Eazy-Duz-It edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for GA and feel it should be reviewed first. I usually just nominate it for GA without a review, but I feel this one was kinda slopped it together. Also, it'd be awesome if one of the reviewers would tell me where i could get some background info (hopefully enough for a section), but if not, that's fine… Thanks, CrowzRSA 19:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I thought the personnel tab was interesting and helpful. Many rap/hip hop albums contain references to other artists and it was nice to see the referenced artists in the album. --Taekyukim91 (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: The basics are here, but I see quite a few prose and style problems. Sorry, I can't help add more content; I know little about rap music. Here are a few suggestions:
- Nothing inside a direct quotation should be linked. The first example of this kind of linking occurs in the second sentence of the lead, where funky is linked. Quite a few other links inside quotations appear further down in the article. They should all be removed. If any of those links are really important, it may be necessary to paraphrase rather than quote, or to link them elsewhere.
- When citing a source for a claim, make sure that the source really supports the claim. The second sentence of the lead says, "whose production was deemed by critics as 'dense' and 'funky' ", but the source supports only "critic", not "critics". You need to say something like "whose production was deemed dense and funky by critic Jason Birchmeier".
- The prose needs more careful copyediting in places. The first sentence repeats the word "released". The second sentence uses "produced" and "production", another repetition. The last sentence of the first paragraph needs a comma after "California". The second sentence of the second paragraph does not make sense as written: "Four singles were released from the album, three of which charting in the United States (US)." These are not huge errors, but they all occur in the lead and will annoy or confuse readers.
- In the "Composition" section, what does "specialized in gankin" mean? Should that be "ganging"?
- I would not link common terms like "radio" and "television", which are linked in the "Commercial performance" section. I don't see a lot of overlinking, but it's probably not necessary to link terms more than once in the lead and perhaps once in the main text. For example, I would not link "Compton, California" three times, just once on first use.
References
- Often the publisher is not the same as the web-site URL. In citation 2, for example, the publisher is Rolling Stone rather than "rollingstone.com". Citation 4, which also cites Rolling Stone, is correct. For another example, the publisher for citation 6 is Technorati, I believe, rather than Blogcritics. You can often find the publisher's name at the bottom of web sites, next to the copyright information.
- Is the Blogcritics page a reliable source? Does it meet the WP:RS guidelines? Blogs usually don't.
- Citations, such as #7, to books should include the place of publication, if possible. If you don't have this information in your notes, you can usually find it via WorldCat.
- When single and double quotation marks bump against each other, as they do in citation 9, they should be separated by a no-break code, explained at WP:NBSP.
- The date of most recent access is missing from some of the citations. Examples are citations 21 through 24.
Other
- The dab checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.
- 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)