Wikipedia:Peer review/Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)/archive1
Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the prose quality of my works is always awful and I need opinions of what is wrong. Thanks, TbhotchTalk C. 06:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I am trying to improve the article to GA status, and I don't know if it has grammatical errors, thank you. TbhotchTalk C. 18:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the article.
Lead
- I usually discourage editors from having one sentence paragraphs, could the sentence about the awards be expanded or combined with the previous paragraph. You could add information on critical reception and chart performance to expand it into a full paragraph. This information is missing from the lead and it should be in there.
- You should include the writing controversy and similarity with Kelly Clarkson's song in the lead, this is addressed in the article but not in the lead. See WP:LEADfor thoughts on what should be included in the lead.
Kelly Clarkson controversy
- This statement is a bit off grammatically, "Clarkson tried to avoid that her label, RCA, release the song...." I would recommend changing to, "Clarkson tried to discourage her label, RCA, from releasing the song...."
- The box quote that starts in Writing and inspiration and spills into the Kelly Clarkson controversy section is quite long. Could this be a trimmed a bit? Not a big deal and more a personal opinion than anything else.
Promotion
- This quote is confusing, "...while making rounds promoting the movie Obsessed, where plays Sharon Charles." Do you mean, "where she play Sharon Charles"? I would say this tidbit or even that she was promoting a movie on the David Letterman show is ancillary and unnessary invition.
- This sentence should be improved, " Also, it featured on the compilation album Now That's What I Call Music! Vol. 73." First off add an is between "it" and "featured". Also you should specify that the album is a UK Now That's what I call music. There is a US version of Now... and In the US I think they're up to volume 33 so it was surprised to see vol. 73.
- I'm not sure the information about the song's use as a tribute to Michael Jackson is best suited for the Promotion section of the article. It seems a bit crass to say that the song's use as a tribute to Michael Jackson was a promotional vehicle for the song. It might be best used in the critical reception section. Not sure if there is a better spot. I think the informaiton is important it just doesn't work very well in the Promotion section.
Music Video
- What happened to the Alternate video? Why was it shot, what was it used for? How did it go public? These questions should be addressed.
References
- Ref 12 should have a publisher and accessdate.
- Otherwise the references look good.
Overall
- Overall the coverage of the topic is fairly comprehensive and the sources are credible and well-formatted. You have images and the article is stable. I think your self-assessment regarding the writing is true. You have some grammatical issues. I tried to fix some of the more glaring ones. A full copy-edit would be great and shouldn't take too long. I would say that you should nominate it at WP:GACand see what the reviewer thinks. I feel like it's very close to GA quality. Well done.
- This concludes my review, if you questions comments or concerns please contact me on my talk page as I don't normally watch review pages. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)