Talk:Ready (Trey Songz album)

Censoring

i can't seem to find this confirmed anywhere (and don't own the actual album), but—is there no uncensored version of this, with the parental advisory and everything? censored rap is just so..old school, i don't know.  :\ but i feel like it should be mentioned, if this is indeed the case. Impasse 02:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impasse (talk • contribs)

Album Sales

The citation for the album sales says 647,200 copies after 32 weeks. Until a new reliable source is found that is what the album sales will say. Thank You-BlindSideBME (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ready (Trey Songz album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –Chase (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi User:Candyo32, sorry that you had to wait so long for someone to begin a review of this article. At first glance, this seems to be a well-written article, but I can already spot some issues. If you will allow me the time to complete a full review, I will be able to highlight them, and others, in detail and hopefully provide tips for improvement. As for right now, let me assess this per the quick-fail criteria at WP:RGA:

1. There are several reliable sources in the references.
2. There is no obviously non-neutral content.
3. No tags or banners.
4. No ongoing edit wars.
5. This does not cover a current event.

This doesn't meet any of the quick-fail criteria so expect a full review soon. –Chase (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

Prose

Lead

• It was released August 31, 2009, via Songbook and Atlantic Records. → It was released on August 31, 2009 via Songbook and Atlantic Records.

 Done

• The album received generally positive reviews from critics, who while commending the album overall and comparing it to the work of R. Kelly, noted that it was inconsistent. There should be a comma after "who".

Is it really correct to have a comma after the who, since it is a full thought?

That is indeed correct. Without that extra commentary it would read "who noted that it was inconsistent". The commas break it up and should come after "who" and before "noted". Actually, since you're talking about the reviews being positive, that sentence needs to be changed to The album received generally positive reviews from critics, who, while noting that the album was inconsistent, commended it and compared it to the work of R. Kelly. –Chase (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• It became Songz' first RIAA-certified album, being recognized as Gold. "Songz'" needs to be changed to "Songz's", not just here, but throughout the article. RIAA also needs to be written out as "Recording Industry Association of America" upon first use, with "(RIAA)" following it.

 Done

• And actually, that sentence is pretty awkwardly worded. Try changing it to It was certified Gold by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), becoming Songz's first certified album.

 Done

• the top ten Billboard Hot 100 hit, "Say Aah", and fellow R&B top five hits, the comma after "hit" is not necessary, neither is the one after "hits".

 Done

• It earned Songz a Grammy Award nomination for Best Contemporary R&B Album, at the 52nd Grammy Awards, however lost to Beyoncé Knowles' I Am...Sasha Fierce. Commas: the one after "Album" is not necessary; one should follow "however". Also "it" should be added before "lost".

 Done, but re-worded sentence a bit so comma would not succeed "however."

I also gave the lead a quick copyedit. Hopefully that helped with some of the issues. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 03:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Background

• Troy Taylor said, " "Trey's from the streets, Remove the first quotation mark.

 Done

• head back to the studio and finish up. Drop the "up", it makes the sentence unencyclopedic.

 Done

• After Ready 's success, Get rid of the space after "Ready".

 Done

• Concerning the album's lyrical content Comma after this.

 Done

• Sean Fennessey of The Village Voice said, that throughout Ready, showed Songz' → Sean Fennessey of The Village Voice said that Ready featured Songz's

 Done

• DJBooth 's → DJBooth's

 Done

• an 80s soundtrack vibe. → an apostrophe should come before "80s".

 Done

Promotion

• his blog site "SeeFurtherThanIAm.com" the quotes aren't necessary.

 Done

Singles

• received generally positive reviews, peaking at fifty-one on the Hot 100. → received generally positive reviews and peaked at number fifty-one on the Hot 100. critical reception has nothing to do with commercial reception.

 Done, but used "while" instead of "and"

• Additionally it was his first song hit pop radio, Hmm? I think you mean Additionally it was his first song to impact pop radio, but correct me if I'm wrong.

