Talk:Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)/Archive 1

Comment

What is the point of mentioning Digital Spy in the article? They are very anti-Beyoncé. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.3.173 (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Writers

Can anyone confirm the writers? I didn't know Evan Bogart co-wrote it and now the singer herself co-wrote it? I'm a bit confused now. Ylsuomynona (talk) 12:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I really doubt it is, I think the information on that site is bogus. http://new.uk.music.yahoo.com/blogs/guestlist/7234/beyonce-steals-songwriter-from-leona/ The huge fallout from Beyonce taking the song from Leona Lewis makes it rather unlikely that she wrote the song. Pcyli (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If the album's liner notes said she co-wrote it, we can do nothing. We have to add it. --Efe (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

the statement said when she recieved the song it was unfinished and beonce finished it - which is why she has a song writing credit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.175.228 (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

im pretty sure she bought the writing credits On a porno. many artists do (celine dion etc). but due to her being credited by ASCAP we can't do anything about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.248.136 (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion?

The song is the official 4th single, so why is it even up for deletion?. The song will chart when it gets better airplay, so don't delete it. Billy4kate, (Talk)

Move!!

I think this single should be moved to "Halo (Beyoncé song)". The cover says just BEYONCÉ, not BEYONCÉ KNOWLES; and so her albums... just Beyoncé. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HC 5555 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed 80.6.173.225 (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

I think we should mention the success of the song in Brazil, its been #1 for 12 consecutive weeks over there, although im not sure how reliable it can be as people have told me theres no official chart in Brazil. I found one source - http://mtv.uol.com.br/inside/blog/beyonc%C3%A9-no-brasil-prefeitura-do-rio-anuncia-show-da-cantora-no-reveillon Wneedham02 (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. There is no official song chart in Brazil. There are statistics, of course, but the one that is currently on the page does not count, as it is an internal measurement and is not meant for the public to see/read/discuss/use. Now, considering it's mostly IP editors adding it, I doubt they'll see this message or the corresponding notice at WP:CHARTS, but yeah.... SKS (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

HipHop?

Listening and watching the making of the video, Knowles said that the song is a mixture of hiphop and rnb. Any comments? --124.104.112.144 (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "billboard.com":

• From Sweet Dreams (Beyoncé Knowles song): "Music News, Reviews, Articles, Information, News Online & Free Music". Billboard.com. Retrieved 2009-11-30.
• From Until the End of Time (Justin Timberlake song): Justin Timberlake - Billboard Artist Chart History

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

covers

I think it could be mentionned that Florence and The Machine covered this song at BBC Radio 1's Live Lounge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.230.133 (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the lead, second paragraph, shouldn't "Beyoncé" be "Knowles"? Also, you need to have a consistency with that. In the Writing and inspiration section, the quote box, "Ryan Tedder talk about 'Halo'" ---> "Ryan Tedder in discussion of 'Halo'", something like that, and a suggestion cause the original bit reads odd. Same section, this is just me but maybe adding Ray LaMontagne's title might help. Same section, you might want to say that Ryan Tedder is the frontman for OneRepublic, I mean I know that he is, but how 'bout your reader? In the Promotion section, first paragraph, no need for "Beyoncé". In the Critical reception section, the New Music Reviews bit, are you missing a period?

   Check.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the lead, and any dates like this throughout the article, "It was released on January 20, 2009 in the United States" ---> "It was released on January 20, 2009, in the United States", commas after dates, if using MDY. In the Kelly Clarkson controversy section, please link "All I Ever Wanted" to its correspondence article, as at the moment it stands out as a disambiguation. In the Critical reception section, please link "Crazy in Love" to its correct article. You need to have a consistency with italicizing or not italicizing "Digital Spy". Also, why are apostrophes around Digital Spy?

   Check.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Reference 13 is missing Publisher info. In Ref. 30, "Boston.com" ---> "The Boston Globe". The link title in Refs. 34, 73, 87, 88, and 99 are not supposed to be in all capitals, per here. "Billboard" needs to be in the "work" format of the source in Refs. 75 and 89. Refs. 27, 28, 29, 62, and 73 have different url link paths, so you might want to update that.

