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 July 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it is very close to meeting Featured Article criteria. I'd like this peer review to work as a "mock" FAC; I would ask any editor who chooses to review this article as if it were currently in FAC and hold it according to the following criteria:
A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
It is—
(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details;
(c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
(a) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
(b) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help); and
(c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes[1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).
Comments I'll be listing items as I go through the article.
All chart positions should be written out as "number ___" per MOS guidelines. For some reason the Brits get confused if you use the "#" sign. I don't quite get that, but there you go. Don't worry about them for now; I'll fix them all. Just remember it for when you have to add new chart positions.
If you're going to quote a review for Dream Street, it should be a review from when the album was released. Allmusic's review comes from a decade later at least.
"Control made popular music history in 1986, as it was one of three albums by African-American women to hold the top three positions of the Billboard 200; Control, Whitney Houston and Patti La Belle's Winner in You each exchanged the number one position on the chart". This seems somewhat trivial. Possibly move to the album page.
The sentence "Rhythm Nation 1814 maintained airplay for over two years" is vague. It's possibly also better suited to the album page; I think the following paragraph about Janet scoring hits in three different years gets the point across in a more concrete manner.
Why are there five cites for the sentence "In 1991, after being approached personally by Virgin Records owner Richard Branson, she signed a highly publicized multi-million dollar contract with the label—estimated between $32-50 million—and became the highest paid female recording artist in contemporary music"?
I have to back through my library ref and re-read them, but at the time, every source had a different statement on what she was paid. One ref had 32, one had 40 and one had 52. The Bookkeeper(of the Occult)07:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to indicate the exact day an album was released. Month and year are sufficient.
"Like its predecessors, [janet.] contained numerous variations of the new jack swing genre". Is this backed up by a source? Growing up, my impression was that New Jack swing peaked around 91-92. Also, I was always under the impression that there's some capitalization in the genre name, but I could be wrong.
"The album's number one hit single "That's the Way Love Goes" and the top ten singles "If," "Because of Love," "You Want This" and "Any Time, Any Place" all introduced listeners to Jackson's sexual fantasies" Make the end of the sentence more neutral and encyclopedic.
"In September 1993, Jackson appeared topless on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine". You might want to check this with a secondary source. Like with our common area of interest, comic books, the publication date isn't necessarily the date it hit the stands.
"The contract reestablished her as the highest paid recording artist in contemporary music, suprassing the recording industry's then-unparalled 60 million dollar contracts earned by her brother, Michael Jackson, and Madonna." Four citations?
The mention of her divorce from Elizondo in the Velvet Rope section, while logical chronologically, seems redundant because the article mentions her divorce in the same paragraph it mentioned when they were wed.
Just read the divorce mention in the next section. Best is to remove the mention of the divorce way earlier in the article.
"The following year, Jackson's Control and janet. were listed by the National Association of Recording Merchandisers and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as two of the 200 Definitive Albums of All Time, coming in at #87 and #151, respectively". Move to album pages.
"Jackson also appeared in a public service announcement sponsored by Logo and GLSEN—the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network—in response to the E.O. Green School shooting". Not as noteworthy as everything else in the section. Remove.
"In 2003, Jackson's Design of a Decade 1986/1996, Rhythm Nation 1814, Control, janet. and The Velvet Rope were listed on the BMG Music Club's 100 Biggest Selling Albums in the U.S., coming in at #9, #35, #58, #63 and #95, respectively" That's like listing the bestsellers at Wal-Mart. Remove.
Just at a glance, you should probably merge "public image" into the "legacy" section. It definitely seems like a more sensible place to talk about Janet as a gay icon.
You have a pretty good rationale for including an image from the Super Bowl performance, if you want to do that.
