Wikipedia:Peer review/We Belong Together/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We Belong Together[edit]

This article has gone through a lot: two full FACs, and two redrawn ones. The main concerns have been over the quality of prose and the comprehensiveness. Since the last FAC, which ended over a month ago, the article has undergone major rewrites and changes, and the writers want to submit it to FAC by the end of this month. Please review it and see if anything needs improvement, and be as picky as you need to. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article has obviuosly been worked on by many experienced editors so I'm not sure if I can illustrate anything the editors do not already know, but there are some notes I made:
    • Dates like "November 2004" (Writing and recording) should only be wikilinked if it provides context as it does nothing for the date preferences per WP:DATE#Partial dates.
    • What is the first quote ("L.A. was like,...") adding to the article? why a quote for this info?
    • There are a few sources listed in Notes section that are not in the References section (ie, NYT, USA Today). If these two sections are mostly repeating each other then you could combine them like this. Peer Review 04:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great suggestions; I will try to incorporate them into the article. Regarding the quote: I understand what you are saying. However, I just thought that it would sound better with a quote (it's more believable when it comes from the horse's mouth). I'll get a second opinion on that, then we'll remove/allow it. Thanks again. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 15:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you were to submit this article to FAC right now, I would be very close to supporting it. Understand that the following points are nitpicks.
    • The first sentence of Writing and recording feels like either a continuation of a previous section or conversation despite being the very first section, or like a non sequitor. Try to consider the lead section to be completely disparate from the rest of the article. The lead isn't part of the article, it's more like the dust jacket blurb. See if you can't reword the opening sentence here with that in mind.
    • In general, the tone of the writing is somewhat too informal. The lead has the propper tone, but the article is very newspaper-like, and not very encyclopedia-like. Phrases such as "She immediately became attached to..." and "...a new-found confidence that..." are a bit too chatty, and also could be seen as assuming too much. Quotes are one thing, assertions are another. How do we know that she immediately became attached to Shake it Off? How do we know she had new-found confidence? Either state it as a quote, or re-word... preferably rewording it, since the article is already quote heavy.
    • Possible opinions are stated as facts on a number of occasions, and even when you have sources for these, opinions should always be attributed in the text. This does make things difficult for an article of this nature, becuase so much of music is opinion based, not fact based. "Less is more" approach, for instance, is an opinion that should be attributed to the New York Times.
  • Things are looking very good for this article. The big thing to look out for will be people objecting on contradictory points... specifically, there will likely be some people who will object because the chart listings and album formats are there at the end in list format, and other people will object if they aren't there. Raul should be able to sort through that kind of thing though, so don't worry too much about it. Fieari 17:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it is in pretty good shape overall.
    • The blockquote about Jermaine Dupri seems really out of place and unnecessary. Consider how difficult that will be to parse for people that don't know the context. That use of "LA" and "make magic together", for example, and then "I love Jermaine, is he free? I know he's doing a million things, Usher and this and that." -- which is perfectly sensible spoken, informal English, but isn't really encyclopedic written English. And then the only pay off is "Jermaine said, 'Come on down." Why not just say "Carey recalled being excited by the suggestion to work with Dupri again, and he proved agreeable". Though is that really very important at all? What does it illustrate?
    • Though uncommon for a pop ballad, the song is strongly influenced - this is a awkward sentence, but I can't think of an easy way to fix it.
    • It took me a little while to figure out the Tommy Mottolla wedding dressing thing.
    • Can you make the Charts section a little prettier? Maybe move the bottom bit into a separate chart on the right, beneath the graph?
  • Other than that, it seems basically ready for FAC. Tuf-Kat 02:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/We_Belong_Together/archive3&oldid=1140201238"