Wikipedia:Peer review/Pixies/archive1

Pixies

I feel that the article has come a long way, in terms of the History section, in that it is becoming a more detailed article. What parts should be improved? Is the lead section lacking a little? CloudNine 15:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the lead is pretty good, the only thing I'm not crazy about (not that it's bad) is the "album to album" chronology. It makes sense from an organisational stand point, but sometimes I think it can invite too much detail on a particular album. For instance, there's more detail in the main article about Come on Pilgrim than on the album page, when it should be vice versa. But that's just my preference. It's good though. maxcap 12:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - once I feel the main article has reached a good standard (i.e. FA status), I'll start working on the other album articles. I chose an album chronology because I felt they suited it - the style varied from album to album and they didn't have grand live tours or anything like that. CloudNine 12:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Influences" should not be in list form; rather, they should be cited and worked into the prose of the article. WesleyDodds 05:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More freely licensed images would be better. Jkelly 01:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]