I'd rather not. I wouldn't mind the image if we have a decent amount of public domain images that features her in a positive light, but we don't so for the sake of Basic Human Dignity I'd rather leave it to the main article. The Bookkeeper(of the Occult)10:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Jackson and Dupri severed as executive producers; long-term collaborators Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis did not contribute and Discipline was the first album on which Jackson did not co-write any of the material since 1984's Dream Street" Sentence seems awkward. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason the article's so big is that there's a lot of empty fields in the cite web templates you're using. You can delete any fields that are blank, since they're not being use. Sandy used to do this to my articles at FAC all the time. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, before you do this, makes sure you're using the date field in the templates correctly. The date is the date the website/article was published, so I doubt that webpage cited for the Jackson variety show was published in 1976. In articles, these dates are generally full dates. Look at the cite templates used in The Smashing Pumpkins for examples fo what I'm talking about. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The title of the album, read "Janet, period.", "punctuates the declaration of strength the singer, songwriter and producer boldly expresses on this moving collection of songs which explore love, sensuality, the power of sisterhood and her own evolving self-identity" according to the record label" Could possibly do without. Janet's comments in the following sentence are more important. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to dicate the exact certification date in the prose. In fact, you don't need to list a date at all; all we need to know is the most recent certification total. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Reviews for [All for You] were predominately positive . . ." Don't include items like this unless you have a source that says, "This record received predominately positive reviews". WesleyDodds (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"According to the book Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound, Jackson's musical style, influenced by long time collaborators Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis, along with her photogenic beauty and signature choreographed dance routines have contributed to her global success as an entertainer". Can do without. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Jackson's tenth studio album, Discipline, was released on February 26, 2008 under the supervision of label head Antonio "L.A." Reid.[106][107] Accompanied by record producer Jermaine Dupri, Discipline was Jackson's first album for the Island Def Jam Music Group." This is phrased oddly. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"[Janet] and became the first by a female artist to debut at number one during the Nielsen SoundScan era". cut this part of the first sentence of the Janet section off and make it its own sentence, placing it after Janet's quote explaining the album. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"After Michael Jackson, and subsequently all recording artists began to make music videos in order to promote their albums, Janet Jackson drew her inspiration from the musicals she watched in her youth". The second part of this sentence is more important than the first, which is awkward and overly long. Rephrase. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"has been credited for influencing a number of female R&B music artists, including Ciara, Beyoncé Knowles, Cassie, Aaliyah, Brandy, and Monica". I assume this is referring to her dancing/choreography. If not, it should be moved to the Legacy section. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only mention the R&B album chart peaks if the album in question didn't chart on the Top 200, since that's the main American album chart. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need that latest quote about LaToya. Actually, what do you think about combining the paragraph where it talks about Janet supporting Michael during the scandal with the one about "Scream"? It fits thematically since they are both about her and her brother, if not necessarily chronologically. You could then break off the bit about Design of a Decade into its own short paragraph. I would have done it myself, but I wanted to hear your thoughts. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm keeping the La Toya info and I'll add one more sentence to verify when she reconnnected with the family. I've read a lot of reports and articles on Janet's frustration with La Toya - that situation affected her pretty badly, particularly because they got into a huge fight during one of her recording sessions. Its (almost) as notable as her connection to Michael during the time period. If you can, feel free to group the entire section with the scream video. The Bookkeeper(of the Occult)10:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Tasker, author of Working Girls: Gender and Sexuality in Popular Cinema (1998) observed the video, shot in a "bleak industrial setting" had Jackson and her dancers dressed in military outfits to represent a sense of "community" and "unity"". This commentary is more appropriate for the "Rhythm Nation" article. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cut down on the detail given to new jack swing in the Musical style section. Metallica is a good place to look at for a concise musical style section noting stylist changes over the course of a career. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the recitation of various chart positions and records in the Legacy section. This sort of summarizing is covered by the lead. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"In July 2001, Wendy Case of the The Detroit News reported, '[a]t some point over the last few years, Janet Jackson's famous last name became superfluous. The music star had become such a cultural icon that simply "Janet" would suffice. Now 35 years old, the youngest Jackson has released her eighth album, All For You, to critical and commercial acclaim'". This quote doesn't sit well with me. It's too much of a hyperbolic topic sentence for an artice. Remove. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Janet Damita Jo Jackson (born May 16, 1966) is an Americansinger-songwriter, record producer, dancer and actress." Hmm, you can trim that down a bit. "Singer-songwriter" has specific connotations (usually someone like James Taylor; just go with "singer", "vocalist", or "Musician". You can remove actress; it's mentioned a few lines down, and her acting career has been limited compared to her musical career. She's not really known as a dancer; rather, a singer who incorporates a lot of dancing into her shows and music videos. