This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is the first step towards becoming a featured list candidate. It covers Hendrix's original recordings and is separate from the Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography submitted previously. It has been completely revised with the addition of new sections and many new sources within the last six months and more recently, thoroughly fact-checked. In response to comments regarding the posthumous discography, this is now extensively referenced with inline citations and goes beyond WP:DISCOGSTYLE and most FL discographies.
Comments have also been made about tendentious editing and vandalism to Jimi Hendrix articles. As one of the most popular rock figures of the late 1960s, Hendrix articles attract a lot of attention, both good and bad. However, they now seem to be relatively stable—Jimi Hendrix and Are You Experienced have been promoted to Featured Articles and additional Hendrix articles ("Little Wing" and Band of Gypsys) are nominated as GAs. I have the resources to make this a featured list and look forward to constructive comments/suggestions to make it happen.
Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
"Singles as sideman" and "Albums as sideman" do not work when you click on the down arrows.
Jimi Hendrix → Jimi Hendrix; quite often I see on Wikipedia that a person's name is put in bold only in the main article and not a "subsidiary" article (i.e. a filmography or discography).
"Prior to his rise to fame, he recorded several singles as a backing guitarist with American R&B artists, such as the Isley Brothers and Little Richard. Beginning in late 1966, he recorded three best-selling studio albums and several singles with the Jimi Hendrix Experience. An Experience compilation album and half of a live album recorded at the Monterey Pop Festival were also issued prior to his death. After the breakup of the Experience in mid-1969, some of his live performances at Woodstock and with the Band of Gypsys, as well as a Band of Gypsys studio single, were also released." → "several"; "some of" − Why not list the exact numbers? Also, the formatting of the Shadwick citations is inconsistent.
"Hendrix's albums and singles with the Experience were originally released by Track Records in the UK and Reprise Records in the U.S." → "Hendrix's albums and singles with the Experience were originally released in the United Kingdom by Track Records and in the United States by Reprise Records". Spell out the names of the countries the first time you mention them.
"UK"; "U.S." → Use either UK and US or U.K. and U.S.
Chose no puncutation
Footnote number 7 is not formatted properly (i.e. the page number)
Peak chart positions: Other → Why the notes? Why not make columns for the charts? Also, put one or more citations for these columns and not just the list of sources at the bottom.
I realize this is the current practice, but chose the "other" column for several reasons. When I started with the Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography, I realized that there was not enough room for columns for all the various charts (20+ columns needed) (although about 10 columns are needed for this discography, I feet that the two discographies should be consistent). In trying to decide which ten or so that had the most positions, I noticed that they weren't the same from section to section, i.e., one may be populated while another isn't. So I looked at some other discographies, including published ones. It seems that WP puts much greater emphasis on charts than other discographies, to the extent that chart columns completely dominate and the other info is squeezed into the margins. To me, this is visually very unappealing. For example, the Led Zeppelin discography, The Rolling Stones discography, and many others have long, mostly empty columns (sometimes for one or two entries). By using an "other" column, much of this wasted space is eliminated, without any loss of information. It is easier to use: by hovering the mouse over or clicking the note, all the info is there (try figuring out which number goes with what chart in the middle of the Stones studio albums). A discography is supposed to show all the recorded work of an artist, not a collection of sales chart statistics. WP:DISCOGSTYLE is just a proposal, but seems to allow for flexibilty: "There is no set inclusion criteria for which charts should and shouldn't be included, but a good rule of thumb is to go by the relative success of the artist on that chart." In practice, is this necessary for a FL?
Hendrix as an accompanist
Change the sub-headings from "singles" and "albums" to "singles as sideman" and "albums as sideman" so that the infobox arrows will work properly.
Put the albums before the singles so the listings are consistent with Hendrix's main body of work.
"I Don't Know What You've Got but It's Got Me" → The chart positions are aligned to the left on this single only while all the rest are centered.
Albums and singles: Why not list the names of the artists in a separate column so that they appear more prominent?
Albums: Why not list the songs Hendrix performed on in a column rather than regulating them to footnotes?
Album details: Why are these in a separate column here when the main albums by Hendrix as well as the singles have details listed below the titles?
I hope these suggestions help. Jimknut (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Jimknut. I found your suggestions very helpful and have made all but the "other" column changes for now. I've added some reasons above. Further comments are welcome. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
""—" denotes releases that did not chart." → Some of the charts have this in small print (80%) while others its normal size. Also, this comment is not needed on the "Studio albums" chart since all three albums charted in the US and the UK. Jimknut (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Support — looks good. Jimknut (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This is a Peer Review, not a GAN, A-class or FLC, so "support" is not required. Save that for when it id nominated at FLC. Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Why do I have to save it? I see no harm in supporting it here as well as when or if it is a GAN, A-class or FLC. I think it's find to offer support with any improvement to an article or list. Jimknut (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, you don't have to save it; you can say "support" if you like. I think all Brian was saying is that "support" is usually given when the article is seeking a new status -- GA, A-class, or FA. To say "support" here at PR doesn't really mean anything -- at the end of the PR, the article will either be improved or it won't be, but the article rating won't change as a result, so no consensus needs to be built. If by "support" you just mean it's a good article, that's harmless, but it's likely to cause confusion among other editors who are familiar with these processes, so I'd suggest just giving your positive feedback directly, rather than saying "support". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)