Talk:Fortune (Chris Brown album)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ojorojo (talk · contribs) 15:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'll review this. Don't mind the "7 days" bot message, it will take whatever time is necessary (I'm in no hurry). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Infobox

• Producers: There's a long list of producers. I've seen this in other articles, but I wonder if this is too much detail for an infobox ("to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article"). Has anybody thought of a better way to handle this? (Using collapsed material is generally discouraged, see MOS:COLLAPSE). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Using collapsed material is generally discouraged, except for navigation-type purposes (track lists, etc.). Is there some accepted practice for this? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Another editor has initiated a related discussion on WT:ALBUMS. We'll see if anything comes of it. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• The parameter is still being discussed. It's best to leave this as it is until something is decided. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Singles: #1 was released five months before, #2 & 3 three months before. Template:Infobox album#Template:Singles advises to include "songs on the album that were released as singles during the marketing and promotion of the album". Interest in these may have receded before the album finally was released and therefore weren't really used to promote it. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done as merch for Fortune had been released before the singles were even out

• Flatlist: FYI only, several parameters already use class=hlist, so these are unnecessary. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• FYI, hlist is also unnecessary, see Template:Infobox album#Notes (sometimes these extra templates make semi-auto functions difficult). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done for the initial comments except where noted, can't wait for more! --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Lead

• The lead is supposed to summarize "the most important points" (MOS:LEAD). Judging from the amount of discussion in the main body, some of the points do not appear that important: the fact that Jive disbanded and when; the various producers besides The Underdogs (should "The" be treated like MOS:THEMUSIC?). The sales points are emphasized, but there is little about the musical style and song writing. Some info about the lyrics and production would help explain the critical reviews. The lead ends with a mention of Brown's promos; some more info about his ongoing performances and which songs have become an important part of his repertoire would help show the album's significance. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Ojorojo: Should I add a Music and lyrics section then? Will need to know about this before I rewrite the lead, understandably I presume. --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Sometimes, it's better to write the lead last. Anyway, with recent events, it is better to be thorough. WP:ALBUMSTYLE advises on layout, including a "Musical style, writing, composition" section. Some album articles approach this song by song, but you are in a better position to know what would work best. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Ojorojo: Looking alright now? --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll be getting into this. A couple of things: "the" in Underdogs is now lower case in the lead, but the others use a capital (also elsewhere in the article); there's still no info about the musical style in the lead. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done but left The as capitalized in credits as it should be

So, it's "the Underdogs", but "The Runners", "The Messengers"? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done forgot about that lol.

• Background and recording

• This section begins with a work in progress. Is there any more background info about when the project started, with whom, concepts, etc.? The second sentence includes quotes that an aim was to make a club-style R&B album. How about something like: "Work for Fortune began in [month] 2011, when Brown began collaborating with Kevin McCall for an upcoming album. The idea was to create material that reflects earlier R&B efforts by Brown [and others] in a more club-oriented style." Some more paraphrasing would help reduce the number of quotes. Also, stringing quotes together makes it choppy; more prose makes it flow better. Is mentioning NeonLimeLight.com worthwhile (there's no article link)? The link to RTT doesn't seem to mention Banner or the album.
• "he revealed...saying", "revealed...tweeting", "spoke more...saying", etc.: This construction seems repetitious; maybe: "In his Twitter account, Brown revealed, "LAST TWO WEEKS..."", etc.
• "that didn't make...": Avoid contractions (except for quotes).

 Done for all

• Music and lyrics

• The first paragraph would also benefit from less quotes; with paraphrasing, the writers and their publications don't need to be identified, except for controversial claims. Also, prose usually has a more natural flow like speech. This applies to most of the rest of the article as well, except for Critical reception.

•  Not done as writers are commonly identified with publications

• Overuses of quotes have been pointed out as leading to copyvio problems, especially when the material can be paraphrased. Also, strings of quotes read like reviewer's comments, rather than an attempt to provide an analysis of the musical content. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think this is fine.

• "Accomplished R&B" and "fully adult R&B" aren't necessarily "featherweight". Does the leap backward refer to the lightweight material, an older "safer" style, or ?

• Refers to a leap forwards instead of going backward, reword suggestions?

• Since there are contradictory points here, it's unclear what this is trying to say. The "Critical reception" section is more appropriate for opinionated material, while this should be more analytical. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• What should I write instead?

• Maybe some more on who wrote what, with some mention of songs (slow, upbeat, instrumentation, etc.) Billboard does a track by track; not necessary here, but some more specifics would be helpful.

• Listing writers and which songs they did you mean?