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to mention all the shows she appeared in in the lead. In contrast, try to given more of a basic arc of her career when discussing her albums. This section is intended to people who may not know who Janet Jackson is, after all. The second paragraph of John Frusciante is a good example, as is the lead for The Smashing Pumpkins. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Allmusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine commented that although "[t]he bulk of Janet Jackson's greatest-hits collection concentrates on Control and Rhythm Nation 1814...That is far from a fatal flaw. The hits from those two albums were state-of-the-art dance-pop productions at the time of their release, filled with bottomless beats and memorable, catchy hooks." I don't think this quote quite works in the larger picture, and the paragraph can do without it. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should remove the PR Newswire quote from Legacy section. Poking around the site, it looks to be just a press release (which explains the tone). I think the section works fine without it. Also, can you find a brief quote from someone acknowledging Janet's influence on their music? Right now it's mainly just the press assuming she influenced particular artists. It would be more effective to cite someone actually saying Janet influenced them, ie. the Legacy section in Joy Division. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend spreading out the sound samples over the rest of the article, if possible, mainly for aesthetic reasons (it sure looks crowded with that big sample box in the musical style section). If you can find suitable places to move them, don't worry about it. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried but shifting them around didn't seem right either and I prefer having them in the section where themes and music are actually being discussed. How is the over all prose looking? The Bookkeeper(of the Occult)06:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the sample descriptions again, I honestly think you can move "Nasty", "Rhythm Nation", or "If" to the relevant bio sections and still adhere to fair use guidelines. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Aaliyah Remembered (2005) documented that Janet Jackson was someone R&B singer Aaliyah had "always desired to work with". Aaliyah commented, "I admire her a great deal. She's a total performer...I'd love to do a duet with Janet Jackson"." Can you combine this into a single sentence? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
Your references that include Academic Search Premier, this doesn't need to be included. Just list the real publisher, the magazine or newspaper. The link is merely a convience link, ASP is merely hosting the already published information.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
"The record received a poor critical reception, with one critic commenting that Jackson had "no distinctive musical personality of her own".[14]" - According to whom was the record "poorly" received? How an album was received is an opinion, so that opinion needs attribution. Name the critic and publication in question.
"Critical reception was considered favorable to that of Jackson's debut album, as her musical style was described as a "prime [example] of pleasing '80s pop".[15]" - According to whom was this album received "favourable" compared to her debut? This is an comparison, so someone has arrived at a conclusion. Who is that person? Also, let me state that just because Allmusic says an album was good, that doesn't mean critics felt that way across the board.
"That same year, Jackson eloped with childhood friend and fellow R&B singer James DeBarge; they divorced shortly afterwards and the marriage was subsequently annulled.[8]" - What date did they "elope" (married is a better word), and when did they separate specifically?
"After the limited successes of her first two albums, Jackson decided to separate her business affairs from her father and the rest of her family." - According to whom did her first two albums enjoy "limited success"? This is an opinion, but whose?
"Within six weeks, Jackson, Jam, and Lewis crafted Jackson's breakthrough album, Control, which was released in February 1986.[17]" - According to whom was this a "breakthrough album"? This is yet another unattributed opinion.
"Critics compared Jackson's music favorably to contemporary rivals such as Whitney Houston, Patti LaBelle, and Diana Ross.[19][20]" - Which critics specifically? Name them, and the publication they wrote for. Two critics does not constitute general opinion.
"Most of the Control music videos were choreographed by a then unknown-Paula Abdul. "Let's Wait Awhile", which promoted sexual abstinence over promiscuity, earned Jackson a reputation as a role model for young women.[10]" - According to whom did Jackson earn a reputation as a role model? This is merely Steve Huey's opinion, and is in no way a factual statement.
"Much like its predecessor, the album contained heavy styling of new jack swing.[21] While Jackson's small voice was criticized and her social agenda garnered mixed reactions, reviews for Rhythm Nation 1814 were predominately positive; critics commented it was an even greater success than Control.[27]" - According to whom did this album contain this? Who believes Jackson's voice was "small", and was criticised etc.? Who believes reception was "predominantly positive"? Who believes it was "an even greater success"? Many opinions are being dressed up as fact, violating criterion 1c.
"Unwilling to compromise her artistic integrity, Jackson shifted from "personal freedom to more universal concerns—injustice, illiteracy, crime, drugs—without missing a beat."[27]" - According to whom did this shift occur?
"David Hiltbrand People Weekly commented that "Jackson's heart may be in the right place -- she's against all the bad, hurtful stuff in a vague, Tinker Bell sort of way", but asserted her music had not improved from her previous hit album Control.[28]" - The word "of" needs to be inserted after Hiltbrand.
"The Rhythm Nation 1814 Tour—Jackson's first world tour in support of a studio album—which aimed to re-create the award–winning, visually innovative music videos of Rhythm Nation 1814 and Control, was described as "an elaborately choreographed spectacle" by Entertainment Weekly.[37]" - "Visually innovative"? Says who?
"Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Global Women's Issues and Knowledge documented that Jackson's success during this time period placed her on par with several other globally renowned recording artists, including her older brother Michael Jackson, Madonna, and Tina Turner.[40]" - I'm assuming this Routledge book uses the words "globally renowned". For that reason, quotations would be necessary.
