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

Control (Janet Jackson album)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I am working towards passing both GA and FA nomination. Any editors who are music-savvy are encouraged to comment or give criticism. Thanks, The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Sillyfolkboy

A few minor points - Some references are missing access dates for their links, though i'm not sure how things stand in terms of web links to google books and library refs. Ref 30 should say 'Retrieved on' and have the 2008-07-05 date to stick with the same format.
- Links for books never have access dates. Library ref such as periodicals, newspapers and journals don't either, unless you are sourcing them directly from a website. see wikipedia:citation_templates. I forgot to place ref 30 in citation format which I'll fix shortly. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 18:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "Nasty" sample should be reduced to 24 secs as song samples should be no more than 10% of the whole track (see WP:Music Samples).
- since the entire track is 4:30 wouldn't 10% be around 40 seconds? In which case under anything under 30 seconds would be correct. I'm horrible at math so I may be wrong. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 18:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed it is bad math! 4:30 is 270 seconds. So: 10% = 27 seconds. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are there no more credits for the recording/production crew? All but two seem to be performers, though allmusic doesn't give us any more info.
- credits are correct. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 18:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ALL BOLD AND ALL CAPITALS approach in the awards section seems just wrong. If there a better to represent this info (prose/table)?
- I'm probably going to delete that until I find more sources. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult)18:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, citations should be easy for awards - if you can't find them then they're pretty dubious and shouldn't stay. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually music awards are some of the hardest things to track down, esp for Billboard. Jackson certainly won each of them, but most current source simply state she won "x" amount from "x" source without giving specifics. I've even found sources from 1986, such as the ones stated in the Legacy section of the article and her main biography article that still only name how many awards she won without listing them individually. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should gold and platinum really be italicised in the footnotes?Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the 'work' section is used in the sense of literary work, not in the gold/platinum sense. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The citation template automatically does that, though I'm not sure "gold and platinum" is the correct sport for the "work" value of the template. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 18:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll remove them. Thanks for the input. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]