| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
After being brutally shot down at GAN, I'd like to polish this up for another push at Good Article status. Please give me your thoughts. I'm totally willing to exchange peer reviews, also; you scratch my wikiback, I'll scratch yours!
Thanks, Seegoon (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
My .02 cents regarding writing an album article is by basing it on U2's No Line on the Horizon for no other specific reason than it has an FAC status and is, apparently well-regarded (I can't stand Bono otherwise).
My review:
- I would divide the Personnel section into two columns for better readability (and because every GA and FAC article I've looked at does it).
- Fair. I've done this.
- The article also has some unformatted links here
- I'll sort these out to the best of my ability.
- It's missing info on chart performance
- It isn't; it only charted to the most minor of extents. It's mentioned in the Writing, recording and release section, towards the end.
- Just for the sake of avoiding any contention in the future, I think the statements in the lede should also be cited.
- This directly contradicts what was said in the GA review it received; WP:LEADCITE basically says that only really contentious stuff needs citing in the lead; as such, it's not really necessary in this article.
- Critical reviews should also be placed under the secondary header of "Critical reviews". (again this is because every GA and FAC article I've looked at does it)
- You're right. Disregard this. I've recently had my lede for Holy Wood criticized for having too much citation by Lakeshade.-Red marquis (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's missing any info on "Commercial performance".
- Same as above; this was a truly underground release and there's very little that can be dug up about it.
- Info on the release and the single should be splintered off into their own sections.
- There was actually no single; just a music video. I also have to disagree about these things being sectioned off; it would butcher what little flow the album has at the moment, and a two-paragraph section would be a little weak.
- "Sound" should be changed to "Composition". It sounds more "encyclopaedic".
- Again, I'm compelled to disagree. Although 'composition' is more encyclopaedic, it refers to something different. In the Sound section, only the aural qualities are referred to; 'composition' implies the intentions of the musicians, whereas 'sound' is about how reviewers responded to and described what they heard.
- It is otherwise commendably well-written, balanced and objective.
-Red marquis (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for giving over your thoughts; they're invaluable. Seegoon (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- So far as I can see the only problem left is the unformatted links. Good luck on getting GA status. -Red marquis (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)