This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just recently did a revamp and I would like to know if what other things to do for it to reach GA, or possible go directly to FA.

Thank you folks. --Efe (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Wackymacs (talk · contribs)

edit
  • Reference 9 - an encyclopedia citing another encyclopedia is...dodgy. That Encyclopædia Britannica page doesn't actually cite its sources.
  • Many of your references are missing date info (not access date, but the date the original page was put up). For example, ref 10 has a date on the page: 1998.
    • Maybe some of those you pointed out do not have publication date in its page. I'll take a look, though. But Im pretty sure they're all filled up properly. --Efe (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some might criticize this because you have used MTV News as a source a lot.
  • If you want this to become featured some day, the footnotes need to be perfect.
    • What do you mean by this? --Efe (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mean, you want to make sure all the information is filled out (access dates, publisher info, and so on). Otherwise, someone is going to pick on the footnotes when it comes to the FA. Take a look at WP:FAC, and you'll notice that footnotes are often highlighted. — Wackymacs (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yah. They're all filled up. Some do not have publication dates, but surely they all have accessdates, excluding offline sources. Some do not have publishers, as they appear to be the same with the work parameter. --Efe (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Personal Life section is short.
  • There is a bit of over-linking - for example, in the "Dangerously in Love (2003) and stardom" section (last paragraph) - there is no need to link those years in brackets.
  • Overall, very good.
  • Submit this to WP:GA now - it will be nominated.

Wackymacs (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Realist2 (talk · contribs)

edit

Comments by Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

edit

I didn't read it for prose, just looked at the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I believe you have a lot to do in FAC room so checking sources of this article is a great help. Anyway, if you're really interested with prose checking, it would be good. Hehe. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mangostar (talk · contribs)

edit

I didn't read the article thoroughly, but I think it would be improved by the addition of a short section about her personal life. Mangostar (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because, as per above, its pointless. Nothing could be explained more but just rumors, here and there. But the section appears on the page right now as my and another user is having a slight "edit war". --Efe (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If the "marriage" issue is confirmed by Beyonce herself, I will outrightly add that section (or improve). --Efe (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also I agree with Indopug that another image might be better for the infobox. The current one is clearly very high-res, but I think she looks dowdy and unlike her normal self. Mangostar (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by indopug (talk · contribs)

edit

A few quick comments;

  • Add the image listed on the left of the thumbnail here to the infobox.
  • That "beyonce beginnings" pic doesn't nearly, in any way, merit inclusion on fair-use basis. Please remove it.
  • It still doesn't significantly increase our understanding of the matter at hand...Actually keep it, we'll think of fair-use later (won't pass on FAC though)
  • Not sure why that non-free Destiny pic is there either, its more suited for the Destiny's Child article.
  • This article is about Beyonce not Destiny.
  • That Austin Powers screenshot needs to be commented upon, as in discuss her appearance in the pic or something. As of now it does not significantly increase our understanding of the prose to merit inclusion.
  • Move Philanthropy to Business ventures (renamed to something like Other ventures) and Influences to the Artistry section (renamed to Style and Influences or the like; I really dislike the current section name)
  • The discography section should only be a list of her studio albums. The rest of the details can be added to the discog article.
  • Check for overlinking throughout. Linking only first mention of Rolling Stone, song titles is enough.

Comments by Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs)

edit

As requested, here are my comments on the article - hope they help to improve it:

  • A model article or two to follow is always useful - I note Mariah Carey is FA. She is also a singer and has made films, although she was not in a group.
  • I like that there are critical reactions throughout. Also like the new lead image - looks more like her than the previous one did.
  • Agree that this could use a copyedit - FA asks for prose that is near brilliant. For example (random sentence) Although it was a commercial success, the short-time production of the album was the critics' subject of scrutiny. might be better as Although it was a commercial success, the realtively short time for production of the album was the subject of critical scrutiny. Or this Despite all her song-writer stints since the release of the group's debut album, her involvement was attached to media scrutiny. Have you asked WP:LOCE?
  • Per WP:MOS#Images do not sandwich text between images (the pictures in Personal life and Style and image sections sandwich the text).
  • Also set images to just thumb width (per MOS) and let reader preferences dictate image size.
  • References look OK to me
  • Any reason why her Destiny's Child albums are not listed in the Discography?

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]