 Done

• it received generally positive reviews, reaching forty-three on the Hot 100 Again, it received generally positive reviews and reached number forty-three on the Hot 100

 Done but used "whilst" instead of "and"

Commercial response

• Whitney Houston's comeback album, "I Look To You. Album titles are placed in italics, not quotation marks.

 Done

• Re-reviewing the prose, there still seems to be several things that you partially missed, and also some of the changes added new grammatical issues. I think I'm going to give this a quick copyedit, so that you don't have to keep constantly correcting issues. –Chase (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

MoS

• Background section: Block quotes are not placed in quotation marks.

 Done

• References must come immediately after quotes, not at the end of paragraphs.

 Done, but not exactly sure what you mean, hopefully I cleared it up.

I'll fix anything you might have messed up on while I copyedit the article. –Chase (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

References

• For non-print sources, use the "publisher" instead of "work" field.

 Done

Still needs to be fixed in refs 6, 15, 16, 17, 22 (Billboard is a print source, regardless of whether you're sourcing the website or the magazine), 30(?), 32, 35, 37, and 38. –Chase (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Are Singersroom, DJBooth, Baller Status, and Rap Basement reliable sources?

Well Singersoom, and Baller Status contain interviews, so they are the only sources for the respective mentionings in article. For the Rap Basement, it has been co-signed by VH1, named “Best Hip Hop Lifestyle” website in 2007. Well for DJBooth, its an LLC if that makes any difference.

I'll ask about them at WP:RSN. –Chase (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Per commentary at WP:RSN, DJBooth and Rap Basement aren't reliable. DJBooth allows user submissions and Rap Basement is a fan network (which are generally unreliable). When these sources are removed/possibly replaced, I will gladly pass this article as a GA. –Chase (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Files

• File:Sayaah.ogg and File:Neighborsknowmyname.ogg do not have fair-use rationales for this article.
  • This still needs to be addressed. –Chase (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Not a major concern, but are there any images that could be added to this?

Copyright

• This article use quotations way too much, making copyright infringement a possible issue. The Background, Composition, and Critical response sections need to have a good chunk of the quotes summarized in your own words. Try to quote only when necessary.

I'm placing this on hold for a week so that issues may be addressed. If you need a longer amount of time, let me know. –Chase (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't mean to butt in here, but there's also a few queries I have about the article. As I wrote on Candy's talk page, the article really requires a section on production. Also, the "Background" section actually has no background information, and is just a bunch of disparate information and quotes regarding the album. The "Background" section should be rewritten to actually be about background, like at Dignity (album). Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This still needs to be addressed. –Chase (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Cornucopia, sorry about that, I've been meaning to reply to you but on in my strained time on Wikipedia as it now, I forgot to get around to it. While the Background on Goodies (album) could use that, I didn't come across much information regarding the production, so if there were a section it would just plainly stated the producers and locations of production, which is basically the credits section. I do believe the Background suffices quotes about the background and production (which is sort of the last paragraph), and it may not be good to split it up into two small sections. Or maybe call the section Background and development or something... ? Candyo32 03:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's fine. :) While there is production information out there, I know it's hard to find since so much time has passed. I'll try to give it a go right now, if you give me a little time. I just wanted you to know the difference between "background" and "production/recording" sections for future articles. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 04:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it more than likely could have been done better if the article were created while everything was going on, but its kind of hard a year later. Candyo32 04:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked the information to have a greater slant on the "production" of the album. It still could be a lot better, but I guess you could work on that over time (if you happen to come across new info). Hopefully the section reads better now and is a bit more relevant. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I very much like the way the article is structured now. Thanks for your commentary, Cornucopia. –Chase (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• This GAN is now on hold until September 5 at the nominator's request. –Chase (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• All looks good! I'm now Ready to pass this as a GA (excuse the horrible pun). –Chase (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)