Wikipedia:Peer review/Hilary Duff (album)/archive1
An article on a Hilary Duff album that I've recently expanded. I've tried to make it as comprehensive as possible (including making separate articles for the radio singles) without delving into unnecessary detail, but I definitely think somebody unfamiliar with the article should take a look; my eyes have glazed over completely and I know I'm not able to notice problems. It would be great if anyone could provide suggestions on how to elevate it to good article or featured article standard. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 03:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- It seems pretty good overall - clearly written and well-cited. I can't see anything particularly that needs improving further, it seems very thorough - very near, if not at, featured article standard in my opinion. Well done. Trebor 19:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, and thanks for commenting! Extraordinary Machine 17:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Give some examples of what you consider "unnecessary detail" that you left out, so I can judge whether this was appropriate or not. Everyking 09:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I believe I am, your opinion of me to the contrary, fully capable of doing that myself. Extraordinary Machine 17:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- So what's peer review for, then? Why'd you bring it here? Everyking 06:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I guess I'm not going to get an example. I think my point above was a good one: a person wouldn't go to peer review in good faith if he believed he knew everything better than the rest of us already. You know, I think what's in the article already is great, very well-done (definitely no "padding" as claimed below); I just want to know what kind of philosophy was behind the writing of it, because I have concerns based on past experience. Obviously if you left out a bunch of (what I considered to be) important content based on your philosophy, I'd have to object to that no matter how much I liked the stuff that's already there, but if we agreed the omitted stuff is trivial, then there'd be no issue. Everyking 10:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually I do have one minor complaint about what's there that I just noticed: one of the cites is to a thread on a fan forum. Obviously that isn't an adequate source. In that case I would say if the best source available is a fan forum post, just leave the information out of the article. Everyking 10:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- I guess I'm not going to get an example. I think my point above was a good one: a person wouldn't go to peer review in good faith if he believed he knew everything better than the rest of us already. You know, I think what's in the article already is great, very well-done (definitely no "padding" as claimed below); I just want to know what kind of philosophy was behind the writing of it, because I have concerns based on past experience. Obviously if you left out a bunch of (what I considered to be) important content based on your philosophy, I'd have to object to that no matter how much I liked the stuff that's already there, but if we agreed the omitted stuff is trivial, then there'd be no issue. Everyking 10:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- So what's peer review for, then? Why'd you bring it here? Everyking 06:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I believe I am, your opinion of me to the contrary, fully capable of doing that myself. Extraordinary Machine 17:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not being a fan of this artist, I'm just happy to see a pop-music related article that actually has, ya know, verifiable sources and an actual explanation of the writing and producing that went into the recording of the album instead of hearsay, rumor and an over-explanation of chart activity with a daily TRL chart trajectory. It's thorough without being littered with fan-gush and the tone is appropriate as well. Not sure what else could be added, but good job so far. - eo 19:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- My opinion was requested, and the requester ain't gonna like me (grin). This article gives the feel of massive padding heaped onto a relatively uneventful production to make it look featured-worthy. Just my opinion, of course, but the article could be half this size, or less. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- LOL, why do you think I won't like you? :) I appreciate you saying exactly what you think much more than if you were mincing your words. I must mention, though, that any "massive padding" was a consequence of my getting carried away with making sure the article was comprehensive rather than a desire to make it look like FA quality. In fact, including too much information and then cutting it down means that I won't have to worry about not including enough. Extraordinary Machine 18:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Chop chop! ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- LOL, why do you think I won't like you? :) I appreciate you saying exactly what you think much more than if you were mincing your words. I must mention, though, that any "massive padding" was a consequence of my getting carried away with making sure the article was comprehensive rather than a desire to make it look like FA quality. In fact, including too much information and then cutting it down means that I won't have to worry about not including enough. Extraordinary Machine 18:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)