Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Curtis (50 Cent album)/archive1


 * 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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:24, 15 June 2008.

Curtis (50 Cent album)
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it meets the featured article criteria. Shadyaftrmathgunit (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * At least a dozen unformatted references. Format like the examples at WP:CITE/ES -- Gary King ( talk ) 20:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title.
 * One reference is giving a cite error note.
 * Link checker tool is reporting a number of dead links or timeouts.
 * When the references are formatted consistently, I'll try to return to evaluate reliablity of sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
 * Indefinitive prose, poor referencing methods used, some other factors which are quite detremental to the quality of this article. I'd suggest bringing through a rigourous peer review to get up to FA. Rudget   (Help?) 20:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This article could use considerable improvement, generally and requires quite a bit of work to bring it up to FA standard. A rigorous peer review as suggested by Rudget would certainly be useful. Further comments: Adacore (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The singles chart position table is very long, I'd suggest formatting it like the one on Hybrid Theory, with different columns for each chart.
 * The prose could do with quite a bit of work throughout. For example, from the concept section:
 * Stating that the album title was changed twice is a bit misleading, and the explanation of the change could be compressed. For example, "The album title, originally just "Curtis", was changed to "Curtis S.S.K." and back."
 * Did SSK stand for SoundScan Killer; SouthSide King; or Shoot, Stab, Kill (the latter being unreferenced)? If more than one, the section should probably be rewritten to incorporate all these into one more structured sentence. This sentence should probably mention the source of any meaning behind the name (the stated intention to "show the pressure 50 Cent felt to succeed") - did 50 Cent himself say this, or was it a commentary from someone else?
 * In the final paragraph of the section, "He also stated that..." could be changed to simply "and that..."
 * The paragraphs in the Concept section are quite short, and with the above suggested revisions would become even shorter, so combining the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs might be a good idea.
 * There's some repetition of information. For example the sales figures are given in Curtis vs Graduation, then again under Sales.
 * Also, the reception section seems to have the same view repeated by more critics than I'd consider necessary.
 * Is it really necessary to list the performer of every chorus and verse in the track listings, especially if the entire song is performed by 50 Cent, such as "I Get Money" or "Amusement Park"? I'd consider just listing the performers on each track, without the chorus/verse references, but certainly drop those references for tracks with only 50 Cent. Probably also cut for sections of songs performed by 50 Cent, leaving only the guest artist references, for example "All of Me" - Chorus: Mary J. Blige. From the history it looks like this information was only added in the last few hours, so possibly isn't stable yet and could use some editing.
 * There are quite a few referencing problems, unformatted references and the like. And #53 is showing a cite error warning.


 * Oppose - I see a broken reference, and a stack more unreferenced. The reception section is far too short for a significant album like this one, and there is far too much quoting (as opposed to using your own words). A copyedit (as well as the other issues raised) would be really helpful. giggy (O) 12:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - What is the deal with the huge stacks of lyrics? Withdraw, and try to model the article on FAs like Adore, Loveless, and Be Here Now. Probably needs to be delisted from GA as well. indopug (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Untidy and unpolished, needs a lot of care and attention to bring it close to FA. There are too many quotes, including the lyrics, and poor prose throughout. Here are a couple of examples:
 * The album's title was changed twice. The first time, it was changed from "Curtis" to "Curtis S.S.K.". The second time, it was changed back to "Curtis". - redundancy.
 * The first week sales totals of Graduation and Curtis have outsold the first week sales totals of Guns N' Roses' two albums. - you can't outsell a total and some possessives are missing.
 * And stated instead of said occurs about ten times. The article needs a radical copy edit and a peer review. Graham Colm Talk 15:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.