Talk:Beyoncé

Infobox image choice

• 
  Option A
• 
  Option B
• 
  Option C
• 
  Option D
• 
  Option F
• 
  Option G

There has been some disagreement over the infobox image, so there should be a discussion to decide on which one to use. It appears that there is a consensus to use one of the images in the Commons category at [1]. The gallery above contains some choices that I have seen used, or that I think are otherwise suitable. Post your opinion below, and please add any potential candidates that I missed. — Goszei (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

C > A > G > D > F > B. An ideal image would have her facing the camera, have no obstruction from a microphone, and a smile or neutral expression instead of an open mouth. C is the closest to this ideal, in my opinion. A or G are a close second and third, with a preference for A due to a slightly favorable composition and expression. D has an unfavorable hand pose, and F isn't head-on. B is the worst on all counts, completely unflattering in my opinion. — Goszei (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Out of these options, B or G are the only ones acceptable to me imo. But imo lighting wise her best picture is this one. It's the most flattering and has the best lighting on her face.

PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

What do we think of this one? Facing the camera, unobscured, and more flattering than the other options in my opinion.

– Breaktheicees (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I love this one! Preferably the second option, I feel like the crop is just right and just flattering enough for her. Also the outfit that she has wearing here is very iconic and it screams Renaissance tour PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I support this one as well. — Goszei (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Beyoncé's face is at a pretty unflattering angle in this picture, but otherwise there's no issues with it. I personally prefer G as it is at a straight and flattering angle, and has a neutral facial expression. TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Breaktheicees Nothing against you all, but this image is a hate crime. Lol Lililolol (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Favourites are A and G. I very much dislike B due to the dancers around her (they're distracting and clutter the image, subjects should be alone per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY) and dislike this one due to the low quality. These were ironically the two that editors would continuously reinstate for whatever reason.

G's background is admittedly busy but it does show the entirety of the face unlike A. I would be happy with either, or indeed any image other than the two I've raised problems with. Miklogfeather (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

The gold dress images are not good - they have been cropped from a much wider shot and as a result, they have a hazy, low resolution look. Not to mention one of her eyes looks more awkwardly closed than the other when thumbnailed. I think any of the other proposed options above (none of which I have a specific preference for compared to each other) are infinitely better. Feel free to continue the discussion, but as someone with a photographer in the family, I cringe at the current selection compared to the other options that are available. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Y2kcrazyjoker4: keep in mind that every other selection was also cropped from a much wider shot too. however, i would have to agree that A and G are both much better than the current selections since they are slightly less hazier. 750h+ 08:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Right, I realize all the suggested options were cropped but some images were just better suited for it than others. I would be happy with A or D - in the interest of stating a specific option, I would say A. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

i would personally vote for a change to A since it is much more appealing to look at than the current images 750h+ 01:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit request /Spotted more inaccuracies

Hey, thanks for reverting the inaccurate information I previously made a request about 750h+. I'm not sure if you're responsible for adding this sentence or not but since you're actively editing right now, please remove or change "In June 2007, Beyoncé and Jay-Z announced their engagement" as this notoriously private couple certainly did not make an announcement about being engaged during this time frame. Bey waited until 2013 to inform the public that Jay-Z had proposed to her in Paris on his 38th birthday, December 4, 2007.

Lead image???

You guys did her dirty. Her old image is more appropriate and less scary than the current one. Can we please change it back?

The old image, the one before the current one.

The much older one

Lililolol (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

i’d have to agree, the old image before the current one is by far more flattering than the current. i don’t think we should use the much older one since it’s already been used in the article 750h+ 00:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

FA potential

Hi talk page watchers: after reviewing this article at GAR, I think this has the completeness necessary to become a featured article. However, some fixing up and checks need to be done before the article can be nominated at WP:FAC. If promoted in time, this could run as WP:TFA on Sep 4, 2026, Beyonce's 45th birthday. Here's what I think needs to be done before an FAC:

• The article, at over 10,000 words, is WP:TOOBIG. Off-topic, redundant, or too detailed information will need to be cut. I can help with this.
• This is a popular article, so lots of different editors have added sources: all of them will need to be checked to ensure that the article prose is verified by the source text. This task can be split by different editors.
• Lower-quality sources should be replaced by higher-quality sources. Since there are so many sources written about her, I don't think the article needs many primary sources or low-quality news sources. If multiple sources are supporting the same information, the lower-quality sources can be removed.
• A check for high-quality sources should be conducted in WP:LIBRARY and Google Scholar. High-quality sources include publications from univeristy presses and academic, peer-reviewed journals. If this source verifies the same information as a news source, then the lower-quality news source can be replaced.
• During the above source checks, editors can also check to ensure that the article is "complete" and no major aspects of her biography are missing. Since this article is already over the recommended word count (per TOOBIG), I don't think this will be a large barrier.
• The lead and infobox will need to be checked to ensure that all inforamtion in supported in the article body or cited. I would prefer that most of the citations are removed from those sections as unnecessary.
• The whole article should go through a copy-edit for spelling, grammar and prose. This can be done by multiple editors and noted below.