"The album's number one hit single "That's the Way Love Goes"—winner of the 1994 Grammy Award for Best R&B Song—and the top ten singles "If," "Because of Love," "You Want This" and "Any Time, Any Place" all contained themes of sexual freedom and physical intimacy.[37][49]" - According to? Lyrical interpretations are always subject to opinion.
"The album was an introspective look into Jackson's bout with depression, as Michael Saunders of The Boston Globe described it as a "critical self-examination and an audio journal of a woman's road to self-discovery".[12]" - The first part of the sentence saying it's introspective look etc. is a personal interpretation of Saunders review, so can be deemed original research.
"The album's title is a literal depiction of the velvet ropes commonly used to separate crowds from celebrities, and according to Jackson, the metaphorical velvet rope within every human being which keeps their true feelings separated from those around them.[66]" - Is the "literal depiction" also from the opinion of Janet Jackson?
"Although the album suffered criticism based on Jackson's personal issues with self-esteem, it became one of her most critically acclaimed, as Rolling Stone described The Velvet Rope as "part of a continuum, building from the self-empowering manifesto Control, the skin-deep social consciousness of Rhythm Nation and the hypersexual make-over of Janet".[68]" - According to whom did the album suffer criticism based on her self-esteem issues, and according to whom was it her "one of her most critically acclaimed"? These are conclusions, so who is the person whom has arrived at them? Seems like original research.
"In August 1997, the album's lead single, "Got 'Til It's Gone" was released to radio and was moderately successful." - "Moderately successful"? Someone has merely taken a look at the lead single's chart positions, and arrived at their own conclusion. This is more original research.
"In 2002, Jackson collaborated with reggae singer Beenie Man on the song "Feel It Boy," which met moderate success." - Whether the song met "moderate success" is personal interpretation.
"CBS, the NFL, and MTV (CBS's sister network that produced the halftime show), denied any knowledge and all responsibility of the incident under a hail of criticism." - A "hail of criticism"? Strong words - original research maybe?
"Despite the album's strong debut, its three singles all failed to become Top 40 hits.[101]" - "Strong"? Some might see it as weak, given her past success. It's best to stick to the facts - the sentence should start with something like "Despite the album debuting at number two..." or something similar.
"By the end of 2004, Damita Jo had sold 942,000 copies in the United States and was later certified platinum by the RIAA, but was considered a commercial disappointment compared to Jackson's previous albums.[101][102]" - According to whom was the album "a commercial disappointment"?
"Lackluster sales of Damita Jo have been speculated to be not only a result of negative publicity from the Super Bowl incident, but also due to MTV's "blacklisting" of Jackson's music videos.[103]" - "Lacklustre"? According to whom? Some might see a platinum-certified album as indicating strong sales - it's all subject to opinion, hence the word "lacklustre" being a personal opinion.
"Coveney was told Jackson and producers Jimmy Jam, Terry Lewis and Jermaine Dupri focused the album's production to R&B and dance oriented music - the two genres which made her famous.[106]" - Who says these are "the two genres which made her famous"?
"Andy Kellman of Allmusic and Chris Willman of Entertainment Weekly asserted 20 Y.O. did not meet the awe inspiring production of its namesake, Control.[118][119]" - Who deemed that Control has "awe inspiring production"? Depends on what the listener prefers in terms of production values.
"Though Discipline was widely expected to be Jackson's "comeback" album—similar to Mary J. Blige's The Breakthrough and Mariah Carey's The Emancipation of Mimi—Jackson has asserted that she has never stopped making music, and therefore, talks of a 'comeback' were misguided.[135]" - "Widely expected"? By whom exactly?
"David Ritz of Rolling Stone compares Jackson's musical style to that of Marvin Gaye; Jackson, much like Gaye, has relied heavily on personal experience as the source of her music.[141]" - Where are the quotation marks?
"Jackson's crossover appeal in both R&B and popular music has been documented as one of her advantages, as Teresa Wiltz of The Washington Post observed "Janet Jackson...regularly leap[s] from urban to Top 40".[143]" - Is the first half of the sentence Wiltz's opinion, or personal reflection? This needs to be made clear if its Wiltz'.
"Richard J. Ripani documented Jackson's music has been considered to be crucial to the development of R&B, as Jackson and her producers "crafted a new sound that fuses the rhythmic elements of funk and disco, along with heavy doses of synthesizers, percussion, sound effects and a rap music sensibility".[21]" - The same problem as the last excerpt. Its better to merely quote what a critic has noted, as opposed to making a personal observation prior to the quote. If it isn't personal observation, make that clear.