• Discussion rather than listing. This GA (picked completely at random) includes a more developed "Composition" section, which is essentially "Lyrics and music". —Ojorojo (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe help me select which sources to use from the article?

• "Swagginess"?: "Brown [and ?] wrote all the lyrics for Fortune and they focus a lot on sex and his conquests. He frequently mentions his genitalia and his ability to get women to disrobe. Along with the sexualized themes are his boasts of being an insider on the the club scene and general bravado of one who is an accomplished player." Not sure if it's correct, but that's the general idea.

• Don't understand you?

• Instead of three brief sentences, a more developed narrative should be provided. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

—Ojorojo (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe help me select which sources to use from the article?

• You know the subject, genre, and sources. Do you really think the "Music and lyrics" section is GA quality? It's dwarfed by the "Release" and "Promotion" sections, but is more important to understand the album. Some GAs have come under scrutiny, so a cautious approach seems prudent. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Had a look and I def can expand, will start tomorrow!

• Now with 13% more swagginessosity! Can't wait to see the rest. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• OK, we've explored this enough. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Great!

• Release and artwork

• "United States", "United Kingdom": "US" and "UK" are well-known enough to use and preferred for subsequent appearances (see MOS:ACROFIRSTUSE Exceptions). This apples for rest of article also. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Done

• "in the European countries of Germany...": The names should be enough. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Done

• Promotion

• "His set list composed of thirteen songs which were...": "was composed of thirteen songs: Turn..." ("which were" isn't needed); also I count twelve. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Done

• "Tour": A separate heading and Template:Main article isn't really needed – there are only three sentences and the tour name could be linked instead. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Done

• Singles

• Just a thought: there's a lot of detail (date/chart/position) here that might lend itself to a table, with the reviews kept as prose. Up to you. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Nah, interesting food for thought though

• There are numerous links (also in the two preceding sections) to iTunes stores, Amazon, HMV, etc. WP:NOTRSMUSIC discourages links to retail sites. Aren't there other sources (press releases, Brown's website, or record company) that can be used instead? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• After reading that, shouldn't it be fine as long as I'm not using the links for credits/similar content?

• Since they shouldn't be used as sources, there is no need to link them. For example, the first sentence in "Promotion" has two sources for the release of "Strip", yet there are three "Citations regarding the digital release", which are links to itunes. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Should I just keep the buzz single sources and, within the remainder of the article, radio release dates consistently? --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keeping the reliable sources and removing the retail links throughout the article would be consistent, or? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Done

• The still are a number of "Citations regarding the release of" and others with links to itunes, amazon, hmv, etc. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Ojorojo:, sorry about the late response but have responded though should the sources be removed from track listings or the track listings deleted? --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• It would be better to source the album(s) directly using {{cite AV media notes}}. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Done One cite AV media notes (for the standard edition?) is used; use additional ones for the deluxe editions (use |edition= or such to differentiate) to replace the retailers. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• I don't understand what you mean, where do I cite it and which source(s) specifically should be used?

• Added examples in a test edit (need to fill in info). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Critical reception

• Accolades: "See also" is normally used to link articles that expand on the topic. In this case, it looks like all the relevant info about the album is included here, so the link is unnecessary. If not, add more instead. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Done

• Track listing

•  Done Hidden tracks: There's not much here, so maybe displayed is OK. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Certifications

•  Done The citation for Sweden displays the error "type, position, AND certweek ARE REQUIRED FOR SWEDISH CERTIFICATIONS AFTER 2011." —Ojorojo (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• How do I fix this?

• Template:Certification Table Entry has some explanations for the parameters – apparently they need entries. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Had to remove the certification as it can't be found.

• References

• This explains use of work/website and publisher (|publisher= should not be used for the name of a work, etc.). Better to be consistent. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Done

• Several citations use |publisher= for the name of a work, website, or news outlet instead of |work=, |website=, |newspaper=, etc. According to the linked guide, "The 'publisher' parameter should not be included for widely-known mainstream news sources, for major academic journals, or where it would be the same or mostly the same as the work". —Ojorojo (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Done but had to use publisher for sources that should not be italicized, as inserting italics doesn't work any more for them

• The linked guide indicates that publisher should not be used for the title of a work, without any exceptions for "sources that should not be italicized". Can you show where you got this? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Done couldn't find any sources but if the websites aren't italicized usually then why should they be in refs? But have to comply with what Wiki says, though this should be brought up somewhere on a talk page maybe...

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

• Most are also incorporated into the comments above.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

• OK, we're about ready to wrap this up. I made a couple of minor tweaks, correct/revert as you see fit. Please fix the issues marked "pending" above. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Ojorojo: Responding to everything, pass time? --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Pass/Fail: — All done. Congrats! —Ojorojo (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)