Talk:Let's Get It On

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Albums (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject R&B and Soul Music (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

BlueNote.svg BlueNote.svg Let's Get It On is chosen to become one of the random selected articles on the R&B and Soul Music Portal. A selected article should be R&B and Soul Music-related, well-written and interesting. Featured, A-class and GA class are considered well-written. If you can update or improve this article, please do. If you support or oppose this nomination, please leave comments
This article has an assessment summary page.
Good article Let's Get It On has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
August 22, 2008 Good article nominee Listed


Photo[edit]

An explicit photo shows up when the article is loaded, but I don't see it in the history or in the code. Freder1ck 03:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck

And now it's gone. Wacky. Freder1ck 03:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck

Trivia[edit]

a pub trivia contest I was at noted that the Detroit Lions contributed vocals to the song "lets get it on" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.11.77 (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That was "What's Going On". BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 19:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Title song[edit]

Let's face it -- This is the best song ever! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.72.84 (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Let's Get It On/GA1. This discussion is now closed. Please do not edit the review page.

Hi. I will be reviewing this article for GA status. On initial reading, the article looks very good. Please feel free to ask me any questions. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • First, I tried to fix the deprecated quotations. I think I screwed it up but I will have someone look at it and fix it. Please forgive me!
  • The article is overwikilinked per WP:CONTEXT. I will remove some of the obvious ones. Also, if you want, I can take out the autoformatted dates, as they are in the process of being deprecated (I believe). FAC does not encourage them.
  • I really think it is an excellent article in terms of appropriate lead, engaging text, and lots of information in a compact article. I will have to look for faults as they are not obvious.
  • "As with What's Going On, Let's Get It On was also intended to have a deeper meaning than of what was being used to portrayed it; in What's Going On's case, politics, and with the follow up, love, which would be used by Gaye as a metaphor for God's love." I think this sentence is somewhat awkward. Perhaps something like:
"As with What's Going On, Let's Get It On was also intended to have a deeper meaning than the general theme used to portrayed it; in the case of What's Going On, that was politics, and with the follow up album it was love, which would be used by Gaye as a metaphor for God's love."
  • I believe you have to settle on some consistency with numbers. WP:MOSNUM had no answer the last time I asked whether #1, Number One, number one etc should be used. It seems like in music articles #1 is typically used, whereas in sports No. 1 is used. Also, there is that rule about spelling out numbers under 10 and using numerical values for numbers over 10. But there are many exceptions depending on context, etc.
  • All the links check out. Youtube generally is not allowed as a reference do to copyright problems.
  • There is a problem with the references. They all have to be similarly formated, like use all citation, or use all cite xxx. Also they all need publishers.
  • I wonder if it would be helpful to break up some of the long text passages into paragraphs.

I dont get the problem with citation. All of them, except for the footnotes, have publishers. Dan56 (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

*(copied from Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music

  • You must have a consistent standard for formatting references. See WP:Citation templates and scroll down to where the templates xxx are. (cite book xxx, cite web xxx etc. or the citation book etc.) Or go to Template:Cite book. WP:Footnote gives an over all explanation. (There is also the Harvard method, which you probably would not want to bother with and don't need.) The issue is to choose a format and be consistent in the article. Always provide the publisher. And when you have a page range e.g. pp.56-67, you must use the pp. The single p. is for a single page.

As an example, look at Frank Zappa where the editor uses the "Citation" method for references.

References[edit]

  • You're right. Your citations are fine. I cleaned up a few oddities in them and they are fine.
  • Check the references, as I changed one (added an alternative) and see if that is correct.
  • Also, it would be better if you could move the reference citations out of the lead and place them in the article where the material is discussed.

Does it matter? Dan56 (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a semi-rule of MoS and some reviewers enforce it. The idea is that everything in the lead is covered in the article and cited there. I don't have particularly strong feelings, but you should know it is considered undesirable. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • References: So is this correct? The liner notes contain essays by Ritz, Townsend, Edmonds, and Weinger, as well as excerpts from Divided Soul?

Yes; One excerpt from Divided Soul by D. Ritz (according to the liner note caption near the quote in the deluxe edition booklet) Dan56 (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

  • There is one cite web in there with your other references -- theoretically making them mixed. Maybe when you can, you can straighten that out. So I will pass the article as I think it is very good.


Done Dan56 (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the ISBN Divided Soul came out in 2003 - there was a paperback and then a hardback, both in 2003. So I am going to change the date. You can look into it more if you like, and see if there is an earlier edition with a different ISBN. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

According to World Cat, the book was published in 1991.[1] Dan56 (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I am looking at your references again and you have Ritz (1991), for example. You need a Ritz a and a Ritz b to distinguish which Ritz in the references a particular citation refers to. Also, is there a citation from Rolling Stone or is that like a "Further reading" reference?

There is; ref. 4. Dan56 (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Re Divided Soul, I was using Amazon.com [2] Make sure the isbn is correct for the 1991 edition.

I fixed the ISBN number Dan56 (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not change transclusion of GA review[edit]

The transcluded review must remain intact. I have transcluded it again. This needs to remain intact for GA records and bot archiving. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not essential that it is transcluded, as long as it is linked from {{ArticleHistory}} (and it is). However, it is quite helpful to display the review on the talk page, so I recommend keeping the transclusion until the talk page gets long. I've removed the copy-and-paste version of the review, which duplicates information. I've also moved the review to /GA1, as it is the first review. That is where the review should remain in order to provide a permanent link from ArticleHistory. Geometry guy 20:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)