   Half-check, Ref. 73 needs to be dealt with.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   File:Beyonce - Halo.png needs a lower resolution.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

All done, except "maybe adding Ray LaMontagne's title might help", because I don't understand this. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 02:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Your title on Wikipedia is that your a Wikipedian, for LaMontagne he's a singer. Alright, one more issue left. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE)

Added. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 14:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The tool server mark ref 73 as a redirect, but really is ref 74, Reuters. I've tryed to change it, but still the same link. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 15:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Caps of ref 73 fixed. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 15:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just asking for Ref. 73 caps, that's it. Hmmm, I shouldn't have crossed off the entire thing I was asking. Now, we do have a problem, cause Ref. 66 just went dead. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Added another reference. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 15:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Check, and I would like to thank Tbhotch for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for review it. :) Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 16:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A-side/B-side

"Halo" and "Diva" were released together. Wouldn't this make them a double A-side, rather than B-sides of each other? Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. It would be promoted as a double A-side single (such El Mañana (song) or Footprints in the Sand (song) or So Here We Are/Positive Tension). Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 07:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

How do you know if something has been promoted as a double A-side single? Yves (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because it is promoted as one? Better in Time/Footprints in the Sand (song): "Better in Time" was released on 10 March 2008 as Lewis's third single in the United Kingdom, as a double A-side with "Footprints in the Sand". (see also Footprints cover). And reading this article you'll find "The single, which was launched with the B-side "Diva",[5] was released on January 20, 2009, in the United States" Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 07:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to access that reference: it's not complete. Yves (talk) 07:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Magazine, the link went dead Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 07:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Then it's completed incorrectly as well as incompletely. Magazines don't have ISBNs but ISSNs, and the volume and issue number aren't given so the reference is actually completely inaccessible. Yves (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, something else like say "this is a bad-formated article"? be bold and say it. Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 07:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

But why would I do that? I'm just reading the magazine right now, and this is what's written in the box:

“ Score one for Sasha Fierce. When competing with her alter-ego, Beyoncé opened up her double-album “I Am ... Sasha Fierce” with the two-sided single “Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)” and “If I Were a Boy,” designed to be worked separately at R&B/rhythmic and pop radio, respectively. Looks like Sasha had different ideas: “Ring” crossed to pop and spent a month at the Billboard Hot 100 summit, while “Boy” rivaled with a No. 3 peak. The competition continues as Beyoncé's pop-hued “Halo” now competes with Sasha's “Diva.” The former has a mainstream pop sound, with subtle R&B undertones that should carry it to the top of the charts. Comparison could be made to Leona Lewis' “Bleeding Love” (also co-written by Ryan Tedder), but this “Halo” hangs high on its own merits. Sounds like Beyoncé and Sasha will again be at a draw in this singles battle. But they win either way.—CW ”

It mentions "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" and "If I Were a Boy" being two-sided, but says nothing about "Halo"/"Diva". :S Yves (talk) 07:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What I said on my summary. Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 08:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Composition section

In response to Tbhotch's request on the GOCE page, I've copy-edited the section. --Blackmane (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Release date

Released date of January 20, 2009 is incorrect. I bought my copy before that date! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No citation required. Nothing is to be added. Only the release date to be removed. You do not say someone is 2 months old when they are born. Yet, this is what the article currently says. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 04:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It won't be removed. Why? Because you'll continue with "When it was released? In my country in November because I'm unable to understand a very simple rule". Have a nice life. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Is SunCreator trying to say that "Halo" was released in November 2008. This is totally impossible. This will lead to the conclusion that Beyonce had triple A-Side lead singles. As far as i know, her album's concept and her technique of releasing two singles at the same time was to demonstrate her conflicting personae. I did not know she had a third one. Is there a source to prove it was released in November 2008 as a single? I think you are talking about the album because when the album is released, songs on it can even be bought individually. Jivesh • Talk2Me 06:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Another cover

HALO cover on Romanian The Voice! ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 23:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Should this go in the article?

