Jump to content

Talk:Fortune (Chris Brown album)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Ojorojo (talk · contribs) 15:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll review this. Don't mind the "7 days" bot message, it will take whatever time is necessary (I'm in no hurry). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Infobox
  • Producers: There's a long list of producers. I've seen this in other articles, but I wonder if this is too much detail for an infobox ("to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article"). Has anybody thought of a better way to handle this? (Using collapsed material is generally discouraged, see MOS:COLLAPSE). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done as merch for Fortune had been released before the singles were even out

 Done for the initial comments except where noted, can't wait for more! --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead
  • The lead is supposed to summarize "the most important points" (MOS:LEAD). Judging from the amount of discussion in the main body, some of the points do not appear that important: the fact that Jive disbanded and when; the various producers besides The Underdogs (should "The" be treated like MOS:THEMUSIC?). The sales points are emphasized, but there is little about the musical style and song writing. Some info about the lyrics and production would help explain the critical reviews. The lead ends with a mention of Brown's promos; some more info about his ongoing performances and which songs have become an important part of his repertoire would help show the album's significance. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes, it's better to write the lead last. Anyway, with recent events, it is better to be thorough. WP:ALBUMSTYLE advises on layout, including a "Musical style, writing, composition" section. Some album articles approach this song by song, but you are in a better position to know what would work best. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be getting into this. A couple of things: "the" in Underdogs is now lower case in the lead, but the others use a capital (also elsewhere in the article); there's still no info about the musical style in the lead. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done but left The as capitalized in credits as it should be
So, it's "the Underdogs", but "The Runners", "The Messengers"? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done forgot about that lol.
  • Background and recording
  • This section begins with a work in progress. Is there any more background info about when the project started, with whom, concepts, etc.? The second sentence includes quotes that an aim was to make a club-style R&B album. How about something like: "Work for Fortune began in [month] 2011, when Brown began collaborating with Kevin McCall for an upcoming album. The idea was to create material that reflects earlier R&B efforts by Brown [and others] in a more club-oriented style." Some more paraphrasing would help reduce the number of quotes. Also, stringing quotes together makes it choppy; more prose makes it flow better. Is mentioning NeonLimeLight.com worthwhile (there's no article link)? The link to RTT doesn't seem to mention Banner or the album.
  • "he revealed...saying", "revealed...tweeting", "spoke more...saying", etc.: This construction seems repetitious; maybe: "In his Twitter account, Brown revealed, "LAST TWO WEEKS..."", etc.
  • "that didn't make...": Avoid contractions (except for quotes).

 Done for all

  • Music and lyrics
  • The first paragraph would also benefit from less quotes; with paraphrasing, the writers and their publications don't need to be identified, except for controversial claims. Also, prose usually has a more natural flow like speech. This applies to most of the rest of the article as well, except for Critical reception.
  •  Not done as writers are commonly identified with publications
  • Overuses of quotes have been pointed out as leading to copyvio problems, especially when the material can be paraphrased. Also, strings of quotes read like reviewer's comments, rather than an attempt to provide an analysis of the musical content. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is fine.
  • "Accomplished R&B" and "fully adult R&B" aren't necessarily "featherweight". Does the leap backward refer to the lightweight material, an older "safer" style, or ?
  • Refers to a leap forwards instead of going backward, reword suggestions?
  • Since there are contradictory points here, it's unclear what this is trying to say. The "Critical reception" section is more appropriate for opinionated material, while this should be more analytical. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What should I write instead?
  • Maybe some more on who wrote what, with some mention of songs (slow, upbeat, instrumentation, etc.) Billboard does a track by track; not necessary here, but some more specifics would be helpful.
  • Listing writers and which songs they did you mean?
  • Maybe help me select which sources to use from the article?
  • "Swagginess"?: "Brown [and ?] wrote all the lyrics for Fortune and they focus a lot on sex and his conquests. He frequently mentions his genitalia and his ability to get women to disrobe. Along with the sexualized themes are his boasts of being an insider on the the club scene and general bravado of one who is an accomplished player." Not sure if it's correct, but that's the general idea.
  • Don't understand you?
—Ojorojo (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe help me select which sources to use from the article?
  • You know the subject, genre, and sources. Do you really think the "Music and lyrics" section is GA quality? It's dwarfed by the "Release" and "Promotion" sections, but is more important to understand the album. Some GAs have come under scrutiny, so a cautious approach seems prudent. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had a look and I def can expand, will start tomorrow!
  • Great!
  • Release and artwork
  •  Done
  •  Done
  • Promotion
  •  Done
  •  Done
  • Singles
  • Nah, interesting food for thought though
  • There are numerous links (also in the two preceding sections) to iTunes stores, Amazon, HMV, etc. WP:NOTRSMUSIC discourages links to retail sites. Aren't there other sources (press releases, Brown's website, or record company) that can be used instead? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading that, shouldn't it be fine as long as I'm not using the links for credits/similar content?
  • Since they shouldn't be used as sources, there is no need to link them. For example, the first sentence in "Promotion" has two sources for the release of "Strip", yet there are three "Citations regarding the digital release", which are links to itunes. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done
  •  Done One cite AV media notes (for the standard edition?) is used; use additional ones for the deluxe editions (use |edition= or such to differentiate) to replace the retailers. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what you mean, where do I cite it and which source(s) specifically should be used?
  • Critical reception
  • Accolades: "See also" is normally used to link articles that expand on the topic. In this case, it looks like all the relevant info about the album is included here, so the link is unnecessary. If not, add more instead. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done
  • Track listing
  • Certifications
  • How do I fix this?
  • Had to remove the certification as it can't be found.
  • References
  •  Done
  • Several citations use |publisher= for the name of a work, website, or news outlet instead of |work=, |website=, |newspaper=, etc. According to the linked guide, "The 'publisher' parameter should not be included for widely-known mainstream news sources, for major academic journals, or where it would be the same or mostly the same as the work". —Ojorojo (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done but had to use publisher for sources that should not be italicized, as inserting italics doesn't work any more for them
  • The linked guide indicates that publisher should not be used for the title of a work, without any exceptions for "sources that should not be italicized". Can you show where you got this? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done couldn't find any sources but if the websites aren't italicized usually then why should they be in refs? But have to comply with what Wiki says, though this should be brought up somewhere on a talk page maybe...
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  • Most are also incorporated into the comments above.
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
Pass/Fail: — All done. Congrats! —Ojorojo (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fortune_(Chris_Brown_album)/GA1&oldid=945675157"