Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crazy in Love

Crazy in Love[edit]

Support Huge improvement from the article which I think deserves to be an FA. If there is anything for me to edit, let me know. Person22 18:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The original nomination page is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crazy in Love/archive1. Extraordinary Machine 19:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Image:BeyonceGrammy.jpg has fair use rationale, but no source or copyright information. The prose is awkward in places (definitely needs a copyedit), and some of it seems fawning, e.g. "New Musical Express provided the single with the highest praise they could offer by voting it the best single release of the year" – well, for all we (the readers) know, the highest praise NME could offer would be to declare it as the best song in history. The "Chart performance" section needs cleaning up and trimming, and I don't think we need to have descriptions of Beyonce's costume changes during the music video in the "Music video" section. The "Live performances" section could do with a little condensing as well. Extraordinary Machine 19:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I can also tell you that the NME actually has several levels of hyperbole above that anyway, as a former long-suffering reader. There's also a good chance that the following week they declared it the worst song ever. Leithp (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Although the article is certainly on its way to becoming featured, I don't believe it has apexed just yet. My objection stands until the above comments made by User:Extraordinary Machine are corrected. —Hollow Wilerding 20:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object:
- The article contains many instances of non-encyclopedic/"fanzine"-type writing, along with awkward prose that could be cleaned up with a copyedit.
- Most of the article's content is "Chart performance". Where's the information about the song itself — its lyrical content, meaning, songwriting process, impact, anything? Look at "I Want to Hold Your Hand" and "Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)" for examples of what I mean.
- The "Music charts" section is a beast; it's a quarter of the article on its own, and half of the table's cells are question marks. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts for guidelines on redoing the chart.
- The image Image:BeyoncePrice.jpg is tagged as a promotional photo, but is credited to WireImage, which provides photos under a non-free license. No source is given for Image:BeyonceGrammy.jpg, but it appears to be a news photo and probably also non-free.
- The link to the sample points to a non-existent page. --keepsleeping say what 21:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sample seems to have been deleted. Either the link from the article needs to be removed, or the sample needs to be re-uploaded and tagged as "yes, this really is used". I think there's a template for that. --Carnildo 00:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Yet another single/song nomination which doesn't include information about the instrumental musicians who performed on the track, and therefore fails the comprehensiveness test. The "Live Performances" section also includes lengthy discussion of occasions where Beyonce did not perform the song, but lip-synched it, which seems rather odd. Roughly half the article space is devoted to presentation and discussion of charting information. The most interesting thing in the article, to me, was the fact that New Zealand releases are certified gold for selling 5000-6000, a standard which demonstrates, to me, the lack of overall insignificance of being certified gold in New Zealand; I therefore wonder whether such reports about sales and chart performance in such minor markets are even worth mentioning in articles. Monicasdude 16:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]