Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2025

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 9 August 2025 [1].

Tell es-Sakan

[edit]
Nominator(s): Richard Nevell (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tell es-Sakan is an archaeological site consisting of two settlements effectively built one on top of the other some four centuries apart. It was the administrative centre of ancient Egyptian settlement in the southern Levant, and later a major Canaanite city. As Tell es-Sakan site is in the Gaza Strip, there is plenty to write about the modern context with conflict interrupting investigations and causing the partial destruction of the site. Since excavations ended in 2000, various factors have led to parts of the site being lost, along with evidence of life in the region 5,000 years ago.

The fact that excavations were limited to two years means that the broad brush history of the site can be presented, but the source material isn't overwhelming. Publications by the archaeologists who led the project form the bulk of the sourcing as they summarise the work, what they found, and provide regional context. I'm more familiar with medieval archaeology, so stepping into the Bronze Age was a bit different for me. Hopefully it worked in the article's favour as I've aimed to explain jargon and provide context. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Generalissima

[edit]

I'll do a spot check later, but here's some initial notes:

  • Consistent formatting of SFNs, good to see; but Cite #22 is missing a page number, and cite #38 has a p. when it should have a pp.
  • Inconsistent linking; Al-Monitor is, but AP News and Al Jazeera are not. San Francisco Community Music Center is linked, but UNESCO and Institut du Monde Arabe aren't, etc. I'd play it safe and link all publishers and news outlets.
  • Location is inconsistent. It's on a couple cites, but not most. I'd remove it personally, but just keep it consistent either way.
  • Some journals are given ISSNs, but some aren't; keep it consistent either way.
  • Some journals are given retrieved dates (but this isn't typically called for), and some websites are missing archive links
  • One link has a S2CID, while none of the others do; I'd remove this.
  • You list the book series (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis) for de Miroschedji 2012, but several other books are in similar monograph and Festschrift series; I'd remove that.
  • "UCL Press" should be UCL Press (also, link the other publishers or delink this)
  • Some foreign-language works are missing language tags
  • All foreign-language works are missing title translations; these aren't strictly needed, but would be nice to have
  • Some ISBNs are 10 digit, some are 13. I'd keep them all in 13.
  • Inconsistent title case usage; this isn't as important with the French stuff since that uses different conventions, but in general you should have all article and book titles in the same case (as always, doesn't matter as long as it's consistent)
  • Sometimes the book title is linked, sometimes its the chapter, sometimes its neither. Keep that consistent as well.

Apologies for the nitpicking; this is a great article and I'm glad to see more archaeology stuff at FAC, especially from MENA. Ping me when this stuff is resolved and I'll spot check! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: Nitpicks are appreciated - especially the reminder to include translated titles. I think these edits should take care of things. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check (fair disclosure: I don't know French, so I used machine translation for the French sources, most notably de Miroschedji et al. I've generally had good results from machine translation of French academic sources, but it may not be perfect.)

de Miroschedji et al, 2001:

  • 3: Checks out, but the later de Miroschedji & Sadeq 2005 gives a different figure (the total area covered by the ancient settlement can be tentatively estimated between 5 and 8 ha); is there a reason for the discrepancy?
  • 11 checks out (though cites are out of order here)
  • 15 checks out
  • 33a and 33b check out
  • 39 checks out

de Miroschedji & Sadeq 2005:

  • 1 checks out
  • 47, yep diagram is there

Cuddy 2023:

  • Checks out

Andreou et al. 2024:

  • 5 checks out
  • 68 checks out

Sharon 2013:

  • Checks out

UNESCO 2025:

  • Checks out

@Richard Nevell: Your fixes so far look good to me. The area discrepancy is the only one that came up for me. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took a similar approach when reading the French sources, while watching out for specialist terms that might be harder for Google to translate. Regarding the area, I opted for the figure used in Paleoreint as it is the more detailed publication. Perhaps it would be preferable to mention the wider range as well? Richard Nevell (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

