Wikipedia:Peer review/Echo & the Bunnymen discography/archive1

Echo & the Bunnymen discography

• 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 May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've expanded and reformatted it substantially and believe it has potential to become a Featured List. I'm not sure if I've missed anything though so would be greatful for someone with a keener eye to glance over it.

Thanks, JD554 (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

This looks mostly good, fixed some things myself. the remaining are:

• expand the lead to about two big paragraphs (it is a 30 year old band). take note mention landmark album popular singles, major lineup changes etc.
• put the EP table just below the studio albums and format it like an aal bums table rather than the singles table. ie, include release date, format, label in bullet points
• delink the albums in the singles table
• include the references just below the chart headers in the table. see The Strokes discography
• the Videos should be formatted like an albums table. dont overlink the formats
• No music videos? No miscellaneous releases: charity compilations, soundtracks etc...
• The A B C superscripts in the singles table is the wrong way. see The Strokes discography studio albums. Also note B seems unnecessary, plenty of singles get reissued, we only ention them if they did better than the original
• Although there is discussion *ssome MOS conflict) about it, you may want to bold album names in all the album tables for clarity. indopug (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made the changes you've recomended above and added a substantial amount of "other" apeareances (album, single and DVD). I'd be greatful for you further opinions. Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This is looking good. For reference I suggest you look at The Libertines discography (an FL, mine).

• The enormous detail in Other Album appearances--notes and peaks--should go. We aren't interested about the album itself since it's not a Bunnymen release in itself.
• Singles needs a Peak chart position header
• The lead needs reworking; see the examples I showed, the lead needs to be completely chronological. Just like the lead of a band article, only with more mention of chart performances. indopug (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Would you recommend combining the other albums, other singles and other videos sections into one miscellaneous section or to keep the separate? --JD554 (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, leave it for now; maybe the folks at FLC will suggest something. indopug (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made the changes that you suggested above apart from the one for the lead section. I originally based that on the lead section of another FL discography, Depeche Mode discography. Looking at that one I think this one should be okay, hopefully the good people at FLC will agree too! Thanks for all your help, --JD554 (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

--JD554 (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)