"Jackson's concert performances have been compared to Broadway productions and have been referred to as "enormous theatrical extravaganza[s]" and the "pop equivalent of a summer blockbuster movie".[147][148]" - By whom?
"With a career in dance music which spans two decades, Jackson's choreography has been credited for setting the benchmark for a number of contemporary artists.[150][111][151]" - By whom?
"Steve Huey asserted despite being born into a family of entertainers, Janet Jackson has managed to establish her unique impact on the recording industry—rivaling not only several female entertainers including Madonna, Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston, but also her brother—while "successfully [shifting] her image from a strong, independent young woman to a sexy, mature adult".[150][154]" - The word "unique" needs to be in quotations.
"According to American Popular Music : The Rock Years (2006), when the American music industry began its economic recovery in the mid-1980s from the fall of the disco era, Janet Jackson, among other multi-platinum selling music artists, was acknowledged for stimulating the overall increase in consumer purchasing of LPs, cassette tapes and CDs.[155]" - "According to American Popular Music"? Books aren't entities of their own - they're written by authors, so it's according to the person who wrote that opinion in the aforementioned book.
"Jackson has been credited for influencing a number of female R&B music artists, including Ciara, Beyoncé Knowles, Cassie, Aaliyah, Brandy, and Monica.[142]" - Accredited by?
The above are mere examples of why the article would fail at FAC - I could cite many many more. Much work is needed to ensure the article remains neutral and factually accurate, and doesn't present one opinion as being factual or as representing consensus. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Wackymacs (talk·contribs): - Focusing on the citations/references for now:
My main concern is that this article seems to rely on online sources rather than books. The References section lists a number of good books, but it seems like few of these have been used for actual footnotes. Therefore, you need to split this section and add a 'Further reading' section listing sources which have not been used. I highly recommend that you cite much of the early career and any other information possible to the best biographies available.
Many of the online sources were originally print sources, and are now archived on online databases, ie. Rolling Stone, The New York Times. These are the main sources that would be used anyways. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same goes for http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:fifuxqe5ldae~T1 (Ref 10) - I am really against allmusic being used to cite biography information because allmusic's bios do not list any sources used, and you never know if its neutral or verifiable. Use a book instead.
Looking better, but I strongly oppose the use of allmusic and People Magazine instead of biographies by credible authors, and when this goes to FAC I will most likely Oppose based on this, since criterion 1c requires reliable sources. As I said, both allmusic and People do *not* cite their sources - what makes their biographies reliable? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits)08:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not all biographies cite their sources either. One of my pet peeves is when bios don't do that. While Bookkeeper can probably find better sources (be they print or digital), I wouldn't oppose based on the simple use of the People bio and Allmusic. Wikipedia:Verifiability states, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4] Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality reliable sources." It also states, "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." This does not automatically discount these sources, but yes, better sources could possibly be found. I must impart though that some artists just don't have reliable biographical books written about them, so I wouldn't favor a book over an online source by default. It's the quality of the source that matters. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Published books used within the body of the article as a source
Brackett, Nathan. Hoard, Christian David. The New Rolling Stone Album Guide. Simon and Schuster, 2004. ISBN0743201698ref 51
Cornwell, Jane. Janet Jackson Carlton Books, 2002. ISBN1842224646ref 7
Cullen, Jim. Popular Culture in American History. Blackwell Publishing, 2001. ISBN0631219587ref 149
Cutcher, Jenai. Feel the Beat: Dancing in Music Videos. The Rosen Publishing Group, 2003. ISBN0823945588ref 143
Gaar, Gillian G. She's a rebel: the history of women in rock & roll. Seal Press, 2002. ISBN1580050786ref 18
Gates, Henry Louis. Appiah, Anthony. Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American. Basic Civitas Books, 1999. ISBN0465000711ref 33
Halstead, Craig. Cadman, Chris. Jacksons Number Ones. Authors On Line, 2003. ISBN0755200985ref 75
Jaynes, Gerald David. Encyclopedia of African American Society. Sage Publications, 2005. ISBN0761927646ref 42
Kramarae, Cheris. Spender, Dale. Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Global Women's Issues and Knowledge. Routledge, 2000. ISBN0415920914ref 43
Mitoma, Judy. Mitoma, Judith. Zimmer, Elizabeth. Stieber, Dale Ann. Heinonen, Nelli. Shaw, Norah Zuňiga. Envisioning dance on film and video. Routledge, 2002. ISBN0415941717ref 139
Ripani, Richard J. The New Blue Music: Changes in Rhythm & Blues, 1950-1999 Univ. Press of Mississippi, 2006. ISBN1578068622ref 26
Starr, Larry. Waterman, Christopher Alan. American Popular Music : The Rock Years. New York Oxford University Press, 2006. ISBN9780195300529ref 148
Vincent, Rickey. Clinton, George. Funk: The Music, The People, and The Rhythm of The One. Macmillan, 1996. ISBN0312134991ref 135
Warner, Jay. On this Day in Black Music History. Hal Leonard, 2006. ISBN0634099264ref 156
I know you've used published books, but you haven't used them for most of the biography (which is what matters), specifically refs 8 and 10 which are used numerous times, when there are clearly better sources available. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits)09:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I trust Bookkeeper to cite whatever is useful out of these books. It could be that there's only a small bit worth citing from each book, but Bookkeeper can explain how each source is used if need be. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just adding stuff slowely, if at all, if I see things
All For You (2001).[132][114] - Try to reorder your sources so they go in order, it's a minor but it came up at my recent review. — Realist2 (Speak) 05:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are areas where short unrelated sentences create a 'clunky' effect. Have you tried reading the article out loud? That's a very good way to get a feel for how well it flows.
