This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it up to FA, possibly so it can be "Today's feature article" for his 42nd birthday this upcoming October 17th.
- Otherwise, the article looks very good to me. Littlecarmen (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comments by Retrohead
I was asked to review this article via my talk page, so here are my concerns:
- cite number one should be moved to the first section
- "as well as one half of the hip hop duo"→since we know it's a two men project, it would be simpler to just say "part of"
- omit either "listed" or "ranked" since it's the same thing
- "the second best selling male artist of the Nielsen Soundscan era"→I think mentioning this in the lead is irrelevant, because it is followed by him being the sixth best overall selling artist in the US. Another thing is that the Beatles and Metallica are also male and they have sold more than him.
- "After his debut album Infinite"→It would be nice to explain here that he was signed to a major label for the release of The Slim Shady LP, which was the reason for his rise to mainstream popularity.
- His next two albums were worldwide successes→since they were successful on a global level, it is logical to include the worldwide sales, not just the US certifications.
- This was followed by Encore in 2004, another critical and commercial successful album.→Looking at the Metacritic score of the album (64) and the sales (5.3 million), this wasn't a critical and commercial success compared to his previous two albums.
- "the film's iconic song" — per WP:PEACOCK, descriptions such as "iconic" are not encyclopedical
- Overall, I suggest nominating this page for a copyedit at WP:GOCE; there are probably a few grammatical errors that need to be ironed out before seeking a higher rating.--Retrohead (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comments from WikiRedactor
- There are some external links that will need to be corrected.
- There is one redirect link that will need to be addressed.
- Each picture used in the article will need an alternate text description added.
- Can you move the references from the introduction into the body of the article?
- I would suggested merging "Memoirs", "Advertising", and "Charity" into a single subhead under the "Other ventures" section; even though they are fairly disconnected, they are all small sections that could probably be chunked under something called "Miscellaneous" or something with the same idea.
- I think the books listed in the "Bibliography" section can just be listed like "Title (Year of release)", the way that studio albums are treated.
- I don't think that the "Business ventures" section is needed, since the two ventures with articles are already discussed in the body of the article.
- I see some inconsistencies with the way that Billboard is treated in the citations; some spots list it as Billboard with the publisher Nielsen Business Media, others with the publisher Prometheus Global Media, and others where it is simply listed as Billboard.com. I recommend that you pick one citation style to use throughout the article.
- I've also spotted some occasions where the article bounces between "number" and "no." when discussing rankings. I would go through the article and make sure they are all changed to "number", which to me seems more formal.
- I personally would remove the succession boxes at the end of the article; I don't find them particularly needed, especially when these achievements are discussed in the body of the article.
Excuse me, is anyone up for reviewing my nomination in trade for me reviewing yours? My nomination is going to FA this week, so I need feedback fast. The article is Super Mario Bros. 3 and the page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Super_Mario_Bros._3/archive2. Thanks for everything! URDNEXT (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)