Wikipedia:Peer review/Kings of Leon discography/archive1

Kings of Leon discography

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because User:Kiac thinks my edits are not appropriate. I think my edits are ok, but User:Kiac keep insisting they are all wrong. I want to listen to everybody's opinion before filing FLC.

Thanks, Langdon (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)i7114080[reply]

Okay. Most of it looks all right so far, I just have a couple observations:

"achieved their greatest success to date"… remove "to date" as we generally avoid temporal terms like that.
I'll have to double check to verify that all of the countries listed have official singles/albums charts. Also, we should link to the name of the actual national chart (for instance, "CAN" should link to Canadian Hot 100).
Formats and catalog #'s need to be included for each album. These can usually be found at the bottom of their allmusic listings.
The EPs should just say "Released: (date)", not "Released on (date)".

I'l get back to you regarding the international charts. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list is turning into a mess, there are IPs editing the charts incorrectly and people reverting their edits without having things updated. I went through and did it all properly, without the intention of having to edit-war to retain the article's quality. The 'argument' is this: Langdon removes everything, included dozens of references, and shys away from the 'accepted' styles in newly Featured Lists, just so the article is 6,000 bytes smaller, which is no justifiable reason. This is the 'other' version, which is properly referencing each chart, cert, etc. (AllMusic and Acharts are hardly as verifiable as a dozen separate references) All the style is taken from the multiple recent FLs i have overlooked - and what has been instructed to do in FLCs. There was also a different lead that was reverted about a month ago, i got sick of trying to explain things, so left it. So i guess the idea of this peer review, is to decide which is 'better'. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 02:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you want, Langdon and Kiac, is not a peer review but a third opinion. Or, at least, that's what your statement above seems to indicate. hornoir (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]