Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Peer review[edit]

Here, articles are scrutinised by the Metal WikiProject editors for factual accuracy and style. Articles are still submitted at Wikipedia:Peer review, but placing them here is likely to ensure a greater and more detailed response from knowledgable editors.


Follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Peer review, then edit this page here, pasting {{Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}} at the top of the list of nominees.

Peer review[edit]


Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review becaue it has been more than a year since its last peer review, and I've taken all the comments from that one on board, and have added a lot of new content as well. I'm hoping to take this to FAC sometime this year. One of my big questions for anyone experienced in writing articles on bands is: is there anything missing subtopic-wise?

Thanks, Torchiest talkedits 00:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


  • "dozens of singles, selling millions of records in the United States alone." a touch on non-encyclopedic language. Say how many millions and how many singles.
  • Think four short paras in the lead could be better distributed as three larger paras.
  • "including countless guest" countless? Really? In an encyclopaedia?
  • "almost two dozen times" I would prefer "over twenty times".
  • "and has invited more fan participation at concerts since reforming" well isn't it obvious that all concepts invite more participation? Or does this mean something else? Like onstage larks?
  • "Schulz'" -> "Schulz's".
  • Is it Pig or PIG?
  • "as a joint effort" not keen on "effort", perhaps "project" or "venture" or something more specific.
  • "Konietzko treating five " don't understand what "treating" means here?
  • "They signed directly to Wax Trax![1] to distribute this album." put the ref at the end of the sentence.
  • "had filed bankruptcy[1] in November 1992.[12] " I thought you filed for bankruptcy, and move the [1] ref to the end of the sentence.
  • Avoid over linking, e.g. you link Adios multiple times in one section.
  • No need to link Norway.
  • "Steve White and Lucia Cifarelli performing with KMFDM in October 2005." image looks like you've forced the size, just stick to thumb and no need for the full stop in the caption.
  • "Musical style" section has a lot of short paras, consider an elegant way of merging them.
  • Tour table should meet MOS:DTT for row and col scopes so that a screen reader can announce it.
  • "The cover of 84–86, " caption doesn't need a full stop.
  • "1989–1990, " would be "1989–90, " if you're being internally consistent.
  • Ref 62 (for instance) has no publisher information.
  • Avoid SHOUTING in the ref titles.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking the time to read through the article and add your notes. I really appreciate someone else being able to see all the little things that my glazed over eyes don't register anymore. Torchiest talkedits 18:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. Sorry it's taken so long for you to get some picky comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I have some relevant post-copyedit comments:

  • Two general comments on writing style: first, there are still some overlinks. Each name should be linked once per article; this article is long enough that a name linked early can be linked again later in the article. Lucia C-Whatsername especially is victim to this. Second, avoid starting sentences with phrases like "In 1987," "In April 2004," "Meanwhile," and so on. These delay getting to the point, which is occasionally desirable, but most of the time just jerks your readers around.
  • Intro: KMFDM has toured almost two dozen times, normally at least once after each album, and has invited more fan participation in recording concert performances since reforming.
Those ideas are separate enough that they should be separate sentences, and the part about fan participation doesn't make sense as such, it needs more detail.
  • later: The next album, What Do You Know, Deutschland?, was recorded from 1983 to 1986, and released in December 1986.
That attracted my attention because three years is so long, then I realized that 1983 is before the band formed! This is apparently correct, per your reference, but it's confusing to the reader and needs explained.
  • In late 1995, close friend and president of Chicago's Wax Trax! Records Jim Nash died of an illness complicated by AIDS
I'm sure he was a "close friend" to somebody, but to whom? The reference doesn't say, so you need to provide one that does and clarify the phrase, or cut it.
  • The word "temporarily" shows up a lot. Don't use it unless you know that something was intended all along to be temporary. Otherwise, it's redundant. Omit it.
  • While the album Don't Blow Your Top was more sparse in content, due to the influence of producer Adrian Sherwood,[12][13] it was the exception rather than the rule.
"Sparse in content" implies that there wasn't much material. Should this be "sparse in texture" or "sparse in sound"? Dementia13 (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks also for these comments. I've made some small fixes and am still working through some of the slightly more in-depth suggestions. Torchiest talkedits 20:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need advice on the comprehensibility of the text, that should be encyclopedic but also simple enough to be easily understood. I also need help with the placing of the reference tags. Too few? Too many? Are some references missing? Please, let me know what you think.

