Talk:Control (Janet Jackson album)/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Release and promotion section, "title-track" ---> "title track". In the Critical reception section, why is Annual capitalized? Same section, is there supposed to be space with ---> "[ Minneapolis sound ]"?
Check.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the Background section, please link "Jesse Johnson" to its correspondence article. In the Composition and production section, shouldn't the the Dave Marsh book be "The Heart of Rock & Soul: The 1001 Greatest Singles Ever Made", instead of "The heart of rock & soul: the 1001 greatest singles ever made"? Same section, "...technology has altered the form, shape, scale and even the meaning of popular music...The album wasn't created by a studio band" ---> "...technology has altered the form, shape, scale and even the meaning of popular music ... The album wasn't created by a studio band". Do the same with any quotes with the ellipses. In the Release and promotion section, it would be best if "Recording Industry Association of America" was followed by ---> (RIAA), I mean, I know what it means, but how 'bout your reader. In the Legacy section, shouldn't "Funk: the music, the people, and the rhythm of the one" be "Funk: The Music, The People, and The Rhythm of The One"? If so, please fix this. Do the same with the Rolling Stone issue and the Anthony DeCurtis book. ~~Please have all the book titles properly formatted. Ex: "She's a rebel: the history of women in rock & roll" ---> "She's a Rebel: The History of Women in Rock & Roll".~~
Half-check. Can we do it for the refs. as well?
Check.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
You might want to add accessdates to References 10, 31, and 56, per here.
Check.

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All issues have been addressed I believe. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did, though, there a couple more. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the citations. As for putting (RIAA) directly after "Recording Industry Association of America" - I don't find it very significant - I've written and seen FA articles that don't bother. I think it would simply make it seem more cluttered. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but would you want to follow that style? I know I wouldn't. Besides, not everyone is familiar with music related info., that's why I said that maybe adding the acronym after the name would help, per here, that particular reader. A good example of this is the "4 Minutes" song article, which recently passed FA. Overall, this is a good article, and has a big chance of being an FA. I won't hold it against you, maybe they will. Anyways, thank you to Bookkeeperoftheoccult for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I guess I had overlooked Wikipedia:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations, I didn't realize it was an official policy. I still think its clutter personally, but I've changed it to comply. Thanks! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]