Example from the section "1986-1988: Control" - "The album debuted at number one on the Billboard 200.[7] It was a concept album based on Jackson's new-found independence.[12] Though Jam and Lewis were concerned with achieving cross-over appeal.... " Three unrelated ideas in three unrelated sentences. It doesn't flow. Maybe something like "Within six weeks, Jackson, Jam, and Lewis crafted Jackson's breakthrough album, Control, which was a concept album based on Jackson's new-found independence.[12] Though Jam and Lewis were concerned with achieving cross-over appeal, their primary goal was to create a strong following for the singer within the African-American community first.[13] Jam commented, "We wanted to do an album that would be in every black home in America... we were going for the black album of all time."[13] Released in February 1986,[12] the album debuted at number one on the Billboard 200.[7]" I think it flows better and is more "sequential". You've got the concept and creation in the first bit, the producer's intentions in the second (all of which took place before the release), then the release date, and the chart result.
Or... "Within six weeks, Jackson, Jam, and Lewis crafted Control, a concept album inspired by Jackson's new-found independence.[12] - Less wordy, and "breakthrough" isn't needed. The fact that it debuted at number one clearly demonstrates commercial success.
From "1982-1985:Early recordings" - "Martin Strong, author of The Great Rock Discography documented that although, both albums found limited success on the R&B charts, they failed to impact popular music.[9]" I think it's superfluous. Strong's assertion that they didn't impact popular music would only be necessary if someone had suggested that they had. The albums had middling success on the R&B chart, and none on the mainstream chart, so to say they didn't impact popular music, is kind of stating the obvious.
I'll comment section by section, as time permits, and leave the lead until last. If it's something minor, I'll edit it rather than comment. Also as a test run for FA - will be harsh and ruthless. :-)
"1966-1982:Early life and career" :
"born into a family of musical prodigies" seems like POV, maybe it's not, but it's superfluous. The point is Janet was more interested in becoming a jockey. Should focus on that maybe.
"alongside" is used twice in one paragraph. maybe try "with" to avoid repetition. I'll edit that as "minor"
"Jackson" is used repetitively. Maybe some of them could be "she". I'll edit some as "minor"
"original" MGM - not relevant to Jackson. will remove as "minor"
"Jackson later commented the series was not a project she enjoyed working on." doesn't seem relevant without putting into context and explaining why she didn't enjoy. Otherwise, I think it could be removed.
link to titles of TV series. this is their first mention in the article body, rather than lead to linking is OK. I'll link them, but this is personal choice so if you want to unlink them, I won't quibble. Rossrs (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"By age sixteen, her father (and manager)" is a bit awkward. He needs to be identified as her manager, rather than mentioning it as as aside. Was he her manager during her early acting career? If so, it should go there. Or even earlier - "Her father, however, planned for her to follow in the family's footsteps and became her manager." (maybe) "By age sixteen" is vague - a date would be better, especially for such a career milestone. Rossrs (talk) 09:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "don't call me 'Dad'" quote - that is amazing, and I'm glad you added that. The other part doesn't work though. "At age sixteen, Joseph Jackson arranged a contract..." Joseph was much older than sixteen ;-) I still think a date would be good, but "when Jackson was sixteen, her father... " would be OK too. Rossrs (talk) 10:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and I bet he still wonders why all his children fired him at some point in their careers. I fixed that one sentence, (no one believes me when I say I suck at copy editing my own work!) and I'm sorry, but there's no date on when the contract was arranged. Janet's early years have been regarded as "forgettable" so journalists don't give much effort into documenting them. The Bookkeeper(of the Occult)10:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It still says her dad was 16...so I've made a minor change. I certainly don't think your copy editing sucks - but different people see different things. Fair enough, it's a shame journalists focus on her success more than her origins. She certainly didn't emerge fully fledged. Rossrs (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1986-1988:Control
The first paragraph is good, I think. The last paragraph I reworded to try to reduce the number of short sentences.
