

   People who knew she went to the studio were her A&R man Max Gousse, and the team of producers they contacted to collaborate for the album? So what?

   She also collaborated with several studio personalities: "studio personalities"?

   When Knowles conceived a potential song, she would tell the group who would deliberate, and after three hours, the song would be created. Inappropriate positioning of commas.

   While Knowles and the team brainstormed the lyrics, other collaborators like the Neptunes, Jerkins and Swizz Beatz would simultaneously produce the tracks. "like"?

   Much of the themes and musical styles of the album were inspired by Knowles' role in Dreamgirls. "Much"?

   The plot of the film revolves around The Dreams, a fictional 1960s group of three female singers who had changed in plight after discovering their manipulative manager, I am lost for words. Whatever inspired you to nominate such a badly written article for good article status?

   Get it transformed into good plain English, please.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   [1] needs publisher author and date details

   Other sources appear reliable

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Reasonably broad and focussed

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are captioned and licensed or have suitable rationales

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is a very badly written article, nowhere near the £reasonably well written criteria, so I sahll not be listing it. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)