Should this cover be in the article?

• Elementary school chorus the PS22 chorus covered "Halo" and "Single Ladies" during Billboard's annual Women In Music luncheon held at New York's Pierre Hotel. Source: [1] My love is love (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Please also put in in SL own article. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done with this one. Here's another one [2] but I don't know is the source reliable for FAs because it's an artist biography page. My love is love (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Lol. Biographies are the most reliable sources. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

NY Times

Could this be used somewhere in the article? [3] My love is love (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done See composition. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter Parody “Hallows” Based On Beyonce’s “Halo” Read more: Another Harry Potter Parody “Hallows” Based On Beyonce’s

• [4]

• [5]

• [6]

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

More

• "There are some odes to rapping hubby Jay-Z though on Disappear and Halo where Beyonce swoons: 'I've got my angel now...I ain't ever going to shut you out.'" - The Sun My love is love (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Release dates

• [7]  Done
• [8]  Done
• [9]  Done
• [10]  Done
• [11]  Done
• [12]  Done
• [13] (UK)  Done
• [14] (UK)  Done
• [15]  Done
• [16]  Done
• [17]  Done
• [18]  Done
• [19]  Done
• [20]  Done
• [21]  Done
• [22]  Done
• [23]  Done
• [24] (Europe)  Done

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments about Controversies

Jivesh asked me to look at the Controversies section in preparation for the article's nomination for FAC. Here are some comments.

• "According to Simon Cowell,[25] the writers originally intended "Halo" for his client, the British singer Leona Lewis." I would include a little phrase before Simon Cowell's name to introduce who he is to readers. Right now his name just comes up suddenly out of the blue. It's true that we find out later in the sentence that Leona Lewis is in some way his client—so that serves as a little bit of an introduction to him, but it's not as smooth as it could be. One possibility, something like: According to Simon Cowell, owner of music production company Syco Entertainment..." I would also mention Bogart and Tedder in this sentence. They haven't been mention in several paragraphs, and the readers might not immediately catch on who "the writers" refers to (as "writer" is a very general word that can refer to lots of different things). Also, so you need to mention that Lewis is British? It seems of secondary importance in the bigger issue of the controversy—but if you really want to keep it in, I guess it doesn't hurt anything being there, it just seems it deflects focus slightly off the main issue. Another thing, and this may be a matter of personal style, but what if you put the [25] at the end of the sentence. It's true that the fact that Cowell said it is important, but it seems to me that what he said is even more important. So, if you put all the comments above together, one version of the first sentence would be "According to Simon Cowell, owner of music production company Syco Entertainment, Bogart and Tedder originally intended "Halo" for his client, singer Leona Lewis.[25]"

• I have changed it. Thanks. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• "However, Tedder commented that Cowell was upset that the single's writing was intended for Knowles, and Knowles eventually claimed the song." This doesn't make sense. You need to definitely change the verb "intended" here. In the previous sentence it says that Cowell thought the song was intended for Lewis, but now it says he is acknowledging it was intended for Knowles. OK, actually, I'm going to c/e this sentence and you can see what you think of my edit. I've simplified the sentence greatly. I also don't think that the "However" in the sentence was working—the second sentence doesn't contrast the first one, because both indicate that Cowell wasn't happy about Lewis not getting the song.
  • The above is what I wrote last night but only was able to save on a Word file, because my Internet stopped working. OK, I see you have left out the "However, Tedder commented that" part of my edit, which is good. But I still think the rest of the sentence is confusing.

