Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/50 Cent discography/archive3

< Wikipedia:Peer review | 50 Cent discography

50 Cent discography

edit
Previous peer review
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've improved the article so much recently, and feel it may soon qualify as a featured list - however, I need someone to go over it and review the whole thing, so I know of any issues to fix. Please be strict on MOS, as I am keen for it to read well as well as look good, and please mention any issue, even really small ones. Your time would be much appreciated. Thanks, Sufur222 (talk) 05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm free so I'll prepare some comments for you... —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before I start going through the prose, tables, and references, you can take a look at the automated peer review here. Some may take more time to address than others, but you can start by responding to the quick fixes that are listed in the Peer reviewer. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have read the comments: have sorted out everything that applies, as some were not appropriate. Sufur222 (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wikipedian Penguin

(DISCLAIMER: After addressing my comments, I cannot guarantee that this article will meet the FL criteria; it may need input from other users as well)

  • Just letting you know that it isn't technically possible for an album to produce singles.  Y
  • " After signing to Shady Records in 2002,[3] 50 Cent's debut studio album, Get Rich or Die Tryin', was released on 4 February, 2003. " – Re-word this sentence. It reads ungrammatically and with little sense. Possible suggestion: " 50 Cent signed to Shady Records in 2002 and released his debut studio album, Get Rich or Die Tryin', on 4 February, 2003.[3] "  Y
  • " The album became a worldwide chart success " – Its level of success will be for the readers to determine; as the writer, you must remain neutral and use just the facts.  Y
  • " and also performed well in several international markets. "  Y
  • " It also included the internationally successful singles " → " It also included the number-one singles "  Y
  • " which both peaked at number one in the United States " – Remove if you address the issue above.  Y
  • " 50 Cent also collaborated with female rapper Lil' Kim on the single "Magic Stick" "
  • " along with featuring more songs designed to appeal to a mainstream audience. " – Confusing to read. What do you mean by mainstream audience?  Y
  • " In a similar performance to its predecessor " – What do you mean by this? Remove.  Y
  • " worldwide album charts " – There is no such thing as a worldwide chart.  Y
  • " and also produced the US number-one hit "Candy Shop" "  Y
  • " A reissue of The Massacre also produced the single "Outta Control (Remix)" "  Y
  • " 50 Cent starred in the movie Get Rich or Die Tryin', and recorded four singles for the film's soundtrack: the international hits "Hustler's Ambition" and "Window Shopper", and also "Best Friend" and "I'll Whip Ya Head Boy". " – When was this?  Y
  • " after a much-hyped sales sales competition between the albums "  Y
  • " the international hit "Ayo Technology" and the Billboard hits "Straight to the Bank", "Amusement Park", "I Get Money" and "I'll Still Kill" "  Y
  • " The album was described as returning " – Grammatically incorrect.  Y
  • " However, the album did not achieve " → " However, it did not achieve "  Y
  • Is charting at No. 5 on the 200 really that unsuccessful? Still hasn't been justified. Just remove this part of the sentence for good, because it fails WP:NPOV.  Y
  • Isn't "Outlaw" a single? (Please reply) Why isn't it in the table?  Y

More on the way. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have attempted to address every issue above: please strike through each one that I have completed correctly, so I know which ones still need work. As for the issue surrounding "Outlaw", I initially thought it was a single and several outlets have reported it as being so, 50 Cent revealed through his Twitter page that the song was not actually a single (see here - this is the tweet in question). Although Twitter isn't always the most reliable source, considering 50 Cent wrote it himself it seems reasonable enough to use this as justification. As I can find no evidence of the song being a promotional single instead, it goes in the "Other charted songs" section, where it currently resides. There are other songs with similar status - for example, "Marvins Room" by Drake. Although it was released to iTunes and other major outlets, it was not the first official single from Take Care - which was "Headlines" - so it goes in "Drake discography#Other charted songs", even though it reached number 21 on the Billboard Hot 100. I rest my case. Sufur222 (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, Twitter is not featured content business. I think the best thing to do here is get consensus and ask people to join the discussion because this will cause too much confusion. Before moving on:
  • please try to neutral and remove your own opinions on an album/single's success.  Y
  • don't leave readers wondering about things. If an album/song was described as something, who was it described by? As this is a lead, be general of course.
  •  Y The problem is that the sentence uses a quote, which has to be paraphrased to remain general. Second, do not use the word "various". Just remove it as it is too vague to mean anything.
  • grammar tense. You're saying this album included/featured this. So what you mean is it doesn't have those songs on it anymore?  Y

