Wikipedia:Peer review/Number 1's (Mariah Carey album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Number 1's (Mariah Carey album)

I've recently expanded this article on a Mariah Carey compilation album, and I was wondering whether anybody here had any ideas on how it could be improved upon its current state. I was surprised by how much I was able to write as it's a compilation album, so I'd like to know if it is a little too detailed. Also, my eyes have glazed over, I'm sure I'm not seeing errors and I'm starting to second-guess the prose, so I really think a set of fresh eyes should look at this article. Outside opinions would be extremely helpful and much appreciated, particularly as I've briefly toyed with the idea of taking it to WP:FAC. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 13:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• The intro is confusing. It states that the album consists of 13 singles which hit number one, and then goes on to mention that some of the songs were later released as singles! Upon reading further it would seem that the album (rather curiously given its title) actually included some new songs too. Please fix the intro to reflect this. That said, I've got about half way through so far and it's - at first glance - well written and informative. --kingboyk 14:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • See what I mean? :) I've edited it to say the album is primarily comprised of the number-one singles. Thanks a lot. Extraordinary Machine 23:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you're right that the "higher than expected sales" statement in the lead should have been sourced. I've added a citation. Thanks for noticing that (and also the "is comprised of" gaffe :)). Extraordinary Machine 14:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy _t 15:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, I didn't know javascripts could be written for peer reviews. I looked at user:Tony1's help pages and went through the article again to tighten the prose (mostly just removing redundancies and additives, of which I'm ashamed to say there were a few), but like I said above I don't think my eyes are seeing the things they should be. Thanks for the tips. Extraordinary Machine 23:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• It is remarkable that there is this much to say about a compilation album. I'd recommend letting it sit for a week, and then reading it aloud. There are some spots where the phrasing could use a little polishing (I made an edit that probably needs fixing, actually, to remove a particularly repetitive clause). So much of this article is made up of simple declarative sentences that it gets a little monotonous. In "Critical reception" we begin well, with a more interesting opening sentence, but then we have:
  • Erlewine also said...
  • Entertainment Weekly said...
  • Amy Linden of LAUNCHcast commented...
  • Slightly different structure -- #1's received a 1/10 rating in Britain's NME magazine, and its critic wrote...
  • Slant magazine in 2001 called...

There's nothing wrong with any one of these sentences, but rearranging the sentence structure more often would reduce the feeling of reading a list in prose. The only other comment that I have is that there could be a little more of telling the reader what you're about to tell them. I don't know what the connection between the second and third paragraphs of "Compiling of singles" is. An extra sentence leading the reader more gently to the new topic would be helpful. "Chart performance" could use an introductory sentence (or even two) that sums up the rest of that section. "New material" does a good job of this -- the paragraphs introduce themselves more gently. Finally, we spend a lot of time on "When You Believe". Perhaps slightly too much -- there's some back-and-forth between the different participants that may get into a level of detail that would make more sense in the article about the song. All of that said, this should be ready for WP:FAC soon; it is hard to imagine a better article about a ("not a") Greatest Hits album. Jkelly 00:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think it is good, solid article, proof that one can be written on even the smallest of topics. The one thing that jumped out at me was the quote from a college paper, The Daily Cougar as an assessment of sales would sound more authoritative from Billboard or The New York Times. But as it stands now, I'd vote for FA status. Good work, Extraordinary. PedanticallySpeaking 13:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)