Wikipedia:Peer review/From a Basement on the Hill/archive1

From a Basement on the Hill

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… This article has neither quality nor importance rating, and as other pages about Elliott Smith are at Feature Article Status, there should be enough ongoing interest from the user-editors to review this article. Suggestions on everything from content, layout, NPOV, background would be appreciated-- a few friends and I have made basic edits to start the process of improving this article, but we would like to see where it could go, so that there is accurate and relevant information available to those curious about Elliott Smith's last album. Page views are not phenomenal. I'm hoping this will increase traffic, as well.

Thanks, Raespecs (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Richard3120:

Hi Raespecs – firstly I would change the order in which the sections run to something like Background > Production > Track information > Release > Critical reception > Track listing > Personnel > Chart positions. This would more closely follow the album article style guide and it would flow better. I would then think of perhaps merging the 'Production' and 'Track information' sections to one section perhaps titled 'Recording and production', I'm not sure there's enough to warrant a separate section for 'Track information'.

• End of lead section and also critical reception section, where the same sentence is repeated – "such as the incorporation of instrumental passages, as well as...": there should be a comma after "passages".
• Second sentence – change to simply "Recorded between 2002 and 2003,..."
• 'Background' section – check all the quotation marks and apostrophes in this section, some of them look non-standard to me. Also take out the spaces between the references at the end of the first paragraph in this section.
• Second line of 'Background' section – The Reykjavík Grapevine is a publication so should be written in italics.
• Third line of ' Background' section – "Coast to Coast" has no dashes in its title.
• Second paragraph of 'Background' – "It is a well known fact...": I am certain that other reviewers will ask for a source for this fact (not denying that it is true, just that it needs to be sourced).
• First paragraph of 'Production' section – the track is called "Ostrich & Chirping", not "Ostriches & Chirping".
• The critical reception section will probably need to be expanded. I am assuming (forgive me if I'm wrong!) that you are American: I am British and may in a month or two be able to get hold of the reviews from the two British publications cited, NME and Mojo, in order to get some quotes from them. I am certain that Q would have reviewed the album as well, and that's the UK biggest selling music magazine, so it's an important addition.

Hope that helps, for starters: then we might be able to see where else the article needs improving. Richard3120 (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the speedy and thorough evaluation! I've applied your suggestions to the article, I really appreciate your help with this. You assumed correctly (good ol' Midwestern U S of A) and perspective from across the pond is very much appreciated!! I'll try to keep a closer watch on this page, sorry for the delayed response. Raespecs

No problem – like I said, it'll be June at the earliest before I can take a look at those past copies of UK music magazines, so I'll get back to you then if I find anything. Richard3120 (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Right, I've now added some reviews from various music papers: if anything, I might have made this section too long now, but it can always be edited down. I think the 'background' section needs to be amplified a bit: I have information regarding the album's recording, and I think the Under the Radar interview provides some interesting background as to Smith's intentions for the record. Richard3120 (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)