Good to see more archaeology up here; will pop in at some point. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tell es-Sakan (Arabic: تل السكن, lit. 'Hill of Ash') is a tell (a mound created by accumulation of remains) about 5 kilometres (3 mi) south of Gaza City in Palestine.: I will note that this sentence will make many readers angry, but that any change to it would do the same, and therefore that I don't want to touch it with a bargepole!
  • It was the site of two separate Early Bronze Age urban settlements. It was initially an administrative centre of the Egyptian colonies in southwestern Palestine, inhabited from about 3300 BCE to 3000 BCE:
    • Firstly, a style point: can we vary "it was ... it was"?
    • Then, more importantly -- I think we need to build up more slowly here. I didn't know, for example, that Egypt had colonies in southwestern Palestine in the EBA. Setting the scene here would help. Can we say that it was built as an administrative centre, or was it an existing (non-Egyptian) settlement taken over when the Egyptians turned up? Similarly -- did the Egyptians leave before the Canaanite settlement came up?
      • I've added a sentence that Ancient Egypt had colonies in the southwestern Palestine, and set it up as the context for Tell es-Sakan's foundation. Hopefully the new wording is clear that it was a new establishment, rather than the Egyptians taking over a pre-existing settlement (unless there's something lurking under an unexplored part of the site). When you say "did the Egyptians leave before the Canaanite settlement came up", are you referring to the region or the settlement? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The region, but I think the current framing does enough for the lead -- we now have the context, the foundation, the abandonment and the refoundation put clearly together. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell es-Sakan was positioned along what was probably a palaeochannel of the Wadi Ghazzeh: a what of the what? Most people won't know what a Wadi is without help.
    I've clarified that the wadi is often dry, and added that it was different in the Bronze Age. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    a watercourse that is dry most of the year but in the Bronze Age would have been navigable: so is it now dry for most of the year but would have been (almost) always navigable in the Bronze Age? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @UndercoverClassicist: The first half is correct and I've added a bit more to tie the recently added sentence about what a wadi is back to the topic. I think the latter half is correct, and that at least matches my understanding, but the key source on the historical geography (Morhange et al. 2005) isn't that specific. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • At its discovery, Tell es-Sakan was the oldest known Egyptian fortified site, and the only known Egyptian fortified settlement beyond the Nile Valley.: I guess we're talking about the first iteration here -- do they go by different names (as Troy does: e.g. Troy II, Troy VI and Troy VIIa, which are different layers of the same site with quite different characteristics)?
  • Not exactly - it's 'the Egyptian phase' and 'the Canaanite phase' in the 2005 chapter, and 'Egyptian Sakan' and 'Canaanite Sakan' in the Paleoreint article. Stronger differentiation has been used at related sites, eg: 'En Besor III denotes the Egyptian settlement at 'En Besor, but that approach hasn't been used here. It might be clearer if I juggle the lead around. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've rearranged it a bit, but if I move that sentence earlier so that a stricter chronological order is followed, the point about Tel Erani feels like too much of a digression. That may not be a bad thing, but I thought it helpful to clarify the claim when it's first made. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The site covered around 8–9 hectares (20–22 acres), of which 1,400 square metres (15,000 sq ft): can we use consistent units here -- otherwise, people will need to look up how many sqm are in a hectare, and how many sq ft in an acre.
That works. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2017, Hamas began bulldozing part of the site: I think it would be worth briefly explaining what Hamas is.
  • I found the Topography section both very short and quite opaque. It could do with a rewrite to be more accessible to lay readers. A few specifics:
    • In the Bronze Age Tell es-Sakan was closer to the Mediterranean coast than it is today: how close is it to the sea today?
      • Sources mention the sites position in relation to Gaza, but not the coast. Even the article about the coastal change doesn't say how far the telly is from the modern coastline. I could use a map service such as Google Maps or Open Street Maps to get a measurement, but I am unsure if that is robust enough. I don't think reading a map would count as original research in this case as I'm not interpreting the features but this is new territory for me. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the general environment like -- flat or mountainous? Farmland or desert?
    • We say that it had a harbour on the Wadi Ghazzeh, but then call the latter a "stream". That suggests very small boats -- streams don't generally have estuaries.
      • I've clarified in the location section (formerly topography) that the watercourse was navigable as far as Tell es-Sakan in the Bronze Age. I've also dropped the term 'stream' as that was confusing things - it's more of a reflection of the current status. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it would be worth expanding this section under a slightly different title (e.g. "location"). This would allow you to fix the MOS:LEAD issue of basic info not being stated in the body ("Tell es-Sakan is a tell (a mound created by accumulation of remains) about 5 kilometres (3 mi) south of Gaza City in Palestine."; "Tell es-Sakan was positioned along what was probably a palaeochannel of the Wadi Ghazzeh"), and to clarify where it is in relation to other human features (settlements, ancient polities/cultural groups, etc).
      • I've overhauled the section, renaming it and adding more information. I've aimed to make the distinction between modern and historic geography clearer. More could be said about the current state of al-Zahra and its destruction during the war as that relates to the damage to the site mentioned later. I've not added it as that seems more suited to the later sections where the history is discussed, but I'm open to integrating it here if that would be useful. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the preliminary comments, I'll get started on those. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • a mound created by the accumulation the remains of consecutive settlements: of the remains, or the accumulated remains?
  • Tell es-Sakan functioned as a trading post was positioned along what was probably a dried-up channel of the Wadi Ghazzeh: similarly needs a look.
  • Finds from Tell es-Sakan have been displayed to the public at exhibitions in France and Switzerland: for concision?
  • the Hamas government began bulldozing part of the site but halted following opposition from various groups, including the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities: the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities is part of the government, so can we give any more details here about who was doing/ordered the bulldozing?
    Good edit. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:15, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is in the neighbourhood of al-Zahra: not Al-Zahra, like "El Alamein" or Al Hilal SFC?
    Happy with that -- yet another MoS page I hadn't come across. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • One such dune concealed the site of Tell es-Sakan so that its full extent is uncertain, but it covers an estimated 8–9 hectares (20–22 acres): suggest disambiguating: "One such dune concealed Tell es-Sakan so that the site's full extent is uncertain" -- is it the dune's full extent or the site's that's uncertain?
  • In the Bronze Age Tell es-Sakan was closer to the Mediterranean coast: it seems odd to only name the sea on second mention.
  • The area was a frontier between ancient Egypt and Canaan, with both inhabiting Tell es-Sakan in different stages of the city's history.: do states inhabit places -- "Britain inhabits London"? Suggest "both Egyptians and Canaanites", or "with both controlling...".
  • The excavated area referred to as 'sounding A' in the published literature covered an area of 525 square metres (5,650 sq ft): the usual form in archaeological literature, as far as I know, is to capitalise feature names that are about the size of a building or more -- this one seems to be, so "Sounding A". This isn't Wikipedia MoS, though, so I'm certainly not insisting on it here.
  • In 2013, the wall of a fortification was excavated at Tel Erani (an Egyptian settlement) and thought to be of a similar age to the fortifications at Tell es-Sakan: I'm not sure I'm seeing the relevance here -- is the wall made in a similar style, and therefore helps to demonstrate that Tell es-Sakan is indeed Egyptian? I'm sure there are plenty of fortifications in China that are of a similar age to these ones, but we wouldn't mention them here. Is it worth clarifying that Tel Erani is not in Egypt -- that might help establish the connection?
    • @UndercoverClassicist: This is perhaps straying into the realm of original research, but the sources about Tell es-Sakan emphasised that when it was discovered it was (1) oldest Egyptian fortification and (2) the only known Egyptian fortification outside of the Nile valley. The prevailing view of Tel Erani from the late 1980s seems to have been that the settlement had interactions with ancient Egypt but the fortification was not Egyptian, and in any case dated to the Early Bronze Age III (see Ciałowicz et al 2015, 15). Work at Tel Erani since 2013 has indicated the fortification is earlier, perhaps around Early Bronze Age I so a comparable date to Tell es-Sakan. The description of the site as an Egyptian trading post (eg) led me to believe that it could be characterised as an Egyptian settlement. I haven't found similar claims to those made for Tell es-Sakan but it seemed to me to be presenting a partial picture. If that's crossed over into WP:OR I'm happy to remove it. And if it's acceptable, I'll adjust the wording. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I'm still not quite getting it. Could you help me understand what talking about Tel Erani here adds to our understanding of Tell es-Sakan? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @UndercoverClassicist: Apologies for the half explanation, I should have left that until my headache cleared. In its previous position, the text was a bit of a non sequitur. I've moved it so that's it's immediately after the statement about Tell es-Sakan being the oldest Egyptian fortification and the only one beyond the Nile valley. And the text now clarifies that Tel Erani is in modern Israel which makes the relevance clearer, as it's a culturally ancient Egyptian site beyond the Nile valley. The idea of mentioning Tel Erani is to contextualise the claim that Tell es-Sakan is the oldest Egyptian fortification and the only one beyond the Nile valley. If it doesn't work where it is now, it's worth excising. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It just occurred to me that this might be something to move to the 'Discovery and investigation' section, so I'll take a look at that. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The accidental exposure of the Early Bronze Age site: we should actually say, in the body, how this happened -- it becomes obvious soon enough that it was during construction work, but the reader has to piece that together.
  • some of the buildings had hearths and brick-built silos – the latter is typical of ancient Egyptian architecture.: silos is plural, so the latter are.
  • The finds associated with the first city were mostly (90%–95%) Egyptian in style: my hat off to the excavators for being able to style-categorise 95% of their finds -- including the animal bones and the tiny bits of coarse pottery? Either these people are very clever or we're missing a caveat here.
    • The 2005 source just says the assemblage, while the Paleorient articles specifies that this figure is for the pottery so I've made that clear. Interestingly, it seems even the stone objects (eg: pestles and millstones) were imported from Egypt which hadn't occurred to me before as something worth mentioning but I may do so. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sherds of pottery bearing serekhs were also recovered: MOS:NOFORCELINK: what's a serekh and why should we be interested in it?
  • An observation: I can understand why, but the sectioning is currently a bit awkward -- we have a section for "Discovery and investigation", but end up discussing a lot of that in the "History" section. It may be difficult to avoid, but I would suggest, as far as possible, limiting the "History" section to statements about what it was like in the Bronze Age, and the 'Discovery" section to comments about what modern archaeologists did there. Of course, there's going to be difficulties when (for example) archaeologists only discovered part of something, or disagree as to what it is, but I think some improvements can be made here.
    • I'm still pondering how to go about this, mostly as it may make referencing the 'Soundings' tricky as I don't want to introduce a term most readers won't be familiar with before it's explained. On the other hand the 'Soundings' aren't mentioned very often so it might be a matter of removing the references. In any case, I'll get to this. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could do an explanatory footnote on first mention? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a good approach to me. I've had a go at shifting the text around. The history section still talks a lot about the interpretation, but I think that's where it fits best. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @UndercoverClassicist: adding this message just in case the above got overlooked as I didn't ping you initially. Richard Nevell (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That last one is a fairly big job, so I'll stop here to give you a chance to have a look at this batch. I'm enjoying the article greatly: it's clearly explained and obviously knows its stuff. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is on my list to get back to -- I'll endeavour to continue soonest. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 1: Three trenches were excavated referred to as 'Soundings' in the archaeological reports.. Something's not quite right with the grammar here.
  • as well as fish bones and shells: suggest shells and fish bones, as fish don't have shells.
  • The pottery associated with the first city were mostly (90%–95%) Egyptian in style: we need agreement of number here: either the pottery was or the pottery fragments were, or similar. Suggest "identifiable pottery fragments" or similar, since the vast majority of potsherds you usually find on a dig aren't meaningfully identifiable.
  • Sherds of pottery bearing serekhs from wine jars were also recovered from the Egyptian phase of the site including one that may feature the name of Pharaoh Narmer who established the Egyptian First Dynasty. . This is a long sentence and it wanders off a little -- suggest a rework.
  • Tell es-Sakan and the much smaller settlement at En Besor were part of an area of permanent Egyptian settlement. Extending north along the coast were areas of Egyptian influence ... Taur Ikhbeineh was a nearby ancient Egyptian settlement -- ancient seems odd here, when we've been talking about Egyptians at length.
  • an Egyptian fortified settlement recorded in the First Dynasty period: when was that?
  • Note 30 (de Miroschedji et al. 2001, p. 80 (see chart) needs to end in a full stop. Which chart?
    • As I started expanding the note, I realised the the separate footnote that follows conveys the important information about periodisation. There's a chart in the cited source which shows Tell es-Sakan's phasing against the typical periodisation for the Levant and Egypt, but I don't think it needs to be stated again, so I've removed the (see chart) note. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • excavated area referred to as 'Sounding A' in the published literature: this and similar should have double quotes.

Sourcing: we are, perhaps inevitably, heavily reliant on the primary publications of the exacavations. This isn't a problem, in my view, though it would be nice if we had some secondary treatments, which are more likely to have the sort of balance of detail we would want. Where news sources are cited, they seem to be reputable publications and are being used for things where their use is completely defensible.

That's my lot for now -- I'll come back and do some spotchecks later on. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks
[edit]

OK, as promised/threatened:

  • When Tell es-Sakan was rediscovered, the area was fertile and used agriculturally. The landscape includes a line of lithified sand dunes consisting of kurkar. One such dune concealed Tell es-Sakan so that the site's full extent is uncertain, but it covers an estimated 8–9 hectares (20–22 acres). (note 4). This all checks, except that the source only says that the area is suitable for agricultural use (propice au développement de l'élevage, de l'agriculture et de l'horticulture: given where it is, there are good reasons why good farmland might not actually have farmers working on it). This could do with a small rephrase or another source, if felt massively important.
  • Note 15: all checks, though you may wish to nuance Remains of sheep, goat and cattle were discovered to add that most of the remains are the former two, while a small fraction are pigs, but (probably) only in the Egyptian phase, which may be interesting given that people in the region generally don't eat them nowadays. archaeo-zoology -- usually zooarchaeology, I think, or at least drop the hyphen.
  • Note 20: Though no single structure was fully excavated, some of the buildings had hearths and brick-built silos – the latter are typical of ancient Egyptian architecture. One building also had a feature that may be a bread oven.. "No single structure" needs habitation or domestic added to it ( aucune habitation n'a pu être entièrement dégagée). Being very pedantic, the author states that the silos are of a type (brick-built, circular, approx. 2m diameter, abutting the wall of a dwelling) which is common in Egpyt, not that brick-built silos writ large are typically Egyptian. We probably don't need all of that detail, but "of a type typical of Egyptian architecture" might be better.
    What was the thinking behind the "not exclusive to Egypt" part -- surely it's defensible and more compelling to point out that this style of silo is distinctively Egyptian? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to note that silos aren't just an Egyptian thing, but it wasn't really working. I've opted for the wording you initially suggested. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 63: In 2013, the wall of a fortification was excavated at Tel Erani – an Egyptian settlement north-east of Tell es-Sakan and located in modern-day Israel – which was thought to be of a similar age to the fortifications at Tell es-Sakan: I'm not sure I see any of this directly stated on the cited pages: could you point me to what you're basing it on?
    • Footnote 20, the text of which is on page 1014, says The Israeli-Polish mission that resumed the excavations at Tel Erani in 2013 uncovered a short segment of a 9 m thick mudbrick wall and proposed dating it to the same period as Sakan 7-6" ("La mission israélo-polonaise qui a repris en 2013 les fouilles de Tel Erani a mis au jour un court segment d’une muraille en brique crue de 9 m d’épaisseur et proposé de la dater de la même époque que Sakan 7-6"). In the referenced publication, Sakan 7-6 refers to the second phase of the construction of the first fortification, and the rebuilt wall. The footnote provides supplementary information to the statement that "These fortifications [at Tell es-Sakan] are among the oldest known in the Levant" ("Ces fortifications comptent parmi les plus anciennes connues au Levant"). On page 1007, Tel Erani is described as an Egyptian settlement. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah -- must have missed that. Suggest amending the cite to "p. 1014; p. 1017, n. 20" (use the |at= parameter instead of |page=) UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done, along with amending the pages numbers as footnote 20 spans three pages and if a reader is looking for the start it's not on the page where the information supporting the statement is. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 62e: the Hamas government's Land Authority began to bulldoze the site to utilise the land as compensation for some of its senior employees: might be worth clarifying that this was for Hamas's senior employees, not the Land Authority's. It's pretty clear that the 1.2 hectares figure is an understatement: the source says his ministry could not stop the more powerful Land Authority from destroying another 1.2 hectares (that is, after whatever was destroyed before the pause was granted), so "over", "more than" etc would be in order here. The rest checks.

