| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see it as a GAC. I think this article is ready but I need additional input to pass.
Thanks, Red marquis (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I remember thinking that this was basically ready for GAC at the end of the last peer review; can I ask why you didn't just nominate it?
- "The tour garnered a large amount of media attention and was billed by MTV as a "potentially volatile mix" due to the public feud between both band's outspoken vocalists." Direct quotes should always have a citation, even in the lead.
- Fixed
- "squabbling" is a little informal
- Reworded
- "which resulted in Hole unwittingly financing most of Manson's production costs at their own expense" Perhaps you could explain why this was- presumably MM's production costs dwarfed Hole's?
- Rephrased
- "Hole revamped their grunge sound into wholesome high-sheen, glitzy alternative pop, while Marilyn Manson abandoned goth subculture-tinged industrial metal in favor of a hedonistic David Bowie-like glam rock." This is a bit informal.
- Rewritten
Other than that (I've not really looked at the sources) this looks pretty good. I made some edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. I wanted to push it through another round of peer review before I went to have it nominated because I believe an article can never be too perfect. I'll get to work on the items you listed. TY. -Red marquis (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)