Wikipedia:Peer review/Kanye West discography/archive1

Kanye West discography

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that after much renovation and work on the article, it may be up to FL status. I'd welcome any tips for the page's improvement before I go ahead and nominate the article for FL-listing.

Thanks, Holiday56 (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sufur222

Very small points:

The caption under the infobox image shouldn't have a full stop.
"It spawned two Grammy Award-winning singles" --> Might want a reference for that.
"West's fourth album went in a controversially new direction, with him singing rather than rapping." --> Ditto.
The Collaborative albums table doesn't need a legend at the bottom, as all of the cells are currently filled.
See here for formatting ref 179.
Refs 173, 191 and 194 need en-dashes, as do all of the The Official Charts Company refs.
What makes refs 9, 159, 165 and 217 reliable? I've never heard of them.

Apart from that, this looks great. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at the article. I've taken a look at your points, and I've made the necessary changes.

"The caption under the infobox image shouldn't have a full stop."

"It spawned two Grammy Award-winning singles" – I've changed this sentence to make it instead talk about the total number of singles released from the album.

"West's fourth album went in a controversially new direction, with him singing rather than rapping." – I've removed this sentence. This information is probably better explained in the 808s & Heartbreak article itself.

"The Collaborative albums table doesn't need a legend at the bottom, as all of the cells are currently filled." Removed.

Reference 179 has been properly formatted.

En dashes added for the references mentioned.

References 9, 159, 165 and 217 have been changed to more reliable sources.

Are there any more changes to be made? I think I've taken care of the points you've brought up. Holiday56 (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only a couple of other things I've noticed on a further read through: careful of overusing the word "spawned" in the lead, and ref 156 needs an en-dash. Apart from that, this looks ready to take to FLC. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 08:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, then. I've made the necessary changes. Holiday56 (talk) 10:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]