All sorted, so happy to support. A scholarly piece of work indeed, and all the more timely with recent events. Very impressive. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:40, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: Thank you for the support (I've addressed the silo question above, using the wording you suggested). Your input has been immensely helpful. It was an interesting exercise putting this article together, and a little selfishly the review was a good chance to refresh my writing skills. Thinking in-depth about the wording with guidance from others is a useful process. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was a pleasure -- I'm glad the process was useful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim

[edit]

I did the GA review, and having checked the changes since that version, I'm happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jimfbleak, and for input in the GA review as well. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eaasternsahara

[edit]
  • File:موقع تل السكن الأثري.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Location map Palestine Gaza Strip.png - CC BY-SA 2.5
  • File:Palestine location map wide.png - CC BY-SA 3.0
  • File:The frontier of Egypt in the Early Bronze Age - preliminary soundings at Tell es-Sakan (Gaza Strip), fig 19.6.png - CC BY 4.0
  • File:Figurine de grenouille - Trésors sauvés de Gaza.jpg - CC BY 4.0
  • File:Manche de poignard à décor géométrique incisé - Trésors sauvés de Gaza.jpg - CC BY 4.0
  • File:Inti, siege scene.jpg - PD
  • File:The frontier of Egypt in the Early Bronze Age - preliminary soundings at Tell es-Sakan (Gaza Strip), fig 19.3.png - CC BY 4.0
  • File:New investigations in Gaza's heritage landscapes - the Gaza Maritime Archaeology Project (GAZAMAP), figure 6.png - CC BY 4.0
  • File:YouTube 2024.svg - PD
  • File:The Location of the Canaanite hill 3500 BC 4.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • Images are appropriate, related and good quality; they enhance the article
  • The alt text is very good and detailed. There were some minor mistakes like spelling and sentence fragments but I fixed it. Image review pass and support

FM

[edit]
  • First Dynasty of Egypt is WP:duplinked twice in the same paragraph.
  • The two images under create some WP:image sandwiching due to the infobox interfering. Perhaps the first image in the section can be left aligned at the top of the section, and the lower image right aligned?
  • I had a vague recollection that aligning left under subsection headings was discouraged but I'll be damned if I can find that anywhere. I've swapped the image alignments so that the trench photo is on the left and the frog is on the right. Does that solve the sandwiching for you? On a related note, does the amount of sandwiching change when different maps are toggled in the infobox? When all maps are displayed, the new arrangement ends up with text sandwiched between the infobox and first image. (This may get solved if I remove one of the maps from the infobox.) Richard Nevell (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems fine now. FunkMonk (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tell es-Sakan (State of Palestine)" Kind of ambiguous wording, could be clearer as "within the State of Palestine" or similar.
I noticed that some articles have multiple maps that can be toggled between in the infobox. I thought this would be a useful feature as the map of the whole of Palestine is very zoomed out and the map of the Gaza Strip might help. It's bugged me for a little while that the map of the Gaza Strip was largely illegible and if you click on it to get a better look the pin disappears. Thinking about it some more, I don't think it's helpful so I've removed the map showing the Strip. That means I can the caption for the other map as I couldn't find anything in the infobox documentation about having two captions for the toggle-able maps.
Regarding the caption itself, I've gone for "Tell es-Sakan within Palestine" as that's consistent with the Palestine article. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shown within Gaza Strip" Why not the more common definite "the" Gaza Strip?
  • In general it seems a lot of terms need to be linked at first mention. On a related note, everything linked in the intro should also be linked in the article body.
  • Link Wadi Ghazzeh.
  • Link fossilised?
  • Link Bronze Age.
  • "frontier between ancient Egypt and Canaan" link these places.
  • Link Nile Valley.
  • "of the portable material culture was produced locally, emulating Egyptian styles of material culture" I wonder if the last "material culture" goes without saying, seems repetitive.
  • "was a nearby ancient Egyptian settlement" elsewhere you just say Egyptian.
    • @FunkMonk: Do you mean that when Tel Erani is mentioned in the lead it is just described as Egyptian (which I've now changed)? Or that the article is not consistent between ancient Egyptian and Egyptian? The latter is certainly true. My thinking is that it needs to be clarified that this period relates to ancient Egypt, but after the first occasion 'ancient' can be dropped to make the text a little less clunky. If it should be consistent, I'd probably go in the direction of dropping 'ancient', and would welcome your opinion on what works. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my issue is that you're inconsistent in whether you drop "ancient" or not, it seems kind of random, as it does return some times after first mention in the article body, but other times not. FunkMonk (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from this area were Canaan in style" Canaanite in style?
  • "De Miroscheji and Sadeq who described Tell es-Sakan as having "both a strong local particularism and close ties with the sites of inner Canaan"." I don't think "who" is needed.
  • Link levant.
  • "Animal bones found at Tell es-Sakan show that the consumption of pigs ceased during the Canaanite settlement, in contrast to the Egyptian settlement" any speculation as to why? Religious reasons?
    • That's a very good question. As it's likely to be a question readers have since that point of difference has been highlighted I've added the following quote from the source: The reasons for this shift are uncertain but it may reflect a change in cultural dietary preferences following the break in Egyptian occupation. Alternatively, it could be related to broader economic trends. I decided to quote directly rather than paraphrase as I thought the explanation would require a level of detail that would bring it close to the source.

      There is a common line of thinking that a site without pig bones is indicative of a Canaan presence, but that seems to framed around the Iron Age rather than the Bronze Age, and more recently is if not disputed then the situation is more nuanced. So I'll leave out that extra bit as perhaps a bit off tangent. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Palestinian Authority.
  • Could link palestinians.
  • Link tell (archaeology) in the article body as well, could explain what it is in parenthesis again in the article body (the intro should not have unique info).
    • Link added. Tell was previously explained in the 'Discovery and investigation' but that seemed far too late on, so the 'Location section' now notes that A tell is a mound created by layers upon layers of human occupation on a site over an extended period. It's not identical to the lead, but had the same intention, but I need to revise the wording as pointed out by UC above. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was the first archaeological site discovered in Gaza to that dates from the end" what is the "to" for?
  • Link Israeli occupation.
  • "The Second Intifada, a Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation" Give the year.
  • "into the southwestern Palestine" is "the" needed?
  • "Tell es-Sakan functioned as a trading post was positioned along " missing "and" before "functioned"?
  • "A fortification of a potentially similar age was found at the ancient Egyptian settlement of Tel Erani in 2013." You only give the year in the intro.
  • "the Hamas government began bulldozing part of the site" probably important to note even in the intro that this was for building projects, as some might assume ISIL-like iconoclasm.

Ceoil

[edit]

