Wikipedia:Peer review/FutureSex/LoveSounds/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have pretty much covered all information about the album, which is by far one of the most documented releases in 2006. I have listed this for peer review because I wanted it to improve more before submitting to FAC. Areas on critique that are much welcomed are on the comprehensiveness (checking on the lapses of the coverage), organization (as this is a huge article), internal consistencies (for compliance to MOS), and most of all clarity and tone. The prose must be excellent!
Thanks, Efe (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: , here are some suggestions for improvement.
- There are two dab links that will need to be fixed
- One dead external link
- Language is not great. Just in the lead I found the following problems.
- Not sure what "commonly" means here? Plus there seems to be a missing word "much [more] diverse" - Although the album commonly shares lyrical themes with Timberlake's debut album, Justified, FutureSex/LoveSounds is much diverse in its music. I think what is meant is something like Although the album shares lyrical themes with with Timberlake's debut album, Justified, FutureSex/LoveSounds is much more diverse in its music.
- Really awkward, run on sentence, grammar problem "which occurred" The direction that Timberlake pursued for the album originated when he returned to collaborating with record producer Timbaland, which occur after a two-year hiatus during which time Timberlake felt unable to record new songs. How about something like After a two-year hiatus during which Timberlake felt unable to record songs, he returned to collaborating with record producer Timbaland. This led to a new direction for the album, which...
- Not sure what this means Hosting a few collaborators, ...
- "most of whose critics" is awkward and could just be "most critics": FutureSex/LoveSounds was released to generally positive reviews, most of whose critics noted the influences in the album and its collection of eclectic sounds.
- Anyway this needs a serious copyedit before it would stand a chance at FAC - the most difficult criteria for most articles to meet at FAC is 1a a professional levle of English - see WP:WIAFA
- I would mention Timberlake's career in N'Sync at the start of Background in its own sentence - ask at WP:GOCE
- Not sure what this even means In the following two years, Timberlake turned partially idle in the recording industry.[1]
- The context section seems overly detailed - to pick one example, how does Later, he paired with American actor Jimmy Fallon on The Barry Gibb Talk Show. help the reader's comprehension of this album? Neither Fallon not the Brothers Gibb are mentioned later in the article that I can see.
- I do not think "re-collaboration" is a word It was a re-collaboration with Timbaland,...
- Does this mean they had a working title or not? Aside from having "Cry Me a River" to draw from, they had no "game plan" and a working title for the new album.[8]
- I do not see a lot of organizational issues, the refs look OK, and the few images I checked were licensed properly.
- Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Ruhr. I'll just ask someone to copyedit the article. --Efe (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comments from Nikkimaria
- Agree that the article needs a thorough copy-edit
- Be consistent in whether magazine/newspaper publishers are included and in parentheses or not
- Can "Cultural impact" be three paragraphs instead of four?
- Check for typos (ex. "MTV Bews")
- Nice catch. How did you do that? --Efe (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Check for consistent italicization throughout
- Make sure that referencing format is consistent
- Captions should meet same standards for prose and verifiability as article text
- FUR for File:Futuresex.jpg should mention that it's the main infobox image and should state who the copyright holder is. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment.
- I echo both Ruhr and Nikkimaria on this. For me, there are two main problems: 1) the article doesn't seem to be very comprehensive. And I know we're dealing with quality and not quantity, but the article has bearly 100 sources. For me, this directly correlates to the short, choppy nature of the prose, with paragraphs made up of three, or even two sentences, and the cursory treatment of various aspects of the album. If this album is well-documented in the media, I'm sure you can find a lot more sources.
