Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Christmas number one albums (UK)/archive1

List of Christmas number one albums (UK)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see if I can get it up to FL status. I've compared it to List of Christmas number one singles (UK) article (currently a FL), and I feel that it is just about at a similar quality. My main areas of concern are the length and quality of the prose, and whether there are too many redlinks (there are currently three). I also welcome any other advice on how this article could be improved. Thanks very much in advance. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110

Structurally, the lead is good; there's an explanation of the topic, a short history, and the most frequently charting albums and artists. There are some issues with prose and weasel words though:

Lead

• "when Christmas Day falls on a Sunday itself, the official number one is considered to be the one announced on that day's chart." You need to state who considers this.

  Done.

• "The album chart was first officially published by Record Mirror in 1956." Was it unofficially published before 1956?

  Reworded.

• "The record at number one on 25 December that year was the original soundtrack to the 1956 film The King and I, which is considered to be the first ever UK Christmas number one album". You need to state who considers it to be this.

  Reworded.

• "Despite being seen to be less significant than the equivalent number one single," It doesn't seem appropriate to use an anonymous writer on everyhit as a source for such a definitive statement, particularly given that the source has a "chatty" style of writing. This statement is immediately followed by another that says the industry doe consider it to be prestigious. So this sentence can be read as "Some bloke on some website says it isn't as important as the number one single, but the industry says it is (but what do they know?)". This needs some work.

  Haha, thanks, I'll work on that section.

Number ones

• The table is set out very well and complemented well by the photos.
• In terms of the three redlinks, do you think those articles will ever be created? As they're just compilations, the only notability I can think they'd have is being Christmas number one (and two), which might not cut it. I don't think there's any harm in keeping them but it might look tidier if they went.

  Completely remove the red wikilinks altogether? Okay, done.

Runners-up

• "These releases, sometimes referred to as "Christmas number twos". The Digital Spy ref only makes reference to the number two single, not the number two album, which this sentence implies it does. You need to either find a source that makes reference to the number two album or remove this.

  You've really got me thinking now... I've had a brief look, but there don't seem to be third-party sources that talk about Christmas number-two albums. Hmm... Maybe that entire section should just be removed. I'll have another look first though.

• Again, the table is well formatted but you need a third-party source to indicate the importance of the number two album.

References

• Check publishers match dates; The Independent started being published by Independent Print in 2010 after Lebedev bought it; between 1999 and 2009 it was published by Independent News & Media.

  Done. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

• Location is given for some sources but not others. This should be consistent (I'd remove it).

  Done.

• The Official Charts Company is linked within the article body, so there's no need to link it every time in the refs.

  Fixed.

• Refs 18 through 68 should have archive date (e.g. for 18 have "Top 40 Official UK Albums Archive: 31st December 1960". The Official Charts Company. Retrieved 4 June 2011.)

  Done.

Bradley0110 (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review, Bradley! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)