Kumi Koda edit
- 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 February 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I want to become a FAC article but I'm stuck. I do not know what to add or change. Please look at the article and tell me what you think should be added onto it. Thanks, (Moon) and (Sunrise) 17:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: This reads well and seems comprehensive. The early biographical details seem thin, but if no more material is available, what you have may be fine. This is a nice job overall. I have a few comments or questions.
- The lead photo is good, and the license looks fine to me. If you can add at least one more image, that would be good too.
- I'll look for some.
- The last paragraph of the lead is a one-sentence orphan, and it's vague. It also doesn't seem important enough to put in the lead. Perhaps better would be to summarize "Lyrics and composition".
- Removed
- I'm not sure what "Best: First Things was certified 2x million... " means in the "Growing popularity" section.
- Removed
- RIAJ should be spelled out on first use, thus: Recording Industry Association of Japan (RIAJ).
- Done
- "was certified million by the RIAJ" - Meaning?
- That's to show the growth of her popularity.
- "a public apology on Fuji TV.[61][59][62][63]" - When you have a string of ref numbers, it's good to arrange them in ascending order.
- Put them in order.
- "Koda's forty-third single, yet untitled," - "Yet" is ambiguous. Better would be "untitled as of xxxx" where xxxx is the date that the information was released.
- Changed
- In the "Footnotes", it says, "She sold ¥12,702,200,000 in profits." Would "made" be better than "sold"? In any case, the yen here and later in this note should also be given in dollar equivalents.
- Done
- I noticed about a dozen small errors, typos, or misspellings as I read, and I fixed them.
I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- Current refs 3, 4 are in a non-English language and need to state that. Same for all the Oricon refs
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- Current ref 58 needs to give the language
- In general, double check that all your non-English refs note what language they are in.
- Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 02:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)