- Thanks for this input regarding the article's comprehensiveness. While I have scoured much of what the Internet could give me, yet presently the article is comprehensive as per your observation. Can you specifically provide examples so that I can work on them particularly? --Efe (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Except "cultural impact", I think there's enough information there. --Efe (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Take a quick scan of the featured article "No Line on the Horizon." Compare its music section with this article. It may be asking too much, but are you able to discuss the musical variation of each song in FutureSex/LoveSounds? After reading the production section of the article, all I get from it is that some songs deal with sex and some deal with love sounds. And the same for music: it's varied. But what about the individual songs? Read the articles of each song on the album, because they have a great deal of information that you could incorporate in this article. You need to be giving an overview of the themes and the instrumentation for each song, and this will help you to expand on your assertion that the music (both themes and instrumentation) is varied. I'm looking for things like "'What Goes Around... Comes Around' explores themes of betrayal and forgiveness, and narrates a protagonist's discovery of his lover's deception".... "In 'Lovesoned', Timberlake compares sexual attraction to a state of drug-induced intoxication...." "In 'Until the End of Time' the narrator emphasizes his devotion to his lover..." Do you understand? I read the articles for the individual songs, and I see valuable information about Timberlake's beat-boxing for a number of songs, how his vocals were slowed down and dazed to match the theme of "Love Stoned", how his voice was muffled and distorted in "SexyBack" etc ect, notable information about the album's production that were all omitted from this article. I'm not asking that you go in depth and stretch the article to twice its size (and you may need to shorten parts of it). But you need to describe the songs that actually feature new wave music and opera, and not just say "songs feature new wave and opera" and leave it at that. Orane (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't like the approach in whihch each song gets treatment in that section. It geys sloppy and tends to be abused ny writers. While those songs, its music, contents, etc, etc, don't have to be mentioned in the album article, I will review what importants facts that need to be added (in a summarized form). Just want to leave the details on each song's available wiki page. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- A sentence or two about each song will only enhance the article, and only you can decide if it gets sloppy or not. I gave you the example from the U2 album above; here is another: Love._Angel._Music._Baby.. These two example are the two most recent featured articles about pop albums. An album comprises songs. There's no way to give a comprehensive account of an album without writing about its songs. As an example, you said the first half of the album deals with sex. That is a gross overgeneralization of the songs, even if you can source that point. What exactly is said about sex? How does he achieve this? The article is too broad in its concept and too theoretical. Do you want a great example of how that section should look? Here it is. Overlook the length and the occasional awkward prose and you have one of the best showcases for the discussion of an album's "music". And as a side note, I would omit the "collaboration" section from your article, as it adds nothing. Timberlake collaborated only with very few people, a point that the first sentence of the section makes clear. And, as a final thought, I can't force you to implement my changes. You're free to reject or embrace them. But when you're too focused on what you "personally" want, versus what would be the best for the article from a reader's perspective, then you meet into trouble. Orane (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well see. Most of the examples provided fail tto meet fa criterion 4 - overly detailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efe (talk • contribs) 00:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- You asked for my opinion on the article, and I gave it. I'm not going to comment on it anymore if all you do is challenge my opinion on it. I'm done. Do whatever you want with the article. Just don't ask for my help anymore. Orane (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- I will consider your opinions. Mine is that I don't have to necessarily follow thr examplea given. Our list of FA quality albums offer so many examples. Thanks sp much Orane. --Efe (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- You asked for my opinion on the article, and I gave it. I'm not going to comment on it anymore if all you do is challenge my opinion on it. I'm done. Do whatever you want with the article. Just don't ask for my help anymore. Orane (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well see. Most of the examples provided fail tto meet fa criterion 4 - overly detailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efe (talk • contribs) 00:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- A sentence or two about each song will only enhance the article, and only you can decide if it gets sloppy or not. I gave you the example from the U2 album above; here is another: Love._Angel._Music._Baby.. These two example are the two most recent featured articles about pop albums. An album comprises songs. There's no way to give a comprehensive account of an album without writing about its songs. As an example, you said the first half of the album deals with sex. That is a gross overgeneralization of the songs, even if you can source that point. What exactly is said about sex? How does he achieve this? The article is too broad in its concept and too theoretical. Do you want a great example of how that section should look? Here it is. Overlook the length and the occasional awkward prose and you have one of the best showcases for the discussion of an album's "music". And as a side note, I would omit the "collaboration" section from your article, as it adds nothing. Timberlake collaborated only with very few people, a point that the first sentence of the section makes clear. And, as a final thought, I can't force you to implement my changes. You're free to reject or embrace them. But when you're too focused on what you "personally" want, versus what would be the best for the article from a reader's perspective, then you meet into trouble. Orane (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't like the approach in whihch each song gets treatment in that section. It geys sloppy and tends to be abused ny writers. While those songs, its music, contents, etc, etc, don't have to be mentioned in the album article, I will review what importants facts that need to be added (in a summarized form). Just want to leave the details on each song's available wiki page. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- 2) The prose is nowhere near professional. I know you've worked hard on it, but it is still lacking: tenses are confused, subjects and verbs conflict, words are missing. I know you asked me to copy-edit, but parts may need a complete rewrite (more research+re-write). Because of work commitments, I'm not even sure how much I can actually commit to the article. Orane (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'll have someone do the copyediting. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)