Wikipedia:Peer review/List of number-one albums of 1983 (U.S.)/archive1

List of number-one albums of 1983 (U.S.)

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 January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to have suggestions be made for the article to try and aim the article to Feature list status. Thank you

Thanks, Frcm1988 (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: As I said a few days ago, when peer-reviewing the 1999 list, there isn't a lot to review here. Assuming that the list is accurate, you are using a format which has proved acceptable at FL, so all I will do is point out some prose quibbles in the introduction.

"Billboard estimated [the] sales [for the album charts]... Words in brackets are redundant or repetitive
"...nationwide, which was gathered..." would be better: "...nationwide, using..."
Suggest rewording of last sentence, first paragraph: "Data was based on rankings by the record stores of the best-selling records, not on actual sales figures".
The first sentence of the second paragraph goes on for ever, and needs to be split into three.
- Full stop after Business as Usual.
- Then, "This recycled..."
- Another full stop after The Police
- Then, "It spent the last..."
What on earth does "absorbed the rhythmic spunk of reggae" mean? Note WP:JARGON
Comma needed after "Michael Jackson"
"... the seven singles hitting the top ten" - the top ten what?
A full stop is required after "top ten". Then, "Two of them..."
"...making it the first of three albums..." - "it" needs defining
nbsp check: 15 million, 25 years, 25 recordings
No comma needed after The Police
"white reggae formula" - term needs explaining

Done all.

That's all. The peer review process relies on the willingness of editors generally to spend time reviewing other articles. It would be greatly appreciated if you would be prepared to review one or more articles, given the current level at which you are sending articles here. We need more people. Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the feature list candidates requiere a peer review, I would be happy to help in the peer reviews but I don't think I could do it because english is not my first language and is difficult for me to find errors specially the gramatical ones. Frcm1988 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]