• I have changed this one as well. Thanks again. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• • • All right, just now I re-read what you wrote on my Talk page. Maybe if you take out the phrase "the single's writing was intended for Knowles" from the sentence and leave in "claimed" it will be good? "Cowell was upset that Knowles claimed the song."
• "She was unaware of any similarities between her song and Knowles' "Halo".[27] Many people began to talk about it that eventually Clarkson weighed in after realizing the uncanny resemblance of "Already Gone" with Knowles' song when she listened to them side by side; the similarities are most notable in the backing track, which consists of a melancholy piano, loud drums, and handclaps." The order of information here is all wrong. Right now you say that she was unaware of any similarities, but you don't actually say explicitly that there were similarities. Then you say people began talking about "it". What is "it"? I think you mean talking about the similarities, but you haven't even clearly said yet that there were similarities. One idea, after the first sentence you have now about Clarkson working together on All I Ever Wanted and "Already Gone", you could say that when the song came out, lots of people noted the resemblance with "Halo". Then say that Clarkson had been unaware of this. I also would maybe change your phrase "side by side". I'm not sure what that means. Maybe it means that she had two CD players, and she listened to a few seconds of one and then a few seconds of the other. But my point is that, regardless of my speculations, I really don't know what it means, so it's better if it's changed. Maybe just say "when she compared them carefully"? Moisejp (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Side by side means she listened to both songs; she could have played one song for like a minute then paused it and switch to the other song. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• I know two people can sit side by side, or you can place two items side by side, but I would never use "side by side" to refer to listening to two songs. But if you're confident that it's good, standard English, I won't object to you using it. (To me it sounds like a very casual usage—which isn't what we should strive for on Wikipedia—that was my point.) Moisejp (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Okay. I have began thinking you are right indeed here but how can we present this information then? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• What about saying back-to-back ? I saw it [25]. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Jivesh. Sorry, I hope I'm not sounding difficult, but personally I wouldn't use "back to back" in this situation. I'm not sure what the best solution is. I notice the source article does use "side by side" which is another reason why maybe you shouldn't use it. If you did use it, you would need quotation marks, but if you use quotation marks, I don't think it'll be clear whether they mean "this is a quotation" or whether they mean "this is not actually 100% precise English". Why don't you just say "when she listened to them both closely"? Moisejp (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry dear. I know you are doing all this for my own good and I appreciate it just the way I appreciate Beyonce. :D Don't worry about it. Say what you think is for the best of this article :)) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Clarkson tried to discourage her label, RCA, from releasing the song as a single because she respected Knowles,[31] but they went against her will and released it, 'I have no control over. I already made my album. At this point, the record company can do whatever they want with it.'[25] A few problems with this. One is that above you said she "battled" to prevent the song from being on the album, but here it says only that she "discouraged" her label. "Battled" sounds a lot stronger than "discouraged". Another problem: 'I have no control over.' ←I guess a word is missing here. But when I tried to check on ref #25, that this quote is cited to, I couldn't find any such quote. One thing you should definitely do before going into the FAC, is to double check that every source is used correctly. (As you probably know, it's really easy when doing lots of editing on an article to make mistakes like this.) There's one other little problem with the passage above but rather than trying to explain it, I am going to make a quick copy-edit. (You can tweak my edit if you want, of course.) Moisejp (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Singers normally record many songs for an album. A singer has the right to choose which songs will go on the album's final track-listing. But they did not agree - that's why i used battled. I mean she insisted over and over again. But once the song is on an album, you cannot battle to prevent a label to release it as labels are the ones who always choose which song is to be released as a single. All she could do was to discourage them. Nothing more. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. I don't think that distinction will be very clear, though. You may have to spell out that distinction more. Moisejp (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Lol. I am confused. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If needed

• [26]

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• [27]

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• [28]

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• [29]

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Expansion of important sections

Hi Jivesh. I am just wondering (1) why there's so much information about the writing are being left out, while (2) information about release is being forced to complement such information. --Efe (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there more information about the writing? Where? Lol. I did not know. That would be great. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the second part of your message. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There is which I found on the same HitQuarters interview. About the condition of Ryan when he wrote the song. etc etc. --Efe (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

How does that relate to the song? I mean he did not write the song because he was ill. There's no direct connection with it. He could have been ill just as well as he could have been totally fine. It's something absolutely normal in my opinion. But please reply. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

After much thought, I realized that Tedder would have never written "Halo" if he was not injured. So,  Done. And thanks. Please check. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with your second thought. --Efe (talk) 12:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• The problem I had with the controversy section was that it's the longest section of the article, yet it's not even the most important aspect of the article. I don't think it should be removed. But I do think that it is a bit too long.