Have had another look through: have now resolved every issue with a cross. In the case of the critical reception of The Massacre, I removed the sentence entirely, as I decided it wasn't really relevant and the source I had supplied didn't really support the description I had written. I took your extra comments to heed, and have replaced all the "featured"s with "features", as well as saying that it was music critics that had these opinions - the specific publications are not mentioned, as you say, it needs to be general.

Anything else before sorting out the "Outlaw" issue? Sufur222 (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm not done yet. I plan to do another round of prose issues, take a close look at the tables and sources, and finally, the reference formatting. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moving on... —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With schoolwork and trying to find free time, my schedule's pretty tight. It sucks, I know, but I'll try my best to catch up and get this done as quickly as possible. I'll try to finish by the end of this week :) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sufur, it would be helpful for you to give me updates on your progress on this page because the article isn't on my watchlist. Thanks, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'll leave the updates on your talk page. Sufur222 (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll continue shortly. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 09:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Wikipedian Penguin

  • First, let's look at reliability of the existing sources:
    • Yahoo! Music Blogs; they are fine for GAs, but need good establishment on how they are (per FACR) "high quality reliable sources".
    • SOHH
    • Discogs – This one is like a wiki and has provided incorrect information too many times. Definitely not FL material.
    • HipHopPow (???)
    • HipHopDX – This one look reliable to me, but I want your response.
    • MusicRemedy
    • DJBooth
    • MVDBase – Doesn't look that good to me...
    • IMDB – Do not use.
    • No Pinching Back – Never heard of.
    • Video Static – Ditto.
    • the.LifeFiles – Ditto.
    • Music Video Cast – Ditto.
    • BallerStatus – I don't like this one.
    • Dailymotion – no different from YouTube

Explain how these are reliable or remove and replace. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go...

    • Yahoo! Music Blogs - I'm not actually sure about the first two of these. As they is reporting album sales, it really depends on how much you trust the author, and where he got his information from. Paul Grein is frequently asked by the readers of the article for sales numbers, so he must have an insight into the chart statistics that we do not. In short, he is a well trusted enough figure for these sources to be kept. The third one is also fine - it is reporting on gainers and falls on the Billboard Hot 100 (such as this one) show him to be right.
    • SOHH - A website similar to HipHopDX. However, have removed the two sources: I can't find any other information to back up the claims made in the sources.
    • Discogs - have removed all of the links for now: however, in the failed FL review, User:The Rambling Man told me that all of the singles that did not chart on the charts shown in the table had to have references to prove they were actually released as singles. Whether this should actually be the case is debatable, as several other similar discographies do not have these links. Clarification is needed.
    • HipHopPow - not really sure about this one. Have removed.
    • HipHopDX - in this case, I think these should be kept - many of them link to news stories that only appear on less reliable hip hop sites, and not to more notable outlets such as newspaper websites. The stories relating to comments posted onto Twitter especially need these HipHopDX links, because as you told me, the direct Twitter links cannot be used in a featured article. As for the ones that are used in the Collaborations table, they should be kept as well, as the only purpose of the source is to prove that this collaboration actually exists.
    • MusicRemedy - same justification as above: although it may not be the best known website, the only purpose it serves is to prove the existence of the collaboration, so ideally it should stay. Have kept this one for now.
    • DJBooth - ditto.
      Remedy and Booth still do not appear to be highly reputable sources. You will need to have a pretty good reason to still keep them. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • MVDBase - not really reliable: even creator of site admits to mistakes. Have removed these ones.
    • IMDB - have removed as instructed.
    • No Pinching Back: Unreliable - removed.
    • Video Static - have removed.
    • the.LifeFiles: Unreliable - removed.
    • Music Video Cast: Unreliable - removed (replaced with this one).
    • BallerStatus: Unreliable - removed.
    • Dailymotion: Removed, as this is a copyright violation: replaced with this one.

Wikipedian Penguin, you've done it again. The Award for Procrastinator of the Year goes to you. School is so annoying and boring... anyway, I'll start ref formatting. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had to undo the bot's archiving. Oh well, here are some tips to start off...