By coincidence went down a wiki rabbit hole reading about Tells about a month ago. And now this. The article is fascinating and espically clear and well written and understandable. Am making light changes as I read through, so this is a placeholder for now. I see professional archaeologists debating above, so will restrict my comments to prose only, unless something glaring or obtuse pops up. Ceoil (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems overly dependent on de Miroschedji et al. 2001, which is cited 19 times out of a total of 78 inline citations. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's by far the most detailed report on the excavations. The 2005 chapter by de Miroschedji and Sadeq contains some similar material but doesn't go into the same depth. Though Tell es-Sakan is mentioned in some other sources, they are typically summarising what de Miroschedji et al found rather than adding new interpretation. So certainly dependant, though I hope with justification. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks...has the report received many reviews/commentray? But anyway, was very much facinated as I read through, hope no edits were annoying or changed meaning. The article is very clearly written and accessible to laymen, and from time on google scholar and JSTOR spotted no gaps and it seems comprehensive. Support. Ceoil (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the copy edits and of course support, Ceoil, all appreciated. It's great to hear that it's clear and accessible as I had that in mind throughout. The report hasn't received commentary as such, from what I've observed the findings have been accepted and integrated into discussions of the region. This is in contrast to sites with a very long excavation history such as ancient Jericho where interpretations are discussed at length. Richard Nevell (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "After a period of abandonment a Canaanite city was established around 2600 BCE and inhabited until about 2250 BCE." Optional: add 'after which it was permanently abandoned'?
  • Cite 69 has a p/pp error.
  • "a watercourse that is dry most of the year but in the Bronze Age would have been navigable." This leaves me a little confused as to whether the wadi was navigable all year round back then.
    • The ambiguity is somewhat intentional since the source isn't clear, it just says navigable. If I had to guess, based on my reading of Morhange et al 2005 I would say that it probably started off navigable all year and became less reliable in the latter half of the 3rd millennium BCE. But that level of detail is beyond what the source outright says. Unfortunately, I haven't found another source that addresses the Bronze Age watercourse and Tell es-Sakan. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At its discovery, Tell es-Sakan was ..." Do we get told when it was discovered? :-) It seems odd that we have to wait until the next paragraph to find out.
  • "due to the start of the Second Intifada." I think this needs supplementing with or replacing by a brief in line explanation, what with MOS:NOFORCELINK saying "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links."
  • "The landscape includes a line of lithified sand dunes consisting of kurkar." Any chance of recasting this into something a little more generally understandable? And the landscape includes a (single?!) line of sand dunes; I struggle to visualise a single line of multiple dunes.
Sadly, I still don't see "The landscape includes lithified sand dunes consisting of kurkar." passing on much information to most readers. And aren't "lithified sand dunes" and "consisting of kurkar" saying the same thing? Maybe something like "The landscape includes ancient sand dunes which have turned into rock, or lithified"?
@Gog the Mild: There is a bit of redundancy there, which was no mean feat in such a brief sentence! It was meant to explain what kurkar is, but perhaps I'm over complicating it and the specialist term doesn't need to be included here, not least because it's not used elsewhere in the article. In which case you're proposed wording works nicely so I've added it in. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed that it was "obviously" grain, but not thought that it would be so difficult to prove it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The exceptional use of fortifications". "The" makes it sound as if this has already been covered, which it hasn't. Maybe 'Tell es-Sakan was exceptional in possessing fortifications, which may indicate that it was especially important in the region' or similar?
  • "It functioned as a trading post". Is this known, or just hypothesised?
    • I rechecked the source and it's put as a statement based on the evidence, stronger than a hypothesis. ("Il s’agit donc clairement d’une colonie égyptienne établie en terre étrangère – non pas une colonie de peuplement, mais un comptoir permanent destiné à assurer l’exploitation économique d’un territoire." With the help of Google Translate: "It was therefore clearly an Egyptian colony established in a foreign land – not a colony of settlement, but a permanent trading post intended to ensure the economic exploitation of a territory.") I'd be open to watering it down slightly, perhaps "the evidence indicates that Tell es-Sakan was involved in trade and functioned as a trading post", but my preference would be not to as it does not appear to be a point contested by other archaeologists. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources support your wording, so by all means leave it. I was just checking. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wheat, barley, vegetables, olives, and grapes were cultivated." No legumes nor figs?
    • They were also present, so I've added them in. The three fruits mentioned in the archaeobotany report are listed, while 'cereals' and 'legumes' each cover multiple species but I figured the groupings would be enough detail. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Five levels of occupation have been found lasting about three centuries." Would it be possible to, somewhere in the article, explain what a "level" is, how one is recognised and/or how one is formed?
    • The short answer is: yes. I'll have a think about the wording. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gog the Mild: After some pondering I've removed this statement. The key information is that habitation spanned about three centuries, but that's clear from the heading and the date range is given in the body. The number of layers isn't especially important on its own as the reader has no way of knowing if that's a lot or not many and what the significance is. That text was a hold-over from the 2021 version of the article, and I didn't add that there are four main levels in the Egyptian city because again the number isn't as illustrative as the date range. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good!
  • "The French archaeologist Pierre de Miroschedji hypothesised that ..." Why is de Miroschedji being reintroduced at his fourth mention? And yet again in the next section.
    • I've trimmed the quoted bit as that didn't need a reintroduction. I think it was a holdover from an earlier version of the article where de Miroschedji wasn't mentioned as early on. De Miroschedji and Sadeq are both reintroduced in the 'Discovery and investigation' section. My thinking here was that as this section is details how the excavations came about and the international nature of the collaboration having a bit more detail on those two would be useful context and I don't think it would work as well introducing that information in one of the earlier sections. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another nearby site, al-Moghraqa, was occupied during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages." Any chance of a mention of how long ago that was/what time span BCE?
  • "In 2013, the wall of a fortification was excavated at Tel Erani – an ancient Egyptian settlement north-east of Tell es-Sakan and located in modern-day Israel – and thought to be of a similar age to the fortifications at Tell es-Sakan." I think "and" → 'which was' works better.

A nice, tight article. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your responses all look fine so far. I make it just 3 more of my comments for you to respond to before I support. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Richard, just one come back from me on the lithification issue. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Beyoncé

[edit]
Nominator(s): 750h+ 07:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most influential musicians in music history—Beyoncé Knowles. You've definitely heard her name—whether it be through her work with Destiny's Child, her 2008 hit "Single Ladies", or through her recent country hit "Texas Hold 'Em", you know who she is. She has become a cultural icon of the 21st century, being cited as a major influence on artists such as Taylor Swift, Ariana Grande, and Adele.

I recently saved this article at its good article reassessment, taking the article down from 14.5k to 11k. Medxvo gave some of this article a nice revamp, while Z1720 took this article down even lower, to 9k words, both for which I am very grateful; much thanks to SNUGGUMS for giving some suggestions to the article too. This article underwent a fruitful peer review by Vacant0 and Pokelego999 also for which I am very grateful. Also grateful for ImaginesTigers, who indicated their willingness to potentially comment on this FAC.

Following analysation of high-quality biography FAs such as Cher, Taylor Swift, and Vince Gill, I believe this article is similar in quality to most, if not all of those articles. If successful this will be my eleventh featured article, and my third FA on a person. 750h+ 07:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

@750h+: I'll do the image review, here'll be my comments! Arconning (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arconning: much thanks, have i addressed these? 750h+ 09:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Passing image review :) Arconning (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
much thanks! 750h+ 09:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Beyoncé - Tottenham Hotspur Stadium - 1st June 2023 (10 of 118) (52946364598) (best crop).jpg - CC BY 2.0
  • File:Beyoncé autograph.svg - Public Domain
  • File:Destiny's Child Tour (cropped 2).jpg - CC BY 3.0
  • File:Beyonce Baby Boy Dancing.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Beyonce.jpg - Public Domain
  • File:Beyonce in Vienna.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Beyonce (New York).jpg - CC BY 2.0
  • File:The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour London (1).jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:FWT10.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Beyoncé at The Lion King European Premiere 2019.png - CC BY 3.0
  • File:Beyoncé - Tottenham Hotspur Stadium - 1st June 2023 (71 of 118) (52945301662) (face cropped).jpg - CC BY 2.0
  • File:Michael Jackson in 1988.jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0, source link needs to be fixed for verifiability
  • File:Tina turner 21021985 01 350.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Beyoncé Knowles GMA Run the World.jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0, source link needs to be fixed
  • File:Beyonce Dreamgirls cropped.jpg - CC BY 2.0, source link needs to be fixed
  • File:Beyoncé - Pavilhão Atlântico.jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0, license is now different so an archived version of the source link should be used
  • File:Leona Lewis and Beyoncé at Madame Tussauds London (12329409795) (cropped).jpg - CC BY 2.0
  • File:BeyoncéKnowlesAAFeb09.jpg - CC BY 3.0
  • File:Beyonce in Vancouver 2.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Beyoncé Cosmetology Center 2 (cropped).jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0
  • All of the images use alt-text for accessibility, captioning is alright.

Recuse Source review: new Source review editor needed

[edit]

I'm offering to look at and do the source review, which I'm also placing next to the image review done by another editor in this FAC. As a first step to this article with over 600 citations in the current version, I'm noticing that there appear to be at least 14 dead-links in the current article which will need to be addressed before a more thorough semi random quality check of the full citation list can be performed. For example: {{cite news|last=Farber|first=Jim|title=Beyoncé Shows 'Fierce' and Softer Sides in Tour Kickoff at the Garden|url=http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-06-22/entertainment/17925311_1_fierce-character-tour|newspaper=[[New York Daily News]]|date=June 21, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110311022417/http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-06-22/entertainment/17925311_1_fierce-character-tour|archive-date=March 11, 2011|url-status=dead}}. All of these 14 or more dead url notices need to repaired first for the source review to continue. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: From what i know, links can stay as long as they have an archived source next to it right? i did use archive bot and it did fix two poorly formatted MTV sources, but other than those two i don't think there's a single "dead" link in the article that isn't is supported by an archived source through the Wayback Machine or GhostArchive next to it. 750h+ 04:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the policy you are stating and any article going to FAC is generally assumed to have no dead urls, which means I'll likely need to recuse myself from doing this source review. I've given you dead url above using nowiki, however, it still looks like you are keeping it in the article, along with over a dozen other dead urls. Here is another example which is still in the Beyonce article as a dead url which you did not take out of the article or replace: {{cite news|last=Totilo|first=Stephen|url=http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1607344/beyonce-promotes-nintendo-game-admits-weakness-super-mario.jhtml|title=Beyoncé Promotes Nintendo Game, Admits Weakness for 'Super Mario'|publisher=MTV News|date=March 19, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110624084152/http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1607344/beyonce-promotes-nintendo-game-admits-weakness-super-mario.jhtml|archive-date=June 24, 2011|url-status=dead}}. To my understanding, all dead urls in a FAC nomination should either be replaced or removed. The article currently prints out as still having over a dozen dead urls in it which were not removed after I sent you the notification yesterday. Note to another editor who will need to take over this source review since I'm now recused, that the dead url's are scattered throughout the article and that there are over a dozen of them at this time as being unresolved. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ErnestKrause i’m just a bit confused here as all “dead links” have archive-urls next to them; even the ones you pointed out, which from what I know is allowed (I’ve seen several nominations pass with this format). However, since you have recused, we’ll see what another reviewer says. 750h+ 15:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator comment: ErnestKrause, there's no FAC requirement that an "FAC is generally assumed to have no dead urls" so long as they're verifiable through working archived URLs (which seems to be the case here). I remember you brought this up in one of my own FACs a while ago so I thought I'd clarify this. FrB.TG (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
EpicGenius has gone ahead with the source review below and is keeping the article with the links as they are. My comment above was more from the past experience of seeing other editors often using and adding cite tags to flag inactive urls. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

