Talk:Let's Get It On/GA1

This is an archive of a previous GA nomination. The results of the nomination were that the article has passed the Good article criteria. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you disagree with this article's review, the article can be nominated for Good article reassessment.

GA Review

Hi. I will be reviewing this article for GA status. On initial reading, the article looks very good. Please feel free to ask me any questions. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I tried to fix the deprecated quotations. I think I screwed it up but I will have someone look at it and fix it. Please forgive me!

The article is overwikilinked per WP:CONTEXT. I will remove some of the obvious ones. Also, if you want, I can take out the autoformatted dates, as they are in the process of being deprecated (I believe). FAC does not encourage them.

I really think it is an excellent article in terms of appropriate lead, engaging text, and lots of information in a compact article. I will have to look for faults as they are not obvious.

"As with What's Going On, Let's Get It On was also intended to have a deeper meaning than of what was being used to portrayed it; in What's Going On's case, politics, and with the follow up, love, which would be used by Gaye as a metaphor for God's love." I think this sentence is somewhat awkward. Perhaps something like:

"As with What's Going On, Let's Get It On was also intended to have a deeper meaning than the general theme used to portrayed it; in the case of What's Going On, that was politics, and with the follow up album it was love, which would be used by Gaye as a metaphor for God's love."

I believe you have to settle on some consistency with numbers. WP:MOSNUM had no answer the last time I asked whether #1, Number One, number one etc should be used. It seems like in music articles #1 is typically used, whereas in sports No. 1 is used. Also, there is that rule about spelling out numbers under 10 and using numerical values for numbers over 10. But there are many exceptions depending on context, etc.

All the links check out. Youtube generally is not allowed as a reference do to copyright problems.

There is a problem with the references. They all have to be similarly formated, like use all citation, or use all cite xxx. Also they all need publishers.

I wonder if it would be helpful to break up some of the long text passages into paragraphs.

I dont get the problem with citation. All of them, except for the footnotes, have publishers. Dan56 (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*(copied from Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music

You must have a consistent standard for formatting references. See WP:Citation templates and scroll down to where the templates xxx are. (cite book xxx, cite web xxx etc. or the citation book etc.) Or go to Template:Cite book. WP:Footnote gives an over all explanation. (There is also the Harvard method, which you probably would not want to bother with and don't need.) The issue is to choose a format and be consistent in the article. Always provide the publisher. And when you have a page range e.g. pp.56-67, you must use the pp. The single p. is for a single page.
~~As an example, look at Frank Zappa where the editor uses the "Citation" method for references.~~

~~Here are other pages that may help:Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style~~

References

You're right. Your citations are fine. I cleaned up a few oddities in them and they are fine.

Check the references, as I changed one (added an alternative) and see if that is correct.

Also, it would be better if you could move the reference citations out of the lead and place them in the article where the material is discussed.

Does it matter? Dan56 (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a semi-rule of MoS and some reviewers enforce it. The idea is that everything in the lead is covered in the article and cited there. I don't have particularly strong feelings, but you should know it is considered undesirable. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References: So is this correct? The liner notes contain essays by Ritz, Townsend, Edmonds, and Weinger, as well as excerpts from Divided Soul?

Yes; One excerpt from Divided Soul by D. Ritz (according to the liner note caption near the quote in the deluxe edition booklet) Dan56 (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is one cite web in there with your other references -- theoretically making them mixed. Maybe when you can, you can straighten that out. So I will pass the article as I think it is very good.

Done Dan56 (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the ISBN Divided Soul came out in 2003 - there was a paperback and then a hardback, both in 2003. So I am going to change the date. You can look into it more if you like, and see if there is an earlier edition with a different ISBN. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to World Cat, the book was published in 1991.[1] Dan56 (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am looking at your references again and you have Ritz (1991), for example. You need a Ritz a and a Ritz b to distinguish which Ritz in the references a particular citation refers to. Also, is there a citation from Rolling Stone or is that like a "Further reading" reference?

There is; ref. 4. Dan56 (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Divided Soul, I was using Amazon.com [2] Make sure the isbn is correct for the 1991 edition.

I fixed the ISBN number Dan56 (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]