Wikipedia:Peer review/Love Always/archive1

Love Always edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to become a WP:GA eventually. I have used My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy and Taylor Swift as help. I know a criterion for GA is the use of images, but I cannot seem to find any on google images / flickr. Any comments are appreciated!

Thanks, Michael Jester (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Belovedfreak

I can see you've put a lot of work into this, and there's a lot of good information here already. You've used a lot of reliable sources to back up the content. I would say tha the main thing at the moment that will hold it back from being listed as a good article is the prose. Some of it reads quite awkwardly. I have made some changes and will make some suggestions here, but many of the issues are repeated throughout. I recommend either going through with a fine toothed comb yourself, or asking someone who has not worked on the article, who you trust to write well, to copyedit it. You can try the guilde of copyeditors, although I believe the results can vary. It can be hard sometimes to see issues in your own work when you've spent hours looking at it! I'll note some issues/queries/suggestions as I go through each section. Lead

"American R&B duo and brothers K-Ci & JoJo" sounds slightly awkward - maybe just call them a duo and then mention that they are brothers afterwards, perhaps when you mention that they were part of Jodeci.

Done

Is it necessary to describe Jodeci as "platinum selling" in the lead, since this article is not about a work by that band?

Done

"Production was handled by JoJo ..." handled sounds a bit informal
try to be consistent with how you say the chart position, eg. "number six", "number-one"

Fixed

"It achieved respectable international charting..." - I know that this is backed up later in terms of chart positions, but I'm not sure that the word "respectable" isn't really a matter of opinion. Who says which chart positions are considered respectable?

Okay, I removed it.

"Every single would peak ..." - this is an example of the main thing that jumped out at me - the overuse of the word would. Why use this tense so often? Why not "Every single peaked..."? I would go out on a limb and change every single one of these to a simple past tense. (There are close to 20 instances). In some cases, it's a matter of personal opinion/style and I must admit, I just don't like it. On the other hand, it does sound awkward and might even be confusing if a reader is expecting you to be talking about the past.

As you can tell, I'm not the best when it comes to grammar. I fixed all the instances except for one.

Background

"Beforehand, K-Ci & JoJo..." - before what? Remember that the lead acts as a summary for the article (which you've done a good job of), not just an intro, so the first section after the table of contents should really be starting from the beginning. I have no idea what "beforehand" is referring to here.

Fixed

I'm not sure if there might be a bit too much information about Jodeci. It is important to give some background and set the scene, but there seems to be more focus on the previous group than the one that released this album.

What do you think I should condense it to?

"K-Ci & JoJo would eventually show a sign of independence" - this is a little vague. Did Jodeci break up? Did the other two carry on under the name? Did K-Ci & JoJo stay in the band but do separate work at the same time?

Fixed

"...most notably "How Do U Want It"" - most notably according to whom?

Added citation

"The duo would record their first songs..." - as a duo? Presumably they weren't their first recordings ever

Fixed

Recording and production

Not sure if you need to include all the recording locations. Usually, it would be relevant info but I'm just worried that there are so many, readers' eyes might just glaze over a bit. I don't know, but have a think about it.

I was thinking the same thing. This was pretty much the only thing I could find on recording. I'll still look it over though.

"Production and writing mainly came from...", "Engineering came from..." - bit of repetition there, and also quite a lot of passive voice throughout. (eg. "Production was done by X" rather than "X produced". try to mix this up a bit.

I tried to mix it up.

Release

Citation missing for final sentence?

Singles

Citation for Snoop Dogg reference?

Added citation

Citation for final chart mentioned?

Added citation

(note that inline citations are not necessarily required throughout to meet the GA criteria but the reviewer will need to be able to verify the info presented. Inline citations are the easiest way to ensure that.)

Reception

"The album attained respectable international charting" - same comment as for the lead

Changed

Is this Larry Flynt? If so, link his name. If not, is the publication notable?

I believe that is him. I linked his name.

Production

There seem to be some typos in this list, but I'm not sure what all of them should be eg. "Vocal Arround)", "nsky – Guitar"

I just copied and pasted it from Allmusic. I will go over it and fix all errors.

Charts and certifications

Shouldn't year end chart positions be labelled as "position" rather than "peak position"? It's just one position right, so they can't peak?

That's true. Fixed.

References

Make sure you check all links are active here

Images

I know you mentioned images and it would be nice to have some free ones, but there is no requirement for images at GA. Many album articles are listed that just have the album cover, providing it is appropriately licensed with rationale

Oh okay. Sweet.

General

A GA reviewer should do spot-checks to make sure references support what they claim to, and also to make sure there are no copyright violations or close parahrasing/plagiarism issues. It might be worth doing a final check for these issues before nominating

Overall, I think that if you fix up the prose, it could be quite close to GA-standard. I hope this review is of some use.--Beloved Freak 17:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I appreciate all of the comments. I will be working on them now.
—Michael Jester (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed most of the changes and I will try to get someone to copy edit the article. I appreciate all of the comments!
—Michael Jester (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]