[edit]

Will do a thorough prose review as promised. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've already read through some parts of the article during the PR review and it seems like some issues were addressed by now, so I'll most likely won't find too many errors.
  • "He reduced the group's lineup to four members" – do we know why?
    • no unfortunately
  • "as a result of her pregnancy" – maybe change it to second pregnancy?
    • done
  • "which sparked criticism due to the United Arab Emirates' laws criminalizing homosexuality" – did she respond to the criticism?
  • "American roots music" could you wikilink this?
    • done
  • I did not find more issues beyond these ones in the article. It seems to be well-written and comprehensive. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Lead
  • “She later explored electronic on Beyoncé (2013)”→ “She later explored electronic music on Beyoncé (2013)”

(“Electronic” needs a noun.)

1981–2001
  • “a failure Beyoncé attributed the failure to a poor song choice.”

Redundant phrasing (“failure … the failure”)

  • “the lattermost also reaching number one.”

(“Lattermost” is nonstandard in modern usage.)

2002-2007
  • ...both reached the top-five.

(“top five” (no hyphen when used as a noun)

2008-2009
  • “more uptempo beats” → “uptempo beats”

("More uptempo" is redundant; "uptempo" already implies degree.)

  • “achieved the accomplishment of becoming” → “became”
2010-2012
  • Her nine-month mincluded travel to several to European cities…
    • “mincluded” is a typo
    • “to several to European cities” is grammatically incorrect
  • “and attended museum exhibitions and ballet performances.”

(Sentence structure is inconsistent; “attended” lacks a subject unless preceded by “she”.)

2015-2017
  • “making Beyoncé the first artist in Billboard history to have their first six studio albums debut at number one.”

(Agreement error — "artist" is singular, “their” is plural.)

2018-2021
  • peaked number one on the Billboard Hot 100→ peaked at number one on the Billboard Hot 100

(Missing preposition)

  • “…making her the most-awarded singer and female artist in Grammy history, and the second most-awarded individual overall.”

(“Singer” and “female artist” are overlapping; one is redundant.)

2022-present
  • "brought total up to thirty-two"→brought her total up to thirty-two

MSincccc (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc: all done with quickness; as for the concern with "(“Singer” and “female artist” are overlapping; one is redundant.)", i've changed "artist" to "individual" to prevent overlapping. 750h+ 13:34, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also "electronic" is a genre, so it can stay singular, similar to hip hop. 750h+ 13:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+ (hope I'm not being rude by butting in) I would agree with MSincccc that "electronic music" is the more natural phrase here. It's much more commonplace to use the phrase "hip hop" as a standalone word than it is to use just the phrase "electronic" to refer to the music genre. On pages for prominent electronic artists like Aphex Twin, Daft Punk and Kraftwerk, the phrase "electronic" is basically never used as a standalone noun in the body text. ALittleClass (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Public image
  • Critics have frequently described Beyoncé as a symbol of sex appeal symbol of sex appeal→sex symbol
  • "music journalist" could be linked to the article Music journalism.
  • In 2007, Beyoncé became→In 2007, she became
  • Beyoncé has been nicknamed "Queen Bey" by media publications.→Beyoncé has been nicknamed "Queen Bey" by the media.
  • Do we really need these two details in particular:
    • ...the "Hottest Female Singer of All Time" by Complex in 2012.
    • VH1 listed her at number one on its 2013 list of the "100 Sexiest Artists".
Wealth
  • between June 2007 to June 2008

→ between June 2007 "and" June 2008

  • She was listed as the Forbes third highest-paid musician of the 2010s, earning $685 million. The definite article "the" should be dropped from this sentence.
    • Consider trimming year-by-year earnings detail—retain major highlights only (e.g. 2014’s $115 million, or her 2010s decade ranking), and remove repetitive annual mentions.
  • Condense Celebrity 100 placements—keep only the most notable (e.g. number one in 2014), and remove lower placements like fourth in 2008 or 2009.
  • For Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s earnings, consider noting just one significant joint ranking (e.g. 2012) and their billionaire milestone, rather than listing each year’s figures.
Legacy
  • Combine Rolling Stone, AP, and NPR mentions with Billboard's 2024 title for a tighter opening.
General
@MSincccc: much thanks for the review and thanks for noticing the grammar mistakes, highly appreciated! i've addressed those comments, but just a few things:
  • for your point in which you said "Do we really need these two details in particular", these both notable and known publications placing her atop their women's sex appeal list, i could probably include several publications but there's only four; this somewhat furthers on the earlier sentence "Beyoncé has been described by critics as having sex appeal."
  • on your suggestion to condense the forbes celebrity 100 placements, while i understand the need for conciseness i'd argue that being ranked fourth is still EXTREMELY high. it means that forbes considered her the fourth most powerful celebrity in those years, which very significant and worth noting.
  • as for your concern where you say "Combine Rolling Stone, AP, and NPR mentions with Billboard's 2024 title for a tighter opening.", i see them as having different purposes: AP, Rolling Stone and NPR rank her as one of the most influential artists in history, while Billboard lists her as the greatest star of the 21st century; these are both quite different categories.
  • the article surprisingly isn't overcategoried and all of the categories belong; artists of this level of impact generally have a significant number of categories due to the scope of their work (eg Cher, Taylor Swift, Michael Jackson, John Lennon, Lady Gaga, etc)
750h+ 03:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Achievements
  • You could use "she" rather than using "Beyoncé" repeatedly in the first paragraph.
  • She set the record for the most Grammy awards won by a female artist in one night in 2010 with six awards.
    • awards→Awards
Politics
  • She held a fundraiser for President Obama's 2012 presidential campaign... Obama is already described as "President" in the previous sentence.
  • "Beyoncé, former Destiny's Child bandmate Kelly Rowland, and her mother Tina Knowles"

→"Beyoncé, her mother Tina Knowles, and former Destiny's Child bandmate Kelly Rowland" (Avoids ambiguity)

Fashion lines
  • "parterned" → "partnered"

(typo)

  • "for back-to-school selling"

 → "for the back-to-school season." (Minor suggestion)

  • Following allegations that Topshop owner Philip Green had sexually harassed, bullied, and racially abused employees, Beyoncé bought out his stake in the company.
    • It implies Green personally held the stake, whereas in reality, his company held the 50% share in Ivy Park.
  • That's all from me for now. The prose is engaging and comprehensive, though a few trims would be beneficial. As it stands, you’re more knowledgeable—I’m not an expert on the topic. MSincccc (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MSincccc: thank you so so much for this review, very detailed and i am very appreciative! 750h+ 10:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MSincccc (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medxvo

[edit]
  • "philanthropist / producer / director" are included in the infobox although they do not appear in the lead, they should be removed per template instructions
  • "forming management company Parkwood Entertainment" - "the" is probably missing before "management"
  • "Americana epic Cowboy Carter" has an MOS:SEAOFBLUE issue. I would replace "epic" with "record" (also epic as a narrative genre does not appear in the article prose)
  • "Beyoncé met LaTavia Roberson" - I suggest "Beyoncé met singer LaTavia Roberson" for clarity
  • "separated apartments" - "separated" or "separate"?
  • I suggest linking opening act
  • "achieved multi-platinum status" - "achieved multi-platinum status in the United States" is more explicitly stated in the source, or you could add this source which additionally confirms that it achieved multi-platinum status in several countries, not just the U.S.
  • For consistency with other releases, I would include the release month for Destiny's Child (February 1998) and The Writing's on the Wall (July 1999), not just the year
  • "MTV made-for-television film" - an MTV wikilink would be helpful
  • "it debuted at number one on the Billboard 200, selling 663,000 copies in its first week" - would be helpful to indicate that this is a U.S. chart, i.e., "on the U.S. Billboard 200"
  • I would remove the Foxxy Cleopatra wikilink since it redirects to the film page
  • "Destiny's Child embarked on a global concert tour" - The year would be relevant here, i.e., "In 2005, Destiny's Child embarked..."
  • "released their first compilation album, #1's, in October" - in October of which year?
  • "debuted at number one on the Billboard 200 chart, selling 541,000 copies in its first week, making it her second consecutive..." - I suggest "debuted at number one on the Billboard 200 chart with 541,000 copies sold in its first week, marking her second consecutive..."
  • "fifth number one on U.S. Billboard Hot 100" - Not sure if we need to introduce the Hot 100 as a U.S. chart for a second time
  • "Rotten Tomatoes' consensus calling this" - why "this" not "it"?
  • "breaking a record she previously tied in 2004 for the most Grammy awards won in a single night by a female artist with six" - please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think this means that she won six awards in 2004 not five, which is wrong?
  • "..."Best Thing I Never Had", "Love on Top"—reached" - "and" is missing before "Love On Top"
  • "called On the Run Tour" - "called the On the Run Tour"
  • The Formation World Tour part seems out of place, because the tour chronologically began after the album's release not after the release of "Formation"
  • "Song for the Year for "Formation" - typo, "Song of the Year"
  • An Eminem wikilink is missing
  • II Most Wanted is missing quotation marks
  • "called her as a" - no need for "as"
  • "attract less comments" - "fewer comments"?
  • "The couple made it into the previous year's" - the preceding sentence presently mentions two different years
  • I suggest merging the duplicate refs (189, 507), (226, 561), (340, 512), (343, 504), (387, 505), (439, 440), (498, 514)

I think that's all. Thank you for the ping and for your work on the article! Medxvo (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Medxvo: much thanks for the review! i've fixed all of these. 750h+ 04:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Medxvo (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you!! 750h+ 10:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source reviews (EG and ImaginesTigers) - pass

[edit]

I will conduct a source review. There are 670 refs so I will not conduct a full spotcheck, but I will select 20 (about 3%) for examination later.