Thanks, Lewismaster (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain
  • I feel that the text is comprehensive in terms of background, production, themes, reception, and so on, unless otherwise noted below.
  • Overall your strategy for inline citations seems fine; I think you've created a good balance and provided a proper number of citations. There are a couple places where you could combine citations, such as when you've cited one page and then the next page. It's acceptable to cite a range of pages if you make a statement summarized from 2 pages.
  • I found the Notes and References sections difficult to read as formatted. Recommend placing References after Notes, and using a multi-column format for your Notes section.
  • Unfortunately you will have a long struggle demonstrating that the Swartz BOC FAQ is a reliable source per WP:RS. Since it is cited quite often, you should expect it to be challenged heavily if you attempt to attain GA or FA status for the article. Essentially, there is no indication of an editorial or fact-checking process on that site, and no indication of the credibility or authority of the author. You would need to produce at least 2-3 secondary reliable sources (books, magazines, journals) that refer to the BOC FAQ as reliable and authoritative.
  • Attention is needed to the wikilinking strategy. Some plain English words such as "arcane" should be delinked per WP:OVERLINK.
  • Take care when assigning literary genre labels such as "gothic" without attribution to an authoritative secondary source. I would consider neither Pearlman nor Popoff an authoritative source in this matter.
  • The prose is in need of attention from a copy-editor with a strong command of English. I listed some random pot-shots from the Lead below, but the whole thing needs treatment. This would be a necessary step before the article would be ready for GA or FA status.
  • "aptly subtitled 'a bedtime story for the children of the damned'" As this quotation comes from liner notes, who decided it was "aptly named"? It seems an editorial or critical comment that should be attributed to someone other than the album creators.
  • This sentence is awkward: "For this fact the album is often considered not a real group effort, but more producer and lyricist Sandy Pearlman's project." I recommend "For this fact, the album is often considered less a real group effort and more a project of producer and lyricist Sandy Pearlman."
  • "The album received some critical acclaim but no commercial success" Awkward; you wouldn't say that an album "received...commercial success".
  • "cease the contract" is odd; recommend recasting as "end their contract" or similar.
  • Why is Imaginos Tour in single quotes?
  • "material of the album" is odd; "on the album" would be standard.

