Wikipedia:Peer review/Arthur (Or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire)/archive2

Arthur (Or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire) 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 will be listing it for FAC very soon, and would appreciate any comments on it before I proceed.

Thanks in advance, - I.M.S. (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: For once a music album I actually know at PR! The melody of "Victoria" is going through my head as I type. While I like what is here, I think it needs a fair amount of work before it would pass FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement in order as I reread the article.

A model article is always useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are a number of WP:FAs on albums, though most are not as old an album as this. See Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music
Direct quotations in the lead need to have a reference per WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:LEAD
Quotations need to follow logical quotation, basically punctuation goes outside the quote unless it is a full sentence.
Until Dave Davies is introduced, I think Ray Davies can just be referred to as "Davies" (after his own first appearance)
For most articles the most difficult FA criterion to meet is 1a, a professional level of English. Though the writing is generally good, it could still use some polish in places. See WP:WIAFA - a few examples follow:
- Kinks frontman Ray Davies constructed the concept album as the soundtrack to a Granada Television play; however, though the storyline had been developed in collaboration with novelist Julian Mitchell, the play was cancelled and never produced. could be something like Kinks frontman Ray Davies constructed the concept album as the soundtrack to a Granada Television play and developed the storyline with novelist Julian Mitchell; however the play was cancelled and never produced.
Or this is just too long and complex a sentence - I think it needs to be split into simpler sentences In early 1969, Quaife had told the band he was quitting,[10] though the other members did not take the remark seriously; when an article in the New Musical Express mentioned the band, Maple Oak, that he had formed without the rest of The Kinks' knowledge,[6][11][10] Ray Davies unsuccessfully requested Quaife to return for the upcoming sessions of Arthur.[12]
Another thing to watch out for is providing context for the reader - as one example look at the first sentence in the recording section The Kinks had performed demo takes and test sessions for Arthur with Quaife a few months earlier, trying out several new songs that Ray Davies had written.[10] which has no year or clear date. The reader has to wade through the previous section, which talks about a 1965 concert ban in the US five sentences before (doubt this is the year) and then six sentences earlier we get "Davies travelled to United Recording Studios in Los Angeles, California on 11 April 1969,..."
Other places where context could be provided to the reader are the year of Village Green Preservation Society or the years of the reviews in the Legacy section
Or in the lead all the reviews referring to "their finest hour" are quoting the album's song "Mr Churchill says", so it might help to say something like echoing the lyrics of the album's song "Mr. Churchill says"...
I have read the article twice and the Background section several times - the Beginnings subsection confuses me each time. We have a nice intro in the Television play section, then there is a lot of material which has very little to do with Arthur. We learn about the group's poor album sales the year before, the bassist leaving, and Ray flying off to the US to work with the Turtles, almost none of which has anything to do with Arthur. I wonder if it would help to put much of this information earlier, before the Television play section, then mention the few relevant bits in there later?
The chronology seems jumbled in places too - I think part of this is due to going through the story of the TV play in that section (Jan to Dec 1969), then the Beginnings section refers to 1968's Village Green, then early 1969 with asides on 1977 and 1965, then the Recording section is from May to Oct 1969. I think it might help to tell the story more chronologically, even if that would split up the story of the TV play a bit.
I also was not sure what the purpose of the tour map was - it is difficult to see the dots (at least on my monitor) and the trip to Lebanon is not shown on it and most of the dates shown are not mentioned in the article that I could see.
A few of the other sections seem out of order to me too - for example the story and themes seems out of place where it is - could it be moved to a spot between Recording and the the Release and Reception sections?
The reviews in the Legacy section also seem oddly out of place - the article already has a reception section, could the more modern reviews be added there, perhaps as a subsection?
I would also mention the CD reissue in the article - what tracks were added?
There are four fair use media files in the article (two images and two sound clips). The album cover and sound clips are pretty standard for album articles. The art insert is not realy discussed in the article now at enough detail to pass WP:NFCC
MAke sure refs have all needed information, for example current ref 23 omits the date (2003-09-01) given in the review Golden, Matt. "On Second Thought: The Kinks - Arthur (or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire)". Stylus Magazine. http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/on_second_thought/the-kinks-arthur-or-the-decline-and-fall-of-the-british-empire.htm. Retrieved 25 January 2010.
Iam not sure what makes music sources relaible but please check WP:RS - what makes http://acclaimedmusic.net/Current/A1125.htm a reliable source, for example?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your review, Ruhrfisch. Here are my responses to some of the points raised:

For "why I think x website is a RS", please see User:I.M.S./Reliable sources
Responding to the placement of the TV play info - I agree with you on its awkwardness. I had initially filed it lower down the page, as you can see from this revision, but SilkTork suggested that it would work better integrated with the "background" section. What do you think?

Thank you! - I.M.S. (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that having the idea for the TV play in the background section so the reader knows why they wrote it would be OK, but also think having the whole tv play story there is just confusing (as I explained above).

Watch needless repetition, for example we are told in two different places after the lead about Arthur being named for the brother-in-law, or the whole US tour ban is also discussed twice. Once in the lead and once in the text is a good rule for most things.

As long as you are aware of WP:RS I trust your judgment (but be aware that it might be questioned at FAC too).

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]