Wikipedia:Peer review/1,000 Years/archive1

1,000 Years edit

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 foolishly nominated it for a good article even though it was only C-class and still needed a lot of expansion. In essence, this article isn't very good now and I want to get some feedback from more experienced editors.

Thanks, Jinkinson (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed an article on a Sleater-Kinney album recently.

Try to avoid citations in the lead. The lead should summarise the rest of the article, and so, in an article as uncontroversial as this, shouldn't need citations.
Expand the references. Template:Cite web, Template:Cite news and Template:Cite magazine may be useful.
Merge the influences and background section.
Are the bands/people you mention worth redlinking? If they're notable, a redlink is not a bad thing.
Cite your sources. "Tucker told The Portland Mercury that she was recording the album in April 2010, and said it was "definitely more of a middle-aged mom record, in a way. It's not a record that a young person would write." The origins of these songs lie in material Tucker wrote for live performances in early 2009 in Portland, after which many people encouraged her to make her own album." This seems to be uncited.
Print magazines/newspapers should have their names italicised.
You don't need to say "According to this... According to that..." as much as you do. Some things (like tour dates) can just be stated with a cite- you don't need direct quotes, you don't need in-text attribution.
Start to work the details from the reviews in the box into the article's prose.
Do you have any reviews for the tour?
Did it chart outside the US? Also, where are the cites for the charts?
"A moderately positive review was posted on Something Awful by Dennis Farrell, who bills himself as Corin Tucker's stalker. He compared the album to Backspacer, the Pearl Jam album, and praised "It's Always Summer" in particular as "a great example of the album's ability to bridge the gap between haunting and hopeful while being the sort of song that can embed itself into your skull and be the first thing you think of in the morning."" Really not suitable. I've removed it. Some guy who claims to be a stalker is probably the least reliable source I've ever heard of.
Unnecessary capitals in the personnel section.

I think there's a good bit more expansion to go (there'll be plenty more sources out there) so it would be silly for me to give too complete a review, as the article will change plenty. However, I hope this, and the comments from the GA review, will help you get an idea of what needs to be done! I'll be happy to take another look through once you've expanded it a bit further/worked through these comments. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I see is how the Influences section could be more than a list. I've never seen an album article with a section like this in it, which makes me think that per J Milburn it needs to be merged perhaps with a section like "Background" or (when you get one) "Music and lyrics". The article should be more in-depth with influences so that people who've never heard the album can get a better understanding of why these are considered important enough to mention. How did these influences shape the sound of the record? How would you describe them to someone who's never heard the record? Lazy Bastard Guy 02:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]