Talk:Janet Jackson (album)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Janet Jackson (album) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Janet Jackson (album) was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 16, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed
December 7, 2017	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Janet Jackson Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Janet Jackson, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Janet Jackson and associated groups or individuals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Janet JacksonWikipedia:WikiProject Janet JacksonTemplate:WikiProject Janet JacksonJanet Jackson articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

R&B and Soul Music High‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Good article assessment

This article is very weak. I've been cleaning it up. The prose was weak, and it followed almost word for word its main source. I've improved that. The article had been padded out with trivia, and material which didn't belong in this article. But I'm concerned that there is now very little useful information here. SilkTork (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have the statement "Janet Jackson is described as a post-disco and R&B record" in the lead and in the info box, but not explained in the main body. We have "It received little notoriety on the principal singles chart" - I am unsure what is intended. Overall, there is little actual information. Compare with Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814, a GA article, and Dream Street (Janet Jackson album), a start class article. This article is closer to the start class article in terms of amount of information. SilkTork (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Janet Jackson (album)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Good article assessment

This article is very weak. I've been cleaning it up. The prose was weak, and it followed almost word for word its main source. I've improved that. The article had been padded out with trivia, and material which didn't belong in this article. But I'm concerned that there is now very little useful information here. SilkTork (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have the statement "Janet Jackson is described as a post-disco and R&B record" in the lead and in the info box, but not explained in the main body. We have "It received little notoriety on the principal singles chart" - I am unsure what is intended. Overall, there is little actual information. Compare with Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814, a GA article, and Dream Street (Janet Jackson album), a start class article. This article is closer to the start class article in terms of amount of information. SilkTork (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

I've tidied up the article, so plagiarism and off-topic material has been removed, and the prose is now clear and readable. The minor issues remaining, such as the statement that the album received mixed reviews on release, is not cited, and a statement in the lead that is not supported in the main body, can be fixed; however, that the article does not adequately cover the subject requires appropriate research and writing up. I'll put this on hold for seven days, and notify appropriate projects. SilkTork (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're going to struggle to find contemporary reviews, at least in the near future – it *might* have been reviewed in Rolling Stone, and perhaps in the UK in NME and Melody Maker, but almost certainly in an offhand and patronising "Michael's little sister has made an album, bless her" way. But there's no way I'm going to be able to be able to check print copies of those publications for several months now. Richard3120 (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Baltimore Afro-American piece doesn't read like a conventional review. It reads like a press release. Can we check into that? SilkTork (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delisting. SilkTork (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]