That you toss this on the FAC and be a patient man
Hoping it's the last time here
For Black Ice
The end we all want, reach a silver lining
Get a star at the end of the road
To Black Ice Black Ice
Come on and get the scrutiny of the crowds
I watched all the GAN issues go
Then it had a GOCE cleanup to take
I edited this 72 times and think it's getting great
You know I want to live it up
When the FAC director come a callin' what article I hope it's gonna be around? Black Ice!
The reviewers come callin, I'm gonna be around
For Black Ice
Worked long, worked long
Not all alone (thanks, Shaidar), and hope I'm gonna take it all
On bringing the FAC out
Before you ask, Ref 50 seems to have cred down the street
So just let your opinion out
On Black Ice!
But for a straighter intro: Ever since 2010 I've been improving this article about AC/DC's latest album, which is a current Good Article, has had a copy-edit, and is detailed while also using credible sources (even one that could lead to objections has an excusable reason). So for anyone willing to review, Give it all, give it, give it what you got. -igordebraga≠ 17:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment starting from the first sentence "15th Australian and 14th international studio album", this article sacrifices readability for detail. An overarching narrative is also missing. You really don't a blow-by-blow account of how they marketed the album on what day (banal and dull), nor should you try to convert the chart tables below into prose (Chart performance and sales is unreadable). The Critical reception section is also lazy "reviewer of publication said quote"—repeat ten times. I urge you to look at the Be Here Now, Loveless and In Utero FAs to get an idea of how build narrative.22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC) (this is locked-out User:Indopug)
Thanks for finally providing some input. Cleaned up a bit, see if anything else is needed. igordebraga≠ 15:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Something is broken in the End-of-year chart (see the Mexico entry).
You seem to be linking publishers more often than not. Either way is good, but be consistent. Voyageur Press in your first reference, for example (which is even a bluelink as a redirect to Quarto Group).
You've got an ISSN for the Alan di Perna source; I'm not sure you also need an ASIN there (I consider Amazon's ID numbers to be sort of the ID of last resort, personally, since it's proprietary).
On the Marco Negonda ref, I have no problem if you want to pipe-link Rock Hard Italia to Rock Hard (magazine) but linking just part of the title is not okay.
Everyone hates this complaint: on the Robert Forster ref, you've got a date range. I'm pretty sure that's a hyphen there. Date ranges need en dashes.
In the K.S. Wang source, you can link the publisher there (the parent company has an article, and I made a redirect for your convenience here!).
You've got a short-form reference to Sutcliffe (it's #28 right now), but nothing that connects it to it's parent source. This makes it a little challenging for the reader to identify the source, and would be a problem if, for any reason, the parent reference was ever removed or replaced. There are a few solutions here (including a bibliography section with short-form references connected to it via harvard references, or whatever we call using superscript page numbers at the reference points).
I'm not entirely convinced you need to wikilink AC/DC in the references at all, but since you've got a link-on-first-appearance practice in place, you definitely only need to do so once (see #31 and 34, at least).
Make sure date formatting is consistent. You're mostly dd mm yyyy, but check reference 34.
In ref 44, you don't link Penton Media. You do later on (93), but this is the first appearance.
You style the publisher for Rolling Stone as Wenner Media LLC the first couple times, and then Jann Wenner in the iTunes ref (#48). Any reason for this?
Copying refs from other pages (the one that had a different date was this too).
I don't believe "Onion.Inc" is correctly formatted in the Burgess reference (#55).
I probably should have commented on this sooner, but you're very inconsistent with publication locations. They're always optional, but FAC expects a consistent format. Some entries have them. Some don't. And you've got styling variations among the ones that do (see refs 57 and 59 for two different ways to give the same publisher location).
In the Spence D. reference, since you're linking publications, IGN can take a link.
Who is the publisher of Billboard? In 43/69, it's Prometheus Global Media. In 70/75/105/125, it's Nielsen Business Media.
Ref 98/99: Ideally, we'd have a third-party source noting the photobook's publication, but since all you're demonstrating here is that it exists, sourcing it to its own copyright page is probably okay (99). I don't think we gain anything from using a link to its entry in Amazon's product catalog as a reference.
Ref 111 has song titles and such in English, but the page itself is Greek and probably needs an (in Greek) note.
Ref 125 doesn't seem to be formatting like the other Billboard refs, especially regarding the publisher (and see the other Billboard publisher issue, above).
In ref 132, you only give us the short-form CRIA but you've spelled out all the similar orgs.
Duplicate links to Mahasz, too, in 112 / 136 / 149. I've likely missed some of this sort of thing, it's easy to overlook.
No definitive opinion regarding promotion yet; most of this is trivial to fix, but there are a couple more significant issues hiding in there, and I'd like to see someone better at prose reviews than I am take a crack at this. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Fixed most of these. igordebraga≠ 03:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)