• I assure you that I have written only the important facts. See the articles by MTV News, EW, RS, CBC. They are like giant essays. I selected the information and connected each and every point to "Halo". The section looks big because of the picture. Remove it ans see the section then. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Grammar:

• The "Composition and lyrical interpretation" section needs editing and restructuring. The first paragraph is ok, but the second paragraph is rampant with awkward phrasing, unclear expressions, and misused punctuation: "The song's opening lines are: "Remember those walls I built? Well, baby, they’re tumbling down",[34] as Knowles' voice..." The colon is incorrect, the "as Knowles voice" is an awkward way to transition into the next clause. Vibrato doesn't need explanation, or its explanation needs to flow better; ditto for trills.

• I have tried my level best. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• "'Halo' was taken from a different disc of I Am... Sasha Fierce to "Diva"; the intention was to demonstrate the concept that Knowles has conflicting personalities". Awkward phrasing.

• Hmm, what do you suggest? Actually, the copy-editor re-wrote the sentence I had written so that even people not familiar to Beyonce or any type of music can understand it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• "but concluded, "[Tedder] hangs high on its own merits"" I think you mean "Halo" hangs high on it's own merits.

• Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• "and compared it with the work done by American record producer and songwriter Phil Spector" I think you mean compared to.

• Fixed. 05:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ref #5-- the publisher for China Daily is the Communist Party of China?

• Oops. Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• As a personal point, I would remove the mention of Celine Dion in the intro, and just say that Knowles was praised for her emotive vocals. That was the opinion of one critic, not a consensus. And the mention of Celine Dion sounds awkward.

• Removed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Overall, a good job. I'm very impressed with the article. You should be very proud. Orane (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Genuine thanks. *weeps*. It's hard to get such a compliment from you. :P Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Good job editing things down. The intro sounds really good now without all the unnecessary info. There's still a bit left that could go. While the intro should mention everything that comes in the body of the article, it's also the most important part of the article because it sets the tone, and it's what people read when they want a summary of the most important aspects of the song. With that being said, I doubt that most people come to the article to read that "'Halo' was added to the international soundtrack of the Brazilian soap opera India – A Love Story." I'd even omit that from the article itself. It's trivia, really. There is also issues with how the music video is described. Knowles and Ealy portray characters in the music video. The video doesn't depict a "fictional love" between Knosles and Ealy. That's a slightly different. In that same light, "An alternative music video, which shows Ealy escaping from police through a forest at night, was posted on the internet in May 2010" isn't entirely correct. The video shows Ealy's character escaping from the police through a forest...
• Will look over the rest later tonight. Have to head to work now :). Again, great job. Orane (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"'Halo' was added to the international soundtrack of the Brazilian soap opera India – A Love Story

--->This is the best exposure the song got in Brazil and because of this I Am... Sasha Fierce was certified diamond. It is the only international album to achieve this.

---> I remember being told in a PR or by a copy-editor that the word "fictional" plays a big role and helps in preventing readers from imagining things that are not real (fictional).

"An alternative music video, which shows Ealy escaping from police through a forest at night, was posted on the internet in May 2010"

---> Hmm, I am confused here. The sentence was corrected twice by two different copy-editors.

I will be waiting. :D Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's the issue, really. When people appear in music videos, movies, stories, or songs, unless it's stated that it's autobiographical, we as the audience should never assume that it's about the real people playing these roles. In other words, when Knowles acts in the music video, she is portraying a character. When she sings a song, she is portraying a character (unless she states that the song is about her). So, when we're writing about this, we have to make sure that we word it in such a way that shows knowledge of, and sensitivity to, this. So, we say that the character that she plays in the video falls in love with Ealy's character. See? It boils down to this: It's not Knowles and Ealy sharing a fictional love; it's about the characters of Knowles and Ealy sharing a real love. Make sense? You need to word it to ensure that you say "Knowles' character" does this, and "the character" does that; and "Ealy's character" runs through a forest, and "his character" is chased by police. And "his character" is killed etc. Don't use the word "fictional" at all—by its very definition, the whole music video is fictitious, since they're all acting. Orane (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahh okay. You are the best teacher. :D Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