Formatting as of this version:

  • While I respect Ernest's source review, I will have to disagree that dead links already accompanied by an |archive-url= parameter need to be fixed. I do not recommend that any action be taken on this.
  • Some sources (e.g. Billboard, Wall Street Journal) have ISSNs and some (e.g. NY Times) do not. These should be formatted consistently so that they either all have ISSNs, or none do.
  • Some sources have |url-access=subscription parameters, while others that are paywalled do not. These should be formatted consistently, too.
  • For some sources like Forbes, the |work= parameter is sometimes linked, and sometimes it's not (see, for example, refs 481, 483, 485 of this version). There are three options here: link the "work" parameter for all citation from a specific publication; link this parameter only in the first citation from that publication; or don't link this parameter at all.
  • Ref 429 is the only reference that uses a location parameter. I suggest removing it for consistency.
  • For ref 448, the |work= parameter should be Rolling Stone, not rollingstone.com.
  • Ref 582 uses a |url-status= parameter but has no archive url.
  • What makes the following sources reliable:
    • Any of the Rolling Stone sources (I know that WP:ROLLINGSTONE says that this is reliable for culture, but not for society. Can we confirm that all of these are related to culture?)
    • Ref 297: MacNeill, Kyle (February 23, 2023). "Inside the Secret Shady World of Corporate Concerts". Vice.
    • Ref 311: Hunt, El (March 28, 2024). "Why we shouldn't be surprised that Beyoncé is going country". London Evening Standard.
    • Ref 317: Bell, Crystal (December 23, 2024). "Beyoncé's Christmas Halftime Show on Netflix: Everything You Need to Know". Mashable.
    • Ref 385-4: Getahun, Hannah (April 1, 2024). "'Act III' Will Be Beyoncé's Next Album: Here Are the 4 Genres the Beyhive Thinks It Could Be". Business Insider.
    • Ref 435: Donn, Emily (March 18, 2017). "How La La Land Helped Live-Action Beauty and the Beast Remake". Screen Rant.
    • Ref 450: George, Kat (March 18, 2016). "What I Learned About Style From Destiny's Child's "Bootylicious"". Vice. Retrieved June 8, 2025.
    • Ref 451: Alao, Lola Christina (May 3, 2024). "Beyoncé Added to New Edition of French Dictionary". London Evening Standard.
    • Ref 521: Fletcher, Harry (March 20, 2018). "10 Feminist Icons in Music". London Evening Standard.
    • Ref 651: Friel, Mikhaila (August 28, 2021). "Beyoncé Is Facing Backlash for Promoting a 'Blood Diamond' Necklace in a Tiffany Campaign That Celebrates Her Being the First Black Woman to Wear It". Business Insider.

– Epicgenius (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: i believe i've addressed all these, looking foward to your subsequent comments! 750h+ 04:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: ? 750h+ 09:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks can be demanding work so I'd say give EG some time as he might have time for them right now. @EG, I'm happy to split the workload a bit. I'll do 15 at random – means you can drop down to 15 and go +10 in total. — ImaginesTigers (talk)
@ImaginesTigers, thanks for the offer. Yeah, we could split the source review if you want - I was just busy in general and haven't had much time for WP over the last two days. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Initial source review (only 18 of the first 400 sources for now) as of this revision.
  • Ref 1 (Curto, Justin (April 30, 2021). "Yes, 'Harmonies by the Hive' Is Beyoncé". Vulture.) - Checks out
  • Ref 19 (Smolenyak, Megan (January 12, 2012). "A Peek into Blue Ivy Carter's Past". HuffPost.) - While this does check out, the source doesn't seem reliable. It appears to have been self-published by a "contributor"; the website says that "Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site".
  • Ref 20 (Quinn, Gwendolyn (September 10, 2017). "Beyoncé teams up with Houston pastor to help Harvey survivors". NBC News) - Verifies St. John's United Methodist Church
  • Ref 21 (Sewing, Joy (September 28, 2023). "Sewing: Beyoncé's homecoming is symbol of pride for Third Ward community". Houston Chronicle) - Verifies St. Mary of the Purification Catholic Church
  • Ref 28 (Simmerman, Alexis (September 4, 2024). "Happy birthday Beyoncé! Houston native turns 43 amid busy year". Austin American-Statesman.) - Checks out
  • Ref 63 (Ramirez, Erika (June 22, 2013). "Beyonce, 'Dangerously in Love': Classic Track-By-Track Review". Billboard,) - Checks out
  • Ref 85 (Sullivan, Caroline (September 1, 2006). "CD: Beyoncé, B'Day". The Guardian.) - It verifies the fact that the album was scheduled for release on September 4. However, do we have a source published after that date, which verifies September 4 as the release date? Ref 86 didn't verify it.
  • Ref 131 (Battersby, Matilda. "Beyoncé Documentary Describing 'Pain and Trauma' of Miscarriage Airs on BBC". The Independent.) - Checks out
  • Ref 147 ("Chart History: Billboard Hot 100". Billboard.) - Verifies that these songs reached the top 100
  • Ref 148 (Molanphy, Chris (August 13, 2022). "How Beyoncé Finally Got Her First No. 1 in 14 Years". Slate.) - Verifies "Love on Top"
  • Ref 149 (Stone, Rolling (April 1, 2024). "The 70 Greatest Beyoncé Songs". Rolling Stone.) - Verified "Best Thing I Never Had", but I'm pretty sure the author's name is not "Stone, Rolling".
    • Ref 133 also has the same pseudo-author.
  • Ref 158 (Goldberg, Lesley (August 29, 2011). "MTV's Video Music Awards Scores Largest Audience Ever". The Hollywood Reporter. ) - Checks out
  • Ref 205 ("Beyonce Releases New Album 'Lemonade' on Tidal". Billboard. April 24, 2016) - Checks out
  • Ref 245 (Barlow, Eve (April 15, 2018). "Beyoncé at Coachella review – greatest star of her generation writes herself into history". The Guardian.) - Along with refs 244 and 246, checks out.
    • However, for ref 244 (James, Emily St. (April 23, 2018). "The Unstoppable Beyoncé".), I think St. James is the last name; St. is probably not part of the first or middle name.
  • Ref 291 (Snapes, Laura (January 22, 2023). "Beyoncé Makes Controversial Live Return at Exclusive Dubai Concert". The Guardian.) - Checks out
  • Ref 303 (Aniftos, Rania (March 12, 2024). "Beyoncé Announces Cowboy Carter Album: Here's When It Arrives".) - Verifies March 12 announcement
  • Ref 304 (McClay, Caché (March 28, 2025). "Beyoncé Released Cowboy Carter Album One year ago: A look back". USA Today. ) - Verifies March 29 release
  • Ref 372 (Marks, Craig (February 24, 2010). "Producer Rob Fusari Dishes on Lady Gaga, Beyoncé". Billboard.) - I see the quote "What sells records is people believing that the artist is everything". This is a little different from the article, which says that Fusari said people "want to believe the artist is everything".
– Epicgenius (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: thanks for these! I have:
  • i removed the unreliable ref 19 (HuffPost) source
  • as for ref 85, i've added a source that says the article is released on that date
  • as for ref 149 and 133, I use the citer tool, i sometimes i don't notice it formats refs like that, sorry for that!
  • also rephrased ref 372's sentence
750h+ 03:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'll wait to see if ImaginesTigers is interested in doing part of the source review, but if not, then consider this a pass. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do another 10 to bring us to to 30. Good effort on doing 20 — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder. Saturday is very likely and I've set a reminder. Congrats on a huge nomination. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I sign comments if there's a chance you may need to reply. This means you can respond using "reply" and ignore the heinous code
  • 2 – Pass
  • 10 – Can't see this supporting that she owned a salon/hair salon. Quick check of the other reference calls her a former hairstylist and salon owner. I can't see either support that her surname was Beyoncé – is that in one of the next 3 bundled refs? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i added this source to explain that Tina's maiden name is Beyonce 750h+ 14:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16 – What makes this source reliable? I find stuff like this As a result, Beyoncé is thought to be 1/32 Irish a bit anti-scientific / tabloidy (and not supported by the sourcing it is replicating, Creole Magazine—which says creole is that it is a race [...] it is a description of cultural heritage.Why not include this source? Which is framing it way better. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    sure we can do that. 750h+ 14:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18 – Checks out
  • 26 – Doesn't support "reach high-pitched notes" from what I can tell; dance teacher just says she can sing in the source (and the 30 seconds of the clip I watched) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    rephrased this 750h+ 14:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 34 – Passes, but it also mentions that Kelly Rowland is her cousin here and that she was added in 1992 – why include one member of DC but not the other? CTRL+F of article suggests Rowland was added in 2000 (I don't know the group's history but a little confused)Su
    Rowland isn't actually her cousin, but i have added that she was later added to the lineup
  • 42 – Supports adopting the name in 1997 but not Book of Isaiah
    fixed
  • 43 – Can't see or the previous source supporting DC being named from the Book of Isaiah — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    fixed per above
  • 44 – Supports release in 1993 but not February or "No, No, No"
  • 45 – Supports "No, No, No" — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 50 – Pass
  • 58 – Pass
  • 66 – Pass
  • 82 – Needs to be marked as a dead link, but pass
    done
  • 90 – Pass but I wonder if this should be mentioned from it Beyonce is now the first female artist to hit No. 1 with her first five albums? I would understand if you thought this early accomplishment was superceded by later accomplishments (in an article that skews very very positive already) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can remove second but i think third and thereon are all pretty notable 750h+ 14:32, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All optional — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 98 – Pass
  • 106 – Has Sasha Fierce been retired since 2012? RIP Sasha, "Sweet Dreams" is a classic — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stray:

