Wikipedia:Peer review/Discipline (Janet Jackson album)/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discipline (Janet Jackson album)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to take it to FA. I'm particularly unsure about what direction to take this article. Jackson and this album are in a unique position at the moment, with her first tour in ages and lightening split from the record label. Assistance on the coverage of this and advise with general sourcing/MoS welcome. — Realist2 15:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, — Realist2 15:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

I suggest:

  • there is too much before the comma in the opening sentence for there to be no connecting word between JAckson and released. Perhaps something like "it was" or "which was".
  • in the second sentence "it was her only albumn released" also seems a little clunky, perhaps "it was the only one of her albums that was released for the..."
  • the sentences beginnin "jackson worked with producers such as..." and "JAckson's long time producers Jimmy Jan and..." could be merged."
  • The last lines of the paragraph also work to interrupt the flow of the prose a little.
  • lead, 3rd paragraph, "it was better than" could be "it was an improvement over" seems a bit less general.
  • In the Rock Witchu Tour section, the second sentence is only one paragraph and should be merged with the first.
  • first two sentences of "departure" section can be merged. This section might also benefit from some expansion if there is anything more than can go in. Is there a reaction from the record label?
    • Will look into a label response. I'm not sure they have/will comment. It seems like an embarrassment for them since Jackson was going out with the label boss Jermaine Dupri. They will probably try to sweep this under the carpet. — Realist2 21:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • all the chart positions and release history sections might benefit from some topic-related imagery if there is any available.
  • excellent citations and refs
  • references section could be titled "notes" and then a references section containing any sources that were drawn from heavily (Operation Camargue is one I have done which shows what I mean - I always link as I can never explain what I mean correctly - but this is just my own personal taste feel free to ignore :))

Overall, it does feel like it is missing a bit of content, each section is a little on the light side, but I also can't see much that you haven't covered, aside from a sentence or two alluding to the previous work that this album now follows, and the significance of this being a landmark release for her, but these are things you do cover.

Prose wise, it doesn't quite flow as well as it could, try a slightly less sentence.sentence.sentence. approach and a "more loquacious flowery but within limits as this is, after all, an encyclopedic article," approach.

Good work and sorry I can't be more helpful! SGGH speak! 17:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I have started doing some of these things. — Realist2 21:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)