But how am I supposed to fit character in the lead right now? The sentences should be changed, right? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The way you did it was perfect. :) Orane (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Can you please check the music video section as well. Please. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks wholeheartedly. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

WP Comments

I've taken some time to do quick copy edits of the article. Didn't do anything drastic as it has been looked over by Brianboulton and Wehwalt. This was a great job no doubt. It was comprehensive and interesting to read. The prose--one thing I enjoy critiquing--was not too bad either. I just have a few comments that I would probably bring up at a FAC.

First off, the lead does not say anything about the song's release as a single: "It was released by Columbia Records on January 20, 2009, alongside "Diva", showcasing the contrast between Knowles and her aggressive onstage alter ego Sasha Fierce." I would probably remove the "showcasing the contrast between Knowles and her aggressive onstage alter ego Sasha Fierce." and let this be elaborated in the body of the article. If you're giving all the details away, what is there left to read right? The whys and hows are best not in the lead. Maybe fit in a "as the second single from the album" in that sentence, which is important to establish the notability of this song.

Done Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Some short sentences like "Its lyrics describe a sublime love." could be combined with other sentences. What do you think of "'Halo' is an R&B and pop power ballad with lyrics that describe sublime love and instrumentation composed of drum, piano, keyboard, string, synthesizer."? That was probably bad, but you get my idea. Regarding "She then echoes the word 'Halo' on the chorus", why is the word halo capitalized? In this context, it is not being referred to the song's title. Another thing: the "on the chart issue dated" may read a bit awkward due to the preposition "on". We do not say "on the issue", but "in the issue". Some readers will question this.

Done. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The Controversies section may need some relocating and retitling. Relocating: I think considering how this discusses events before the song's release, the info regarding Leona Lewis should be moved under Writing and production. That would give a clearer flow and chronology. It will also impress readers, who want to know more about the writing. Your call. The Clarkson info could probably go as a subheading for Composition as "Plagiarism allegation" or "Kelly Clarkson accusation" etc. I see several reviewers have asked to rename the section as well due to NPOV concerns. "Controversies" is also a bit vague. Be more specific and concise.

Do you really think that will look good under the composition section? And you tell me that controversies is too vague but who are we to decide that the Kelly thing was plagiarism allegation. Aren't you going too strong? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Also have a look here. It's the total opposite of what you said. I hate these situations atrociously. Lol. To tell you frankly, I don't remember anyone telling to separate the controversies, rather the contrary. And WP, again don't you think plagiarism is a far too strong word which needs to be applied correctly. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I read that during while writing my comments. The splitting thing was my idea, and I think it will work nicely. Is there any other word other than "Controversies" that will work? "Kelly Clarkson accusation"? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 10:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Finally, I think the Live performances needs a bit of expanding. It seems to jump from one show to another, without elaborating on what makes each performance notable. Critical commentary and synopses of the performances always helps. Even one review per show does wonders. Overall, the prose is good. Give a pat to yourself on the back for your hard work.

I believe the description is more than enough. What you want are reviews, right? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That's right. It shouldn't be too hard finding a few. I see you only found an Access Hollywood one though, unfortunately. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 10:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You have added a few, I just noticed. I'm fine with that, but FAC reviewers can always complain "Why the heck do you have to list each and every live performance? What's so special about them?" That came up in one of the earlier FACs of the article, but worded differently lol. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 10:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Refs look good, remember to remove the "Inc" in Nielsen Business Media, Inc. No dead links, thank God. You whipped up this article pretty fast too. Good luck with FAC.

