Wikipedia:Peer review/So Amazin'/archive1

So Amazin'

• 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 January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to take it to FAC soon. I have checked the article against the featured article criteria, and I think the only issue is the infamous 1a. Any prose comments will be very helpful, as well as anything else I may have missed. All of the references should be reliable, except for the (very unreliable) JustJared ref. I have been unable to find a better ref for this quote, and I am not too sure how to use Template:Cite journal in this instance (I don't know the title of the article in the magazine).

Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 04:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I have some concern with the article's length. I have looked at several albums which are FAs, and most are much more detailed that this one. Today's featured article, Year Zero (album), for instance, is considerably larger. Most others album FAs are the same, and I was hoping if users could also comment whether or not they would support this at FAC, based only on article size/comprehensiveness. Whatever sources are on the net I believe I have looked through, and I don't think there is much else I could add to the article, in case you were wondering. Thanks again, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 11:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Efe (talk · contribs)

• "on the majority of the production of the album" Its not actually grammatically amiss but I suggest you rephrase this. --Efe (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Def Jam Recordings' members L.A. Reid and Jay-Z" They are the honchos of Def Jam. I think members are not appropriate? --Efe (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Both have been tweaked, although I'm not too sure how to best deal with the second comment. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 11:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• No better idea for this one, too, as of now. --Efe (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think this is too detailed: "Internationally, the album peaked at 55 on the Swiss Albums Chart, number 67 on the UK Albums Chart, and 139 on the France Albums Chart. ". --Efe (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Critics felt that while Milian claimed that she was displaying the various sides of her personality, the album could "only [scratch] the surface of who she really is". The quote seems like it was written by critics unanimously. --Efe (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Although the decision was said to be mutual, disappointing album sales were believed to be the main factor." That word is not objective. Tends to be POVic. I suggest you replace it with low, if its low, or find any other word that is objective and not arguable. --Efe (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• "The album debuted and peaked at number 11 on the U.S. Billboard 200, selling a total of 163,000 copies." Although you said "a total of", its ambiguous because it still could refer to the album's first week total sales. --Efe (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have tweaked all of them, please check if they are better. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 07:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)