  • The sources for her being one of the greatest articles of all time are throwing harv errors - suppressing |ref=none to these will suppress the error. Same for "defining artist of the 2000s" and her albums being the greatest in history etc — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean by this (sorry i don't understand this [i don't have the harv script])! 750h+ 14:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll send you a screenshot on Discord so you can see — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ImaginesTigers

[edit]

Comprehensiveness

The first source I checked was The Beyoncé Effect. There's a lot of commentary on Beyonce and her influence on feminism in here that isn't utilised. Essays on public/media policing of her body (for which there is another in the biblio essay, utilised once) [521]. This source only appears a handful of times. It supports her nickname, that she makes hip-hop music, and that she has sex appeal. Why isn't this source used more? I see a comment, for example, that Critics credit her with significantly influencing political conversations and movements, such as fourth-wave feminism but there's quite a few essays in here that are critiquing her feminism. I've only read a few pieces about Beyonce but I know bell hooks has critiqued her at length, for example (quick google turned up this article by hooks in TG, but I know she's produced actual essays too)
All in all the article is very positive towards her as a figure and I don't see the negative commentary that I would expect to exist given her fame/influence. There's quite a lot of scholarly discussion of Beyonce and feminism but just not really seeing a lot of coverage for it here, and every that is here is really positive. For a statement like this She has also significantly influenced socio-political matters, using her platform to advocate for women's empowerment, Black culture, and social justice I think I'd really want to see some academic coverage. What do you think? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ImaginesTigers: thanks for these comments! so i've increased the use of the several scholarly sources, including The Beyoncé Effect source. As bell hooks did have a pretty notable critique, I have also included her in the article (i don't think we need to include much on her, and if anything i think a lot of that can go into her cultural impact article). somewhat similar for your comment on the article being "very positive towards her as a figure". the article really isn't that "positive" on her; most of the 'legacy' section is simply stating how she's been influential as a figure, and i don't really know what "negative" impact she's had on the industry. i'm not sure what kind of negative commentary would be appropriate to include in this context without it becoming WP:TMI, which again feels more relevant to the cultural impact page. However, I have added the critique of bell hooks; what do you think of the current state of the article? 750h+ 16:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ref fixes. After finishing those, I don't feel the need to do more. While there were minor nitpicks, I I was able to identify any issues quickly, and you quickly corrected them with better sourcing. The substance of the changes didn't change the substance of the article, so I'm happy to pass from a sourcing perspective.
From a comprehensiveness perspective, I see your points but I don't agree. I think we should be including all reliably published viewpoints where possible and I don't think we currently do so. I don't think it is TMI to provide a proper overview. Let's compare the high-level overview provided by The Beyoncé Effect alongside our article's treatment. Please note this is almost a single paragraph in the source but I am splitting up each viewpoint:
  • Beyoncé Knowles-Carter has generated popular narratives of feminism writ large. These narratives, however, have not always been embraced by fellow feminists.
  • Some consider her too aligned with accepted patriarchal and white supremacist standards of beauty and femininity.
  • Some see her as too commercial and part of a neoliberal corporate structure that undermines feminist agendas.
  • Still others view her women’s empowerment memes as too simplistic to advance political perspectives that can meaningfully impact the lives of women disadvantaged by the same economic, racial, and sexual systems that have rewarded the pop star with class-based, color, and able-bodied heterosexual privileges.
It is certainly a major topic by scholars. We can compare some of the above with the article's paragraph on Beyonce and feminism:
  • In a 2013 interview with Vogue, Beyoncé stated that she considered herself "a modern-day feminist". Her self-identification incited debate about whether her feminism is aligned with older, more established feminist ideals; Annie Lennox referred to her use of the word feminist as "feminist lite". Beyoncé publicly aligned with feminism by sampling Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's 2013 TEDx speech "We should all be feminists" in "Flawless", released later that year. She performed at the 2014 MTV Video Music Awards before a giant "Feminist" backdrop. Concerned about Beyonce's visual representation and her impact on young women, scholar bell hooks stated: "I see a part of Beyoncé that is in fact, anti-feminist, that is a terrorist [...] especially in terms of the impact on young girls".
What I see here is: she considers herself a feminist; Annie Lennox thinks she's a diet feminist (no example); Beyoncé sampled something that included the word feminist; Beyoncé danced in front of a feminist sign; bell hooks doesn't think she is part anti-feminist.
I think hooks' commentary reflects the 3rd of my bullet points above (Some see her as too commercial and part of a neoliberal corporate structure that undermines feminist agendas) but we're representing that rather salaciously (the part that calls her a terrorist to young girls).
My apologies; I know it sucks to get this kind of feedback. I hope you can understand where I am coming from. I would prefer we had a paragraph on feminism, briefly mention how Beyonce has associated herself with it (sourced to scholars, not newspapers), and providing an overview of the green bullets above. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ImaginesTigers: much thanks for the response, also no need to apologise, the feedback is relaly helpful to the article! I've added a paragraph to the "Legacy" section that goes into more detail on the whole matter and does give more critique on her way/impact of feminism and race. It might stick out a bit in the section but what do you think? 750h+ 13:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(I'll gently push back on the characterisation of scholarship – one of them the most famous AA academic – as "critique on her race"!)
If I'd seen this at peer review, I'd have advocated for some larger changes. Picking on the Triers collection, for example, there's 13 dedicated essays in there that we use no material from (only the intro). It looks like an incredible but underutilised resource for her impact on popular culture and later biographical elements. Truly high-quality RS account for somewhere under 50% of the material, which I think poses longevity concerns, but there are processes for that.
All this said, I'm no music scholar. I can't tell you what music/hip-hop/pop music academics should be cited here beyond what you've already included. I've checked almost every author for anything completely inappropriate. What I've found that your content is judiciously supported by generally well-chosen journalistic sources with strong authorial credentials for the important stuff, with a tendency towards lower quality sources at an earlier stage of Beyoncé's fame. I can't oppose on this basis. Taylor Swift suffers from these issues to a far greater extent, and it was promoted in 2016, with essentially no critical feedback at the 2021 PR.
I won't be the sole editor bearing this torch for a nom that's gathered significant positive traction. The material I thought should be included is in there now, so I'll support once these two final issues are fixed:
Thanks for your hard work — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ImaginesTigers: sorry about that. Both issues addressed, thanks for your review! 750h+ 15:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pokelego999

[edit]

Marking my spot. I'm 99% sure this is gonna be a support on my part already, but I did want to give this another once-over just in case I missed anything in light of some of the newer edits. Will be out for a few days but will get on this as soon as I'm back. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: any updates? no rush 750h+ 15:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! Been a busy past few days, and I've been hitting up a few old articles in my spare time that I've planned to do for a bit. Still plan on getting this done soon, expect this in hopefully a few days. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+ actually I lied, I had some spare time tonight, so I decided to take a leaf through. Overall, I had no major issues with the prose, and in fact it actually looks even better than I first reviewed it. Per my last review and this one, I'm Supporting this for FAC. Fantastic work! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

Is there any reason the following high-quality academic sources aren't utilised (at least to my eye, forgive me if I missed them in the gargantuan references section):

And why is Arenovsky's 2009 biography used so sparsely, with only three citations I can see? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: thanks for the sources and recommendations! My responses below:
  • The article already uses the first source (Iddon and Marshall)
  • The article already made use of the Black Camera source, though I have incorporated it significantly more
  • From what I read, the Tinsley source is very similar to the above source, though I've tried to make sure I've used it where possible
  • 'Popular Music and Society, Volume 42, Issue 1 (2019): Special Issue on Beyoncé' has nothing for inclusion, they could possibly go into the subarticles (albums, cultural impact article) but nothing here.
  • I incorporated Cashmore's source where relevant; since it's not a biography and focuses on a specific area, I can't use it extensively.
Thanks for this, and hopefully a conclusion can be came to! 750h+ 05:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I use the Arenovsky source sparingly due to me having limited access. it was published before 2009 (which is fully covered in the article), so it would only cover a small portion of the article anyway. 750h+ 06:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]

Have you considered doi:10.4159/9780674293335-009? Heartfox (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for this source @Heartfox:! i have used it a bit in the article, however on a read of it, it only goes into detail on some of her early life, a bit of her work with Destiny's Child, and a 1-2 of her songs from her self-titled album and Lemonade. A lot of the chapter is dedicated to people with some or no relation to Beyonce. 750h+ 09:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can anything be drawn out of https://doi.org/10.1353/tae.2020.0052? - Heartfox (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: another high quality source! unfortunately on a scan of the article goes more into how some of beyonce's songs and her public image have been politically significant. like the other source, the source includes a lot of comparison to others with some or no relation to the singer. 750h+ 08:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shearonink

[edit]

I am working through Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors and came upon Beyoncé because it is in that Category. I was able to correct a Harv error but right now there are 40 Harv warnings scattered throughout the cites, all happening for the superlatives describing the subject: 14 for Ref #7, 4 for Ref #386, 8 for Ref #494, 6 for Ref #500, 8 for Ref #502. These cite warnings should be corrected, all of them are in the single numbered but multi-referenced cites. Also, the 14 cites for Ref #7, 8 for Ref #494, 8 for Ref #502 seem to be veering into WP:OVERCITE territory... - Shearonink (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: Beyonce is no longer in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. As noted by a previous reviewer, i've added the 'ref=none' parameter to all the multi-cite notes to prevent these errors. I’ve reduced the references in ref 7 from 14 to 8, which i believe to be acceptable since they are in a footnote and won’t appear cluttered; also given past controversies surrounding "greatest entertainers" and "most influential artists" being included i think having mutiple citatons is best. 750h+ 02:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More responses in the talk page if anyone's interested. 750h+ 05:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ippantekina

[edit]

My review will focus on the prose; so far it's a positive for me :) Ippantekina (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks Ippantekina, looking forward to your comments! 750h+ 10:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: Over a three-decade career characterized by continuous musical reinvention, she has redefined the standards of artistry and performance in popular music. Beyoncé is often deemed one of the greatest entertainers and most influential artists of all time. I think the second sentence basically reiterates what the first sentence already states...

