This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Punk music, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Punk musicWikipedia:WikiProject Punk musicTemplate:WikiProject Punk musicPunk music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock articles
This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on 2 September 2014.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
"Daybreaker was praised by music writers for its variety and marks a return to the technical sound of their earlier albums—especially Hollow Crown—while incorporating several melodic elements from their fourth album, The Here and Now." - this sentence changes subject from the album to the band without signalling the change. Perhaps re-write as "Daybreaker was praised by music writers for its variety and marks Architects' return to the technical sound of their earlier albums—especially Hollow Crown—while incorporating several melodic elements from their fourth album, The Here and Now."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"and Sykes for a collaboration the band considered "long overdue " since Carter had sung on Bring Me the Horizon's 2008 album Suicide Season.[11]" - rewrite to something like: "while a collaboration with Sykes was something the band considered "long overdue", since Carter had sung on Bring Me the Horizon's 2008 album Suicide Season.[11]"--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"They fused the intense technicality and metallic style of Hollow Crown with the "soaring vocals" and the much improved production of The Here and Now.[2][44]" - When I first read this, I thought "they" meant the critics, but that didn't make since. I would work this sentence into a different part of the "Music" section. Perhaps make it either the intro sentence for the section, or else have it follow the first sentence on the album's genre.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The album then breaks into intense and heavy songs such as high-octane tracks "Alpha Omega"[52] and "These Colours Don't Run", which are full of interesting rhythms and powerful melodies.[52]" - put "high-octane" and "interesting rhythms and powerful melodies" in quotes, since those are descriptions lifted from the BBC review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The critical reception section has too many reviews in the ratings box, as per the Album WikiProject guidlines. Also, per this discussion, subjective summaries of reviews which did not assign a rating should be avoided in the ratings box (this means assigned labels of "favorable" or "unfavorable"), as it can be very difficult to neutrally interpret how favorable or unfavorable a non-rated review is. Lastly, as I mention below, the About.com source is not confirmed as reliable, so it should be removed not only from the ratings box but from the article prose. My recommendation is remove the About.com review entirely, and take the Exclaim and BBC Music "ratings" out of the ratings box [and remove AbsolutePunk entirely] - that will bring things down to ten ratings in the box. The article needs to conform to standards in order to pass. Also, maybe replace Blare Magazine, Alt Sounds, Kill Your Stereo or Punktastic with Kerrang! (whichever of these publications is the least notable), though this is merely a suggestion, and I certainly won't fail the review if it is not done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not all references follow a consistent format. For instance, citation 8 fails to italicize NME, and does not list the publisher info. Citation 10 contains the publisher and location, while 12 only has the publisher. A consistent format should be followed for all of the citations in this article.
This doesn't matter - the About.com review is actually written by Marcus Jervis, who has written for Powerplay magazine and is thus reliable. The article prose, however, wrongly attributes the review to Ryan Cooper.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
