Talk:Cater 2 U

Untitled

This article is a mess. There is a heavy POV present (sure, #14 isn't #1, but tha doesn't make the song a "flop" by any means), and it has one of those wonderful extra-long "Chart informations" filled with unneccessary detail. --FuriousFreddy 22:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cater2U.jpg

Image:Cater2U.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cater 2 U/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 18:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Infobox

• I have made an edit to the image's rationale. There are no other issues.

Background and lawsuit

• I wonder if the lawsuit paragraph should be given a section of its own, or perhaps if Lawsuit could be a third-level heading and "Background and lawsuit" changed just to "Background".
• In reference #11, HipHopDX can be wikilinked.
• Reference #11 hints at this article about Rowland's response to the lawsuit. This magazine article also talks about it. Is Rowland's anger at Knowles notable enough to be mentioned?

Composition

• Audio file is less than 30 seconds/10% of the length; rationale is fine. No problems.
• I wonder if linking the musical notes A and B, and term "key", is excessive. I see other GA/FA music articles seem to link these too, but the link to D major should be good enough to remove the need for a link to key (music).
• On a similar note (pun intended), I don't like this bit: ... low note of A3 to the high note of B4. B₄ isn't what I would call a high note — it's barely an octave above middle C. If the "low note"/"high note" is just intended to illustrate that A₃ is the lowest note used, and B₄ the highest, then I think it's redundant and can be removed — "... span from A₃ to B₄" would be fine.
• Instrumentally it is complete with silky synthesizers "slink[ing] and slurp[ing]" throughout — I assume "it is complete with" means "it contains". The sentence tripped me up the first time I read it; I think "contains" is less confusing.
• ... the song's theme was about supplication. — I think this is redundant; you can have "the song's theme was supplication", or "the song was about supplication", but not both.
• ... the song was one Destiny Fulfilled'​s ... — one of?
• ... the song was not convincing nor good. — change to "neither ... nor", or "not ... or".
• He further concluded, "I thought they were supposed to be independent women?!" — Does "concluded" really work there? I suppose "He said" is too boring, but "concluded" sounds too formal given the quote.
• ... offered similar criticism that "[The song] reneged ... — I'd use a colon instead of "that" ("similar criticism: "[The song]...").
• Is it worth explicitly stating that the song won neither Grammy it was nominated for?
• EDIT: In reference #18 (TWP), there's also a |date= parameter issue; I think it's because "August 11, 2007-08-11" is repetitive; remove the "August 11". — Bilorv ^(talk)_(contribs) 19:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Chart position

• I'd link ringtone.
• It was last seen ... — Change to "it last appeared".

I'll try to review the rest of the article soon. — Bilorv ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Music video

• Is the (pictured) in the caption needed?
• ... filmed in large part ... —> "large parts were filmed"
• ... it should be noted that ... — remove (see MOS:NOTED).

Live performances and cover version; Credits and personnel: no comments.

Formats and track listings

• Link Scott Storch from the "Storch Remix Edit" on the Maxi CD Single.
• It has been linked before in the article, but I'd link to Maurice Joshua again in "Maurice Joshua "U Go Girl" Remix".

Charts; Certifications: no comments.

Release history

• The "Format" column is confusing me a little bit: I think "Music download", "Music download" and "Extended play" are the words which belong under the heading, and maybe a separate heading is warranted for "Dance mixes EP", "Remix EP" and "EP".

I'll finish the review tomorrow. — Bilorv ^(talk)_(contribs) 20:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

See also; References; Bibliography; External links: no comments.

Lead

• The song was written by band members Beyoncé, Kelly Rowland and Michelle Williams along with Rodney "Darkchild" Jerkins, Ricky "Ric Rude" Lewis and Robert Waller, with Beyoncé, Rude and Jerkins handling its production. — I'm not sure this needs to be mentioned in the lead at all given the information appears concisely in the infobox (and later under Background).
• "Cater 2 U" is instrumentally complete with synthesizers. — I talked about "complete" in the Composition section. Is "instrumentally complete with [x]" a common phrase?
• ... music critics who although generally praised its composition ... — Change to "... music critics who, despite generally praising its composition ..."
• ... criticized the lyrical content as contradictory to Destiny's Child earlier material. — I thought the objections were more based on the song's lyrics being (in some people's opinions) sexist.
• There should be a comma, form of punctuation or connective before "further receiving a gold certification".
• ... Destiny's Child performed it during ... — Change "it" to "the song" (for a split second I thought it meant "performed the music video").
• In addition to that ... — Remove "to that".

Other

• Add the article to Category:Destiny's Child songs.

The article is now being placed on hold. — Bilorv ^(talk)_(contribs) 10:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I addressed most of your comments, but wanted to clarify my opinion about three of them. From my experience on Wikipedia, every reviewer demanded from work published by New York Daily News to be excluded as it is considered untrustworthy. The inclusion of information about the writers and producers of the song in the lead is also obligatory and done on all song articles. I Am... ***D.D. 18:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A search for "WP:nydailynews.com" yielded lots of spam reports, but also several situations where New York Daily News articles are used as references in articles, or were the reason an article was kept in an AfD (e.g. 1). Why have other reviewers deemed it untrustworthy?

I still disagree with the writers/producers information (since it's in the infobox, it is in the lead), but my problem seems to be with more general conventions rather than just with this specific article. Leaving it in is fine.

Finally, you said "three" of my comments weren't addressed. These four are still unclarified: "criticized the lyrical content ...", my suggestion of de-linking "key", "he further concluded" being too formal, Grammy nomination not win could be explicitly stated. I retract the first idea: I don't think "sexist" is any better than "contradictory", although I still don't really like what's currently there. The last might possibly also be original research, so maybe that's not relevant either. — Bilorv ^(talk)_(contribs) 11:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Please check again and tell me whether everything is addressed. I Am... ***D.D. 14:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@My love is love: You haven't responded to my comments on the New York Daily News, but everything else has been addressed. — Bilorv ^(talk)_(contribs) 15:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I have been asked to remove the tabloid New York Daily News from all Beyonce articles because many of the articles published in it are speculations and rumours. I Am... ***D.D. 13:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, fine. Pass for GA. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c) 16:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cater 2 U. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/6592847/review/6594165
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130629023956/http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/destinys-child/1s.htm to http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/destinys-child/1s.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714193902/http://www.stylusmagazine.com/review.php?ID=2564 to http://www.stylusmagazine.com/review.php?ID=2564

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cater 2 U. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140101131615/http://longboredsurfer.com/charts/2005.php to http://longboredsurfer.com/charts/2005.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)