I hope these comments provide some direction. I don't want to provide a lot of micro-level comments about the prose until it is more polished. I would be happy to review the prose after it is copyedited. --Laser brain (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review. I realize that the article still needs a lot of work for grammar and phrasing, but at this stage my concern was for it to be understandable, complete and with the right tone. Regarding the BOC FAQ, it is cited as a reliable source both by Popoff in his book and by the Blue Oyster Cult official website [1], so I relied on some information it reported. Most reviews that I checked on the Internet have references to that FAQ, which is the only online source giving a coherent and comprehensive summary of Imaginos' storyline and production process. I'll try to differentiate the sourcing and find more reliable ones, leaving the FAQ only as a source for the opinions expressed by the fans. I'll treasure your comments and I'd like to contact you again when the article will be in better shape for a GA attempt, if you will have patience and time to spend on it. Lewismaster (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I've been re-working extensively the article about the album Imaginos that you started peer reviewing last week and now it should be more readable. If you have time and patience to have a look at my work and give me your opinion, it would be much appreciated. Thank you. Lewismaster (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Metallica (album)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Having been working on improving and expanding this very good article for days, I felt like it's gonna be listed as one of the arts good articles by this month, or the next month maybe, of this year 2011. So Metallica (album) has been listed for peer review because of that reason. My username is A\/\93r-(0la by the way. Any comments on improving the article further? A\/\93r-(0la 09:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition, all references aren't bare links. A\/\93r-(0la 20:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Metallica (album), an article about heavy metal music band Metallica's best-selling 1991 album, is 58KB long. It has 92 references, with some of them from Allmusic. I had a big fucking time mending it to that size, so User:Martarius fixed some of the problems contained in the article shortly after I got this article to PR. A\/\93r-(0la 20:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Blaguymonkey also improved the article. Again, any comments on improving the article further? A\/\93r-(0la 21:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
This peer review recieved no feedback within four (or possibly five) days. A\/\93r-(0la 21:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
This peer review recieved no feedback within a week (seven days). A\/\93r-(0la 03:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Efe (talk · contribs) comments
  • Tour is part of promotion? --Efe (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you could merge that two subsections under critical response.
  • "[Bob] Rock's preeminent speed-metal cyclone," as opposed to "[Bob] Rock's preeminent speed-metal cyclone", Try Wikipedia:MOS#Punctuation_inside_or_outside.
  • Metallica debuted at number one at the Billboard 200,[38] the UK Albums Chart,[39] the ARIA Charts,[40] Switzerland,[41] the Netherlands,[42] Sweden,[43] Norway,[44] the Canadian Albums Chart,[45] Germany,[46] and New Zealand. You're mixing charts with countries (although you're referring to music charts of that particular country). --Efe (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you could organize the commercial performance section by country / region / continent.
  • Be careful of stray punctuation marks: [7][8]"
  • Album chart. Perhaps you provide position for each chart. WP:Record Charts.
  • Consistency: US Billboard 200 as opposed to Billboard 200.
  • Might also need a good copy edit.

That's all for now. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

All concerns fixed. Ready for WP:GAN. A\/\93r-(0la 21:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Linkin Park discography[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want to improve it. In near future i will give this article for featured list.


--Neo139 (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This looks impressive. I have a few suggestions for further improvement.

Heads and subheads

  • To avoid repetition of "albums" in the "Albums" section, perhaps just "Studio", "Remix and collaboration", and "Live" would be better. Would it be possible to use "and" or "or" instead of the ambiguous frontslash in "Remix/Collaboration"? Are remixes different from collaborations?
Changed Remix/Collaboration to Remix and Collaboration. About Studio albums to just Studio. I'm not sure, articles all have repeated 'album'. --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


  • "They later recruited Joe Hahn and Chester Bennington... ". - Could you supply a specific year instead of "later"?
Done Joe 1996 and Chester 1999. --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "They changed the name once again to Linkin Park." - When? Did these things all happen in 1996?
Done Added date --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "The band is noted both for its blend of rap rock and alternative metal." - Delete "both"?
Done --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "Linkin Park have released" - Should be "Linkin Park has released" since you have already referred to the band as singular in the opening sentence.
Done --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "From these works, twenty-one singles have been released, with twenty-eight accompanying music videos" - Generally numbers bigger than nine are written as digits unless they start a sentence; i.e., 21 and 28.
Done --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "They have also released seven video albums" - To avoid the singular-plural awkwardness, perhaps "The band has also released... " would be better. Then in the next sentence: "All of its studio albums... ".
Done --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "All of their studio albums have been RIAA certified" - Spell out as well as abbreviate on first use; i.e., "have been certified by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)"?
Done --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "The band has achieved nine number one singles" - Maybe "produced" rather than "achieved"? Also, hyphenate "number-one singles"?
Done --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "Linkin Park rose to international fame in 2000 with their debut album" - "Its" rather than "their"?
Done --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "which reached #2" - Here you use "#2", but in other places you use "number" instead of #. I'm not sure which is preferred in music articles, but consistency is important in either case.
I'm not sure either. I will ask about this Done. I used 'peaked at number two' --Neo139 (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "Their next major release" - "Its"?
Done --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


