Wikipedia:Peer review/Blur (Blur album)/archive1

Blur (Blur album) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
After undergoing a series of improvements, I feel that feedback/reassessment on this article would be beneficial.

Thanks, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 21:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the oldest unreviewed one ... I'll take a look. Daniel Case (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was worrying that this would stay this way forever. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 23:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, taking a look atm. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 16:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK ... didn't take too long. I did a brief copy edit to take care of some things that glared out at me. Which, actually, weren't that many. Overall, it's a pretty solid album article. It has a story to tell—band close to breaking up revamps sound and revives career—and tells it well. I got that without much effort as a reader.

The most visible change I'd make to the article would be the organization of the intro. The lede tells us what it needs to tell us—then suddenly we're dropped into the backstory. I'd keep the current lede, then a sentence telling us how the album did (sort of summarizing most of the third graf), then tell us what singles it's best known for.

Then, tell us about the new sound in the first sentence of the second graf. Then use all the other sentences in the first graf and the second graf to tell us how this came about. Then conclude with the current third graf, which may be the fourth one by this point.

I don't understand why we would need those sentences in the first paragraph when they are already mentioned in the third. As far as I am aware, the entire lead needs to summarise the rest of the article rather than the first paragraph of the lead summarising the third (which is what you seedm to be suggesting - I might have interpereted it wrongly). FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 11:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, it's mostly about the copy editing.

Is the word "rapturous" in a cited source? We need to make clear that it's not ours if it is, and honestly we shouldn't be using it at all really, instead describing them, perhaps, as "positive" or "enthusiastic."
- I am pretty sure that it's ours and have changed it to "positive" FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 18:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The greatest issue is consistency in so many things. Although it's an article about a British group and uses British spellings and the DMY date format, ~~I see we're still using American-style double quotation marks as the norm ... except for a few places where we don't.~~
- Would you mind giving an example of this? FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 18:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out on further examination that this was not so. Never mind. Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most importantly, we need to remember that song titles are in quotes, and album titles are always italicized. The middle of the article gets really loose with this.
- Done FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 18:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We also need to remember that it's almost always (and, in this context, always) "U.S." with the periods, not "US."
Do we have running times for the tracks on the bonus CD?
- Added. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 18:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really find much more. Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]