Wikipedia:Peer review/Black Holes and Revelations/archive1
Black Holes and Revelations 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 December 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This has a FAC back in August which was withdrawn as it wasn't really ready. I've been workong in the concerns listed there, but would appreciate more specific comments about which bits of the prose suck (and why - I'm no good at this copyediting stuff) and general areas for improvement. Any suggestions would be helpful. Thanks, THE GROOVE 02:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- I get the feeling that the article is a bit... disjointed. You start talking about "Soldier's Poem" before the rest of the tracks in musical style. My suggestion would be to merge the style and content sections. The article is lacking context. I want to know more about the songs, but there's surprisingly little there. The reception suffers from too much quoting and not enough summarizing of concrete issues critics too, or praise. Don't just do postive/negative. Split it up by their sound, the content, et al. I think a major issue is that the article doesn't have enough sources. Go through newspaper archives to find print sources. Move the Charts section up to reception, so that the sales and charting information can be discussed critically in the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. You're completely right, I feel that way myself. It's as if a lot of the sentences don't really follow on from previous sentences and the whole thing is lots of little facts stuck together with no 'flow' or context. This writing thing is really damn hard. Heh. It's weird that I can't find more sources really, you'd think that anyone and everyone would be talking about albums released by a band this big. I will see what I can dig up, musewiki has lots of links to interviews and other reviews and suchlike so maybe I'll find something new there. THE GROOVE 03:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have access to a LexisNexis account, so if you want I can go trawling and send you PDFs of sources (it'll take a couple weeks, prolly.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- That would be awesome, I'd really appreciate that. Also, I just found this which has a loooot of information about the recording and sound of the album. I don't know if it's strictly reliable though; they have scans of the magazine and obviously I'd cite the magazine, not the wiki, but sourcing rules are a bit arcane to me at times. THE GROOVE 03:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- The rule is WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, so if it was just a transcript of the text on the wiki you would have to source the wiki (which is obviously not reliable.) As they've got the scanned pages, however, you should be able to use those and cite it directly. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- That would be awesome, I'd really appreciate that. Also, I just found this which has a loooot of information about the recording and sound of the album. I don't know if it's strictly reliable though; they have scans of the magazine and obviously I'd cite the magazine, not the wiki, but sourcing rules are a bit arcane to me at times. THE GROOVE 03:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've got a bunch of stuff. There was something like 600 hits, not counting duplicates, so I kinda went down and picked ones which weren't just short reviews (alone). Some of them are still short, but there's at least one or two somewhat lengthy features in there. Send me an email and I'll reply back with the attachments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Efe comment