  • Most of the dates are in yyyy-mm-dd format, but citation 2 has one date in a different format. Make sure the formats are consistent throughout the reference section.
Done --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Some of the citations are incomplete. For example, the "General" reference should include the publisher, Rovi Corporation, and perhaps the author if the author of the biography is also the author of the rest of the material. Citations to web sources generally include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of those are known or can be found.
Done: added publisher, author and date where is possible. --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Citation 2 needs italics for The Times. Should Billboard appear in italics in other citations? Is it considered an on-line periodical? See Billboard (magazine).
Done --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

External links

  • Not sure you need to list items like the Allmusic site already linked in the main text, "General" ref, or the citations.
Done. Deleted repeated link --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Enter Sandman[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review so you can help me bring to FA status. It's been over a year since I've worked hard on it and most of the issues raised at the time, including copy editing have been addressed. I believe the article has no major flaws and it has the potential to become a Featured Article, but I wanted to bring it to peer review before taking that step.

Thanks in advance, Serte Talk · Contrib ] 00:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Review by User:BuddingJournalist Hmm...I think there's plenty of work to be done on the prose side of things before this rises to FA level. Might want to a recruit a copy-editor to work with you on combing through the text (you'll probably have to be actively engaged with them though, if they don't know the material, as some of the problem sentences are rather ambiguous).
    • On Wikipedia (as in academia), it's common practice to combine citations; that is, if multiple sentences in a row come from the same source, one can put citation at the end of the last sentence. This then implies that this citation "covers" all of the previous sentences. Makes for much more readable text.
    • I don't understand the citation style for the Classic Albums DVD. Why are there multiple names given? Are these chapter titles? If so, they should be set apart in some fashion (quotation marks).
    • "Metallica's songwriting method involved lead guitarist..." Awkward, long sentence, especially with the "involved...'verb'ing" construct.
    • "in Ulrich's house in Berkeley, California" "at (Ulrich's house)" seems to work better here. Avoids the slightly ungainly repetition of "in" and emphasizes the locale rather than the physical location inside the house, which "in" does.
    • "The song was quickly finished," That's a bit contradictory to the latter half of the sentence. The "music", perhaps? Also, what does "quickly" mean?
    • "for a long time" Again, the more specific, the better.
    • "and the lyrics featured in the song are not the original" Could use some context here. What changed and why?
    • "For the first time in Metallica's history, however" This sets up a landmark action, but readers (or at least those unfamiliar with the band like myself) are left wondering why telling Hetfield this is so important. Is it because this is his first crack at writing a song? Also, the way the sentence is constructed, it seems as if the emphasis is placed on the rather specific act of telling Hetfield specific information, and would not necessitate such an important lead-in as "for the first time in Metallica's history". Moreover, what is the "however" doing here?
    • "Nevertheless, according to Ulrich, the song was..." Two things: again, another odd use of a contradictory connector (nevertheless)...what's being contradicted? Also, another confusing use of "song". "Music", perhaps?
    • The first paragraph of the Writing and recording doesn't mention when the writing of the song took place.
    • "According to engineer Randy Staub, close to 50 takes of the drums were recorded..." Three variations of "record" in the same sentence.
    • "Because it was difficult to get in one take the "intensity" that the band wanted," The use of "get" here and in the next sentence is rather informal.
    • "producing team" Isn't it "production team"? I could be wrong though.
    • "spent much time" Unspecific.
    • "Bob Rock had to create the sound for the entire album" What does "sound for the entire album" mean?
    • In the Music and lyrics section, musical terms are introduced without being linked (minor, flat, sharp, etc.)
    • P. J. Howorth <-- who is he?
    • "The song then follows a common structure, playing" Odd personification here. A song doesn't play. What exactly is the common structure? IN my opinion, "The song then launches into two iterations..." would be just fine.
    • "After the solo, the breakdown starts," Long, run-on sentence.
    • "Lyrically, the song is about" Wouldn't it be better to quote a band member instead about the song's meaning?
    • "The title is a reference to the sandman, a character from Western folklore who makes children sleep.[15]" Misleading citation here. There's no need to cite what the word sandman means. What you want is a citation backing up the first part of the sentence, "The title is a reference to the sandman".
    • I stopped here, but that should give you ample examples on what to look for in improving the prose. BuddingJournalist 10:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)