Are editors interested in bringing this article to FAC? Z1720 (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I personally decline to make such a preparation, but wish luck to whoever pursues FAC here, and nevertheless I should note that one shouldn't blindly assume a page needs reduction solely based on word count. There have been times when editors carelessly remove important details in a misguided attempt to keep things under a certain size or word count, showing no concern for anything else. Take some time to assess the article's actual content before cutting things out. Furthermore, the page you linked says things above 9K words "Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." Ms. Knowles could potentially be one of those cases. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Earth, one of Wikipedia's featured articles, is under 9,000 words. After doing some trimming today, I found many phrases with promotional text, announcements about things (usually not needed) or redundancy. I think there is other text that can be trimmed. If anything is removed that others think shouldn't be, they can start a discussion here. Z1720 (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Z1720 and SNUGGUMS: i actually did want to make this an FA (im the second largest contributor to the article and the one who did the most revamping in the GAR) but i did stop. however i have reconsidered continuing work on this. if I do re-continue id like to do a full scale revamp of the article (prose and sources, images are fine i think) which would take some time but i am very willing to do it. 750h+ 03:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

this is one of the articles about a significant figure that i do want to make FA, so i think it’s good that this article does become one. also i think the 10k length is somewhat justifiable given articles like Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, etc are of a similar size, slightly shorter or longer (Beyonce has had a longer career than all of them, and is by far more influential in terms of music) 750h+ 03:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@750h+: So far, I have been cutting individual sentences from various places: the article history has the edits I made today. Some of what I cut are announcements of things that happened later, which I usually cut and to emphasise the actual event happened. I also cut explanatory information about things like Tidal, which I think is better in the article about the topic. I cut some share price information post-announcement as too much information. There was a lawsuit about the Gate Five promotion that I removed, but I wouldn't oppose it returning to the article but reworded to explain what happened more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding page size: when Perry, Gaga, and Swift were promoted to FA, they were all under 9,000 words. They only became larger afterwards and I think if they were submitted to FAC today there would be questions about their length. If this is to go to WP:FAC larger than 9,000 words, editors will have to explain why Beyonce needs to be larger than larger topics like Earth and Philosophy, and it will be hard to convince editors that the extra length is justified. I am happy to continue going through the article and considering more text that can be cut. Z1720 (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Nobody who reviewed those FACs was worried about sheer word count, Z1720. Those who left comments rightfully paid more attention to which details were and weren't important to mention. You should do the same instead of over-focusing on exactly how many words are used. It's not a firm requirement to stay under 9K as you seem to think, so please don't treat that as one. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Z1720: thanks for the edits but i am currently working on the article (replacing sources, prose etc) so i think it’d be nice if you could do your copy edit when i finish. 750h+ 02:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@750h+: Feel free to ping me when ready. Z1720 (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Z1720: think i've done a good amount of the article, if you want to do your copyedits you can (I think the article is fine in its current condition but i will look over your copyedits and if i see anything we can discuss that) and the article is submittable for peer review. I might do some things within the Business endeavors but you can do your ce 750h+ 09:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Z1720: i think now i'll submit it for PR 750h+ 15:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Peer review

Beyoncé

Previous peer review

This article is about one of the greatest and most influential pop stars of all time—Beyoncé. I plan to take this article to WP:FAC so any and all comments are extremely appreciated, given this is the longest article i've ever written, at 9.5k words. Much thanks to Medxvo, SNUGGUMS and Z1720 for their comments on the article, edits, and help with reducing the article's size. Best, 750h+ 15:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• Just want to acknowledge that when 750h+ started working on this article, it was over 14,000 words long and nominated for GAR. 750+ has done a lot of work fixing up this article than their above statement might be hinting at, and I'm excited for this to reach FAC if it is ready. Z1720 (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  much thanks! would not be possible without you too who's removed much redundant info! 750h+ 02:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Vacant0

Will review this as promised. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Z1720

Posting this here instead of the talk page: The first paragraph of "Voice and musical style" falls into the "X says Y" pattern. While I will try to do a WP:LIBRARY search for more sources which might help expand this section, should this paragraph be reworded more like WP:RECEPTION suggests, with each sentence having categories of information (and multiple citations supporting it) instead of "reporter says Y about her voice"? Z1720 (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Songwriting section: The first paragraph mentions awards she has won for songwriting. Would this be more appropriate in the "Life and career" or "Achievements" sections, or is it fine to stay here? Z1720 (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Achievements section: Many of the achievements listed here are also mentioned in the "Life and career" section, such as the Academy Award and Grammy awards. Should this information be consolidated in one section or another? Z1720 (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

wait i’ll give a response to these tommorow it’s late where I am. 750h+ 17:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

ok so i'll remove the repeated awards in the life and career section, i've expanded the Voice and musical section and i can reword it, and i'll move the awards in Songwriting to the section it belongs in. 750h+ 09:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)