Talk:Janet Jackson (album)/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

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]