Early life:

  • while Tina is Louisiana Creole with African, French, Irish, Breton, Norman and Native American ancestry I think a link to Norman is also helpful, since you link Breton...
  • outperforming older competitors aged fifteen and sixteen do you mean "winning" or "championing"?
  • Retrospectively, she said that the women at the salon helped her understand beauty, healing, and the importance of service. a beautiful reflection, but I'm not sure if this is worthy of inclusion, unless these realizations shaped Beyonce's career or image later on (if this is the case, it should be made explicit imo)

Early career/Destiny's Child

  • entered the group in Star Search I get what this means, but I'm unsure if "enter [sb] into [sth]" is a popular phrasing.. perhaps "brought the group in Star Search" is preferable?
  • In 1995, Mathew Knowles left his job to manage the group, which halved the Knowles family's income, leading to them moving into separate apartments. does them here refer to Mathew+Tina or their kids as well?
    • the entire family, so yes, including the kids
  • After being briefly signed by Elektra Records and later dropped, tensions led to a six-month separation of Beyoncé's parents. dangling modifier here...
  • (Optional) I personally refrain from using phrasings like "self-titled", "eponymous", "title track" etc thanks to the essay WP:ELEVAR. It's an essay and not a guideline so this is just some food for thoughts and not something I strongly advise you to implement..
  • I think how successful a song/album/film is should always be quantified, e.g. The Writing's on the Wall became one of the best-selling R&B albums of all time. do we know how many copies has the album sold?

Dangerously in Love and B'Day

  • The album was released on June 24, 2003, following the solo releases of her Destiny's Child bandmates. not sure if the italicized part is notable...
  • The album earned Beyoncé a then record-tying five awards at the 46th Annual Grammy Awards I would just say that she won five awards that night and not mention the "record-tying" bit..
  • each saw moderate chart success. ditto here: I would clarify if these singles reached the top 20/30? etc.
  • Beyoncé's first acting role in 2006 was in the comedy film The Pink Panther. I think it's worth mentioning that a song she recorded for this film, "Check on It", was a #1 hit

More to come... Ippantekina (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina: done so far (unless i left a comment)! thanks for the comments, looking forward to your subsequent! 750h+ 09:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, let me tryna wrap this quick... Ippantekina (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Sasha Fierce

  • "Halo" became her longest-running Hot 100 single at the time,[112] Ref here is dead, and if this record has been broken recently (cue "at the time") then I don't think this is worth mentioning..
  • Any reviews specifically for Beyonce's role in Obsessed and not the film itself?

4

  • In March 2011, she and her father Mathew parted ways as business partners. Reckon it's better to straight-up say that her father Mathew stopped being her manager
  • The latter two peaked at number sixteen and twenty respectively. should be "numbers" in plural, plus I think "respectively" is redundant
  • That month, the album was certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America after shipping one million copies to retail stores. Her past albums was certified even higher, so why is this notable here?

Beyonce (the album)

  • In January 2013, Beyoncé performed the American national anthem during Barack Obama's second presidential inauguration. I think the US national anthem "The Star Spangled Banner" was linked before, so no link is needed here..
  • On December 13, 2013, Beyoncé unexpectedly released her fifth studio album, Beyonce Missing an accent on the album title
  • Should it be "tenth-best-selling" and "twentieth-best-selling" (with an extra hyphen)? Alas, I don't think these rankings are worth mentioning, unless it's the third-best-selling or upward

Lemonade

  • Ditto with "third-best-selling"

Everything Is Love and The Lion King

  • Smooth!

Renaissance and Cowboy Carter

  • he first Black artist ever

Artistry

  • Beyoncé's music is primarily R&B,[311][312][313] pop,[314][315] and hip-hop,[316][317] while also incorporating elements of soul and funk.[143][278] while is not the most appropriate here.. maybe "and"?
  • With continuous musical reinventions,[318][187] publications such as Vox and Billboard have described Beyoncé as a musical "chameleon".[319][320] dangling modifier
  • Overlink of hip-hop, "Love On Top" in "Voice"

Continue...

  • Dubbed a "meticulous curator" by The New Yorker,[385] some academics have studied her as a musical archivist,[386][387] while others have likened her storytelling to that of a modern-day griot.[388][389] Dangling modifier again..
  • Beyoncé often faces scrutiny over the number of writing credits she receives, with some questioning the extent of her contributions This is a legit bit of information, but do we have a better source than Daily Beast which is marginally reliable for BLP per WP:RSP?
  • While working on songwriting with Beyoncé, Can be simply "While writing with Beyonce.."
  • I think Beyonce has been notorious for not giving interviews, can this be explored in "Public image"?
  • Considered one of the most culturally significant figures of the 21st century,[484][485] Billboard named her the "Greatest Pop Star of the 21st Century" in 2024.[486] Yet another case of incorrect modifier..
  • She helped renew subgenres of music I'm not sure what "renew" means in this context; is it to revitalize those genres' popularity, or expand the perceived conception of those genres etc..
  • Not sure if the performances at the presidential inaugurations should belong to "Social activism", not to mention that the performance of the US anthem at the second Obama inauguration is repeated twice. I would include them in "Life and career" instead.
  • Beyoncé has spoken against police brutality toward Black Americans I see there are two previous instances of "African Americans", can that not be reused here?
  • Black Lives Matter should be linked in "Legacy" before "Social activism"
  • Overlink of "Savage Remix" and "Meghan Thee Stallion" in "Social activism"

Rest of the article is in good shape. This should conclude my review, @750h+: :) Ippantekina (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina: much thanks for your comments, I think I've addressed them all, as well as your contributions to the Taylor Swift article (that article HUGELY influenced how i wrote this one). 750h+ 09:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing everything! My only remaining concern is regarding the Daily Beast usage.. can it be replaced by a more reputable source? Ippantekina (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ippantekina: the Daily Beast source is supplemented by two other more reliable sources. 750h+ 16:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ippantekina: any updates? 750h+ 07:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was offline for a few days... Support on prose, although I do think the 2 other more reliable sources suffice and the Daily Beast should be removed. Ippantekina (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
much thanks, and I'll remove the Daily Beast source. 750h+ 10:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that my review was helpful! In the meantime might you have some time to review my current FAC on a T Swift song? Lmk! :) Ippantekina (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i'd be happy to! 750h+ 11:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Print sources: could we have a page range for Cobbs (2023)?
  • "Having redefined the standards of artistry and performance in popular music for over three decades". Optional: Consider "redefined" → 'defined'.
  • "Having redefined the standards of artistry and performance in popular music for over three decades". "for over three decades" would mean that Beyoncé has been redefining the standards of artistry and performance in popular music since at least early 1995. (When she was 14.) I can't find support for this in the main article.
  • I've changed this to "over a three-decade career".
  • "Her ongoing trilogy project" continues "consisting of the queer-inspired dance album Renaissance (2022) and Americana epic Cowboy Carter (2024)". Just checking that the trilogy does consist of just two works.
    • It IS an ongoing project, and she is currently working on another album to finish the trilogy; there was previous a "currently" before "consisting", which SNUGGUMS removed due to WP:RELTIME violations
I think the second sentence of WP:RELTIME is what you need: something like 'Her ongoing trilogy project—consisting as of 2025 of ...'? And is there a link for "trilogy project"?
I can entirely understand you being wedded to a long-standing wording, but at the moment this sentence does not - IMO - make sense.
  • "the only woman to debut all of her eight studio albums at number one on the U.S. Billboard 200." This reads as if she were being compared only with women who have released exactly eight albums, which I don't think is what you are trying to say.
    • fixed
Nice.
  • "with concert revenue of over $2 billion." As of when.
I assume you missed this?
Checking the sources in the main article for this I don't see it mentioned in Pollstar and Billboard is paywalled. Could you let me have a copy of the material you are relying on to source this figure? Thanks.

An epic article - great work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: all done, thanks for the comments! 750h+ 03:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One comeback and one I think you missed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: done! 750h+ 12:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: the '2 billion' was added by an editor during the FAC though i don't believe this is verified in the source, so i removed the figure. i believe they got the figure from adding up the figures in the live performances page. 750h+ 12:55, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a shame, but probably the clever way to go.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/August_2025&oldid=1305070597"