Wikipedia:Peer review/Discipline (Janet Jackson album)/archive1

Discipline (Janet Jackson album)

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to take it to FA. I'm particularly unsure about what direction to take this article. Jackson and this album are in a unique position at the moment, with her first tour in ages and lightening split from the record label. Assistance on the coverage of this and advise with general sourcing/MoS welcome. — Realist  2  15:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, — Realist  2  15:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

SGGH

I suggest:


 * there is too much before the comma in the opening sentence for there to be no connecting word between JAckson and released. Perhaps something like "it was" or "which was".
 * in the second sentence "it was her only albumn released" also seems a little clunky, perhaps "it was the only one of her albums that was released for the..."
 * the sentences beginnin "jackson worked with producers such as..." and "JAckson's long time producers Jimmy Jan and..." could be merged."
 * The last lines of the paragraph also work to interrupt the flow of the prose a little.
 * lead, 3rd paragraph, "it was better than" could be "it was an improvement over" seems a bit less general.
 * In the Rock Witchu Tour section, the second sentence is only one paragraph and should be merged with the first.
 * first two sentences of "departure" section can be merged. This section might also benefit from some expansion if there is anything more than can go in. Is there a reaction from the record label?
 * Will look into a label response. I'm not sure they have/will comment. It seems like an embarrassment for them since Jackson was going out with the label boss Jermaine Dupri. They will probably try to sweep this under the carpet. — Realist  2  21:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * all the chart positions and release history sections might benefit from some topic-related imagery if there is any available.
 * excellent citations and refs
 * references section could be titled "notes" and then a references section containing any sources that were drawn from heavily (Operation Camargue is one I have done which shows what I mean - I always link as I can never explain what I mean correctly - but this is just my own personal taste feel free to ignore :))

Overall, it does feel like it is missing a bit of content, each section is a little on the light side, but I also can't see much that you haven't covered, aside from a sentence or two alluding to the previous work that this album now follows, and the significance of this being a landmark release for her, but these are things you do cover.

Prose wise, it doesn't quite flow as well as it could, try a slightly less sentence.sentence.sentence. approach and a "more loquacious flowery but within limits as this is, after all, an encyclopedic article," approach.

Good work and sorry I can't be more helpful! SGGH speak! 17:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, I have started doing some of these things. — Realist  2  21:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.stereogum.com/b-sides/janet-jackson-samples-daft-pun-008177.html
 * http://acharts.us/
 * http://realtalkny.uproxx.com/2008/02/topic/topic/exclusives/video-janet-jacksons-discipline-listening-session/
 * http://www.eurweb.com/
 * Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals
 * Current ref 6 is lacking a publisher (BBC, btw)
 * Current ref 25 is lacking a publisher (Guardian, btw)
 * Current ref 29 is lacking publisher and last access date at the very least.
 * Okay, refs 31 through 36 all give the publishers as the country for the charts. Those are NOT the publishers, you need to give the correct publishers of those sites. Same for current res 47 through 63!
 * Current ref 43 has a formatting glitch
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)