  • Do not overlink in the references. A general rule is that the first time you link a work or publisher, that's it; you don't do it for following refs.
  • MTV refs are not printed sources and do not get their publisher (MTV Networks) parenthesized. They follow a "Work. Publisher." format.
  • This applies to all other web publications. The brackets are only used for newspapers and printed versions of magazines, for which {{cite news}} and {{cite journal}} are respectively used.
  • Magazines are italicized. e.g. Entertainment Weekly
  • Newspaper sources have their publishers in brackets, e.g. USA Today.
  • Website names for the charts (swisscharts.com, etc.) are not italicized.
  • Rap-Up links provided should have their publishers parenthesized because you are using the web articles, not the printed works. Newspapers are exceptions.

Work on these for now. Ask questions if needed. Thanks, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a Billboard overlink ;) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just read through MOS:NUM and realized that your date format is the wrong one because you are discussing about an American artist. What I am asking you is to change the Day Month, Year to Month Day, Year. Then I'll get to the final things in reference formatting. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to in the actual article (e.g. album release dates) or the references? Sufur222 (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both (except for quotes and titles for sources). —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 16:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References (revised)

  • Are you aware of the difference between Nielsen and Prometheus? Not saying that you're not, just wondering, because the former is the only one that I see you use.
I'm pretty sure I know: I've used Nielsen for the chart position pages, and Prometheus for the news pages, of which there is one, reference 7 (although this all may be wrong). Sufur222 (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, Nielsen was actually Billboard's publisher until 2009, but that changed. Prometheus, a subsidiary of Nielsen, actually publishes Billboard now, as well as its charts.
What are you suggesting I do? Should I change them all to Prometheus, or should I change the ones after 2009 to Prometheus and keep the older ones as Nielsen? I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The latter. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With news stories, this is easy, but on this page most of the Billboard sources are for chart positions, such as this one: I'm guessing that these ones need to be changed to Prometheus, as they include chart positions recorded with both publishers. With data only referring to a particular week (such as this one, the publisher should be whoever was the owner of Billboard at the time. Am I right? I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 15:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 16:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "Inc" from Nielsen, Yahoo and Apple parameters. Time Inc. is an exception because this is part of the company's name.
Done (forgot about this one) I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 1: Date format inconsistency
  • FN 9: Why cite news? And remove the period (full stop) in "Time Inc." after because if not, there will be two points, which you don't want.
  • FN 24: Italics for Daily Mail.
  • FN 33

(After this point, the reference numbers do not correspond to the ones that need fixing: however, I have worked out which ones are needed to be corrected.

  • FN 47: Allmusic is not italicized.
  • FN 50: Why is the publisher in brackets for the last citation?
  • FN 53: Why italics?
  • FN 54: Radioscope -> RadioScope (dead link)
  • I'm afraid not. You have to remove the information until the site is back up, if you plan on taking this to FLC. Plus, other sites are discouraged from using, as only an official site that records certifications are permitted for these cases. Long story short, you will just have to delete it for now. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 59: Why italics?
  • FN 72: Again, why brackets?
  • FN 136: Why italics? Remove "Inc." in Apple Inc.
  • iTunes is still in italics.
  • FM 144: Why italics and random bracket?
  • FN 169: Unreliable source.

—WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments on these edits, please tell me. Sufur222 (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FN 164 has incorrect italicization. Second, Template:50 Cent singles should be here as well. Other than that, I think we're almost finished here. I'll have a look at the tables (I'm not an expert at this stuff so it won't be too thorough). I've thought about it, and I believe that it is safe to assume that "Outlaw" is not a single. It has not been officially released to radio stations, but is simply an iTunes single. I think it would be more appropriate as a promotional single because most other prom. singles end up in a similar boat. (They are released only as iTunes singles and long before the full album is). It's a bit like what happened with "Let's Get It In". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, done and done once more. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 10:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From here on, it is pretty much up top you. If you want, you can ask someone else to take a look at the disco, because surely I am not 100% reliable for bringing an article to FL quality on my own. You can take your time and look for issues yourself and try to fix them, or if you really think so, go for FLC! The former is a safer approach, but will take time. :) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/50_Cent_discography/archive3&oldid=458782362"