Done and thanks. I can go at the speed of light if it's Beyonce. :D Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The only review that mentions something about "Halo" other than its lyrics etc. But I don't think it will be a very good idea to add in an encyclopedia And the diva’s tears seen on the jumbotron were real.. Lol. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Have a look now. Not much but still I have added a few lines. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's highly likely I won't be reviewing it this time due to my involvement, (you're probably happy lol) but can be of help anytime. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 02:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. But just one question, don't mind me asking but weren't you involved much much much more in "Rehab"? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

During the FAC yes, I copy edited so that I could support. That is fine. Since this is before FAC, if I were to support, it would have hardly any weight due to my contributions. I don't mind you asking, it's OK. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 10:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• You really need to do something about this sentence from the Music video section: "A pack of polices eventually catch the man and attacks him vigorously". How on Earth did that get through? Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Actually it was not me. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

  I apportion no blame, just pointing out something that needs to be fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 05:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Lol. I know. And done. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Notes from Chaosdruid

Composition and lyrical interpretation (section)

• "The song also utilizes of symphonic swells and electronic accents" - What is a "symphonic swell"? (plus needs that little "of" correcting)

• Done. Well, I did link the first term and swells are crescendos. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• As an aside, trills and vibrato are really the same thing, a trill is vibrato on a slightly smaller scale - once it reaches the adjacent note (semitone/tone) it becomes vibrato. The original said "dips in and out of vibrato yelps and trills", here the word yelp has been dropped, and now we are led to believe that vibrato and trills are different things - perhaps something should be said, as it appears a little confused.

• It has been corrected. I asked four different copy-editors and what is currently in the article what they suggested to me. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, can you please tell me how I can rephrase it? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Knowles' vocal spans from the" -> "Knowles' vocal range spans from the" or "Knowles' vocals span from the"

• Done. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• "that set an spiritualized" -> "that set a spiritualized"

• Done. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• None of the four sources say a stomp-box was used in either the video or the recording. Two of them mention stomp: "soul claps and step stomps" (stamping with the foot on the ground) and "a stomp-clap beat" (alternating between claps and foot stomps)

• When we edit music articles, we must read and interpret what was written in a review. Here stomp means stomp box, it is a percussive instrument which provides the beat. A stomp box provides sounds similar to foot steps. Again, I consulted experienced music editors before adding that into the article. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not - we cannot interpret the quotes to derive what instruments were used, that would be WP:SYN or WP:OR. None of them say a stomp-box, they clearly say "stomp-clap" and "step stomps". You cannot interpret how the sound was made, only that two sources mention step-stomp and clap-stomp. I cannot stress how important that is.

Here, nothing means stomp-box, they just mean that the sound is that of stomps. I was a sound engineer by trade, working in recording studios and live performances for 20 years and I would never try and identify what made what sounds. I have made recordings of percussion, organ, trombones, trumpet, sax and piano which were all played by a guitarist on a guitar synth - You would not be able to tell the difference to the real instruments, I know this because many people have commented on the cost of employing those musicians and how we managed to record it in such a small studio before being told the truth "it was one guy on a guitar". Chaosdruid (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for the misunderstanding. I will tell the editor as well that he was wrong. Can you please tell me how I can put the trills and vibratos stuffs with a little explanation so that the reader understands while reading? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Will this work, "she drops semi-tone into a note that is trilled and then, as the vibrato diminishes, she drops a further semi-tone"? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you don't just put the direct quote:

• "vibrato yelps and trills"[1] - a trill is vibrato of less than a semitone and vibrato is alternating quickly between two adjacent tones.

Remember that we are discouraged from linking inside quotes, rather we are expected to put an explanation in the body of text. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Hmm, I am not using the quote because I don't want people to tell me the article is a quotefarm. Lol. It's true. Sometimes, they say you article is a quotefarm for a few quotes only. As I see everyone is happy \with how the sentence currently is, I will leave it. Thank you wholeheartedly for your comments. Much appreciated. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

"the United Kingdom and the US." Shouldn't you write " the United Kingdom and the United States." or " the UK and the US." instead of mixing them? Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 15:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not mixing anything. A country's name is supposed to be written in full for the first time. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I just would have thought that when used the same sentence, you would not write one in full and abbreviate the other. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 15:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed above, I have done the right thing here. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)