The middle paragraph has some issues - it's not easy to read.
"Newsweek and Rob Hoerburger of Rolling Stone compared Jackson's music favorably to contemporary rivals such as Whitney Houston, Patti LaBelle, and Diana Ross." Firstly, ""Newsweek and Rob Hoerburger of Rolling Stone" is wordy and awkward, and the whole sentence reads as though each writer commented on Houston, LaBelle and Ross. I don't know what Newsweek said, but Rolling Stone only mentions Ross. It would be clearer and easier to read if it said something like "The Newsweek review noted that Jackson's music compared favorably to ("rivals" is a POV word) contemporaries Whitney Houston and Patti LaBelle, and Rob Hoerburger of Rolling Stone said that .... Diana Ross etc etc".
That is very good indeed. The quotes give context and comparison to Whitney, Patti and Diana rather than just name-checking them. And Donna Summer! I really like the way you've done this. Rossrs (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The singles from the album. Again, not easy to read. Can we lose "The Pleasure Principle" as a minor hit? Up to you but I think it could say that "The first five singles, "What Have You Done for Me Lately," "Nasty," "When I Think of You", "Control," and "Let's Wait Awhile" all peaked within the Top 5; "When I Think of You" was Jackson's first number one single". Rossrs (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE. Though, I prefer keeping The Pleasure Principle"- I can always add more commentary on how it was more notable for the choreography of the music video than just as a single. The Bookkeeper(of the Occult)12:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a suggestion, and I think I was wrong. Especially if you do add more commentary, because that leads into the Paula Abdul bit. Rossrs (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1989-1992:Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814
This is a very strong section. I've made a couple of minor rewordings, just for grammatical accuracy....
regarding the comment that it went to number one. The entire paragraph is about the intentions and reactions to the album, and the chart position is a little out of place. The following paragraph is all about sales and charts, so this would be a better place to put it, so that it doesn't chop from one aspect to another.
I've moved the "much like its predecessor" to follow the album, rather than Ripani's name because Ripani didn't have a predecessor, but it's grammatically wrong and without seeing what he said I don't know how to fix it. "Richard J. Ripani observed that the album, much like its predecessor, contained heavy styling of new jack swing; the use of sample loop, triple swing, rap vocals and blues notes are present in the album's title-track "Rhythm Nation". (I've highlight "are" because that's where it looks wrong to me - like it's from a quote, but I just don't know.)
"As Jackson began her debut tour, sources commented..." (have removed "debut" as minor change, the preceding sentence establishes it was her debut) - "sources commented" is the problem. "sources" isn't the right word, but what links Selvin and Allen? Would this work? - "As Jackson began her tour, she attracted positive comments regarding the cultural impact of her music", Joel Selvin said "this" and William Allen said "that". Rossrs (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about debuting at number one - great. The comments from Selvin and Allen, yes that's more what I had in mind. I've had another thought - maybe it should be kept simple because the quotes, especially Allen's quote, are very specific and very strong. So rather than us try to preface their quotes with our own commentary, maybe they should speak for themselves. What do you think of : "As Jackson began her tour, she was acknowledged for the cultural impact of her music...."? Rossrs (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"During the two year period prior to the release of her sixth studio album, The Velvet Rope, Jackson reportedly suffered from depression and anxiety. " - needs a source.
"based on Jackson's personal issues with self-esteem" - it's not clear what her personal issues are/were from the point of view of her artististic expression or whether it is Neil McCormick that is making an interpretation.
