Wikipedia:Peer review/Year Zero (album)/archive2
Year Zero (album) 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 April 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has failed at FAC twice now, both times because of an apparent lack of Support (and a relative lack of Opposition as well). So, before renominating the article hopefully for the last time, I'd like to iron out any further issues with the article. I'm pretty confident in the quality of the article, and I'm certain that any issues remaining will be fairly minor and easy to resolve. Any comments and suggestions are welcomed and appreciated. Drewcifer (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article - I read it, the talk page and both FACs. Although the request says it was not opposed much, I see the Comments that do not lead to Support as "tacit opposes" in that they took the time to comment, but did not switch to Support. I would use both FACs as very detailed peer reviews and make sure that all issues raised in them were addressed in some (either making the requested changes or being prepared to defend why something was not changed despite an actionable request). Here are some suggestions for improvement which I hope are helpful:
- I always think a model article is useful for style, structure, ideas, etc. There are several album FAs and I note Kid A by Radiohead is one - it also marked a fairly major shift in sound / style from the previous album.
- I am uncomfortable with changing a direct quote in the lead: Reznor also stated that the album was "part of a bigger picture of a number of things [he was] working on".[2] when the original reads ... "part of a bigger picture of a number of things I'm working on".[2] I think the "I'm" in the original quote is clear since Reznor is identified as the speaker.
- Having read the article I can understand why it has gotten several comments at FAC but only limited support. It is a good article, but just does not seem quite up to FA standards. I will try to give some examples:
- The lead for example seems to have almost too much emphasis on the alternate reality game (which has its own article) - 3 of the 9 sentences in the lead are about the game - see WP:WEIGHT.
- The hardest FA criteria for most editors to reach is 1a, near brilliant prose. In the lead there seems to be some needless repetition. Does Reznor need to be repeated twice in two sentences, and could those sentences be combined? Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor indicated that this required a completely different approach from his usual style of lyric writing, and also stated that the album was "part of a bigger picture of a number of things I'm working on".[2]
- Try keeping the focus on the album, so could the second paragraph be something like The album is part of a larger "Year Zero project", which includes a remix album, an alternate reality game, and a potential television or film project. The Year Zero game expanded upon the album's fictional storyline by using media such as websites, pre-recorded phone messages, and murals, while the remix album... [fill in the blank]. I would link alternate reality game for the first instance and link the game at "Year Zero game. Adding something on the remix album helps avoid weight issues and expands the emphasis on the overall project.
- One last example from the lead The album spawned two singles, "Survivalism" and "Capital G", the latter being a promotional single. Is there any way to avoid the word "single" twice in one sentence? I would also link to single (music) and Promotional recording, and make it clearer how they differ.
- I also agree that the album seems fairly "Reznor-heavy" - as one example, the "Disputes with Universal Music Group" section is almost all quotes from Reznor, with only a reference to press coverage of the dispute, and no reference to Universal Music Group's views or any of their positions or statements.
- Unfortunately, UMG never issued any response. However, there was a good amount of press coverage, so maybe some 3rd party quotes would be nice. But as far as it being Reznor-heavy, the whole dispute revolves around what Reznor said, so without quoting Reznor, there's no way to thoroughly discuss the dispute.
- Per WP:MOS#Images leave image sizes as thumbs and let reader preferences take over - several are now set to 200 px. DONE
- There are some interesting things on the two singles in their articles that are not in this album article.