"placing her on par with Elton John, Diana Ross and The Rolling Stones" is too similar to "placed her on par with several other recording artists, including her older brother Michael Jackson, Madonna, and Tina Turner" - one of them just needs to be reworded
"gay icon" - I understand and agree that the term has use and is acceptable but I think in an encyclopedic context it should not be presented as fact. Here it says "established Jackson as a gay icon", and I think it is a little too strong. "Gay icon" is too intangible and too personal/individual to be used as an absolute. Did Neil McCormick call her a gay icon? If so, I think it should be attributed to him rather than attributed to Wikipedia. The way it reads is kind of like "based on the available evidence Wikipedia hereby decrees that Janet Jackson is a gay icon because one Neil McCormick said so". I think it's also kind of vague and ill defined, and in some cases kind of trivialized. The way it's sequenced, we have the real and tangible contribution to AIDS Research, the vague and difficult to define "gay icon" reference, and then the real and tangible acknowledgements by the National Black Lesbian and Gay Leadership Forum and the GLAAD Media Awards. I'd treat the definable actions/recognition/awards as more notable and put Neil McCormick after them. Then there is a 3x platinum certification just kind of dangling at the end. Maybe the gay recognition etc, should be in a paragraph of its own - it's a worthwhile theme to discuss, and the 3x platinum bit could go in the previous paragraph where the chart performance is discussed. Rossrs (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well.... he says she "makes a bid for gay icon status" which is a different thing. But this fixes it. He doesn't sound like a fun person exactly, does he? I don't see too many GLAAD Awards in his future if he thinks a lesbian reinterpretation is "bizarre". "Unexpected", perhaps. "Not-something-Diana-Ross-would-have-done", sure. "I-bet-Madonna-could-just-rip-Janet's-face-off-because-she-wishes-she-thought-of-it-first", you bet. But "bizarre"? Rossrs (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2000–2003: Nutty Professor II: The Klumps and All for You
I removed the "big screen" phrase because it's a bit colloquial, but this is a very well written, well sourced section. Rossrs (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2004–2005: Super Bowl XXXVIII controversy and Damita Jo
Excellent. I wouldn't change so much as a comma. (I must admit reading the part where Janet refused to apologise again I was inwardly applauding her!) Rossrs (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other sections to the end of the article - are all fine in my opinion. Well written, thorough, engaging, interesting. "Musical style and performance" and "Legacy" sections gives a very clear wrap-up of her overall impact and help give the article depth. I agree with User:Silverwolf85's comment about the choreography section. I think there are too many people offering an opinion - and they are all saying similar things, so it's a bit repetitive. The one person who should be saying something substantial - and isn't - is Jackson herself. Rossrs (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section
A couple of things I changed - removed reference to Tyler Perry. I think the spotlight needs to stay on Janet in the lead. Jam and Lewis and the other Jacksons are fine, but if we mention Tyler Perry, why not Eddie Murphy? And then where does it stop?
I removed "though" from beginning of paragraph because it seems to suggest a contradiction that doesn't come, and "amidst her recording career" because it's just a bit jarring.
I think it might read a little better if Billboard's global sales figures (a truly staggering achievement) is mentioned first, and then the RIAA American sales figures second. Being in the top 10 global artists of all time is more significant than being the 11th best selling artist in the US.
I think the lead is currently the weak link in this article, and in my opinion it's now the only weak spot. How to fix it, I do not know, but it is taking shape. Rossrs (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking good -
Do you think this sentence from the lead " She faced initial difficulties after launching her recording career, often criticized for having a limited vocal range, and being yet another child from the Jackson family to become a recording artist." - could be removed? I don't think it's particularly significant as part of the article summary. Rossrs (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is. Ever since she began her career and even today, no matter how good her music/lyrics are, every critic has to comment on how small her voice is. Even in the the Musical Style section, rolling stone basically said "she can't sing, but thats ok!" And being the last of nine kids from the same family to start a record career was a big turn off for critics too. The Bookkeeper(of the Occult)01:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. Well, the way it's written it places the criticism within the period of her first releases and Control, although the criticism about her thin voice has occurred from time to time throughout her career. "initial difficulties" is so vague, it could mean people threw tomatoes at her, and "after launching her career" is redundant because the average punter didn't criticise her before she started ;-). The lead is so important that every word and syllable has to serve a purpose, much more than in the article. The rest of the sentence about the criticism is fine and I agree with you, but the first half, needs to be chopped, I think. It's probably fixable with some minor rewording. Perhaps "She faced criticism for her limited vocal range, and for being yet another member of the Jackson family to become a recording artist." ? Rossrs (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just finished a bit of a copy-edit. From what I can tell, everything seems pretty darn good. Of course, I am coming into this late in the game. :) My only critique, is the Choreography paragraph just seems a bit large and unwieldy when you read it.
I'll take another look at the whole thing tomorrow after I get some sleep...
I added commentary by Jackson to "Control" "Musical Style and Performance" and "Choreography". Wess reworked the LEAD so everything should be ready to go now if there are no further complaints. The Bookkeeper(of the Occult)20:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]