Wikipedia:Peer review/Music of Canada/archive1

Music of Canada

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

Thanks, Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is most interesting and seems quite broad, although I was hoping you would mention Ian and Sylvia. Here are some suggestions for further improvement.

MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." A good rule of thumb is to try to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections. The existing lead is pretty skimpy and doesn't mention patriotic songs or music awards or mention any of the most famous singers by name, and it doesn't mention any of the interesting historical particulars such as the 30 percent rule.

Date ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens. You've used en dashes in a few, but many others throughout the article should be fixed. This applies to the heads and subheads and captions as well as the main text. Thus, "1900 - 1928" should be "1900–1928" or "1900–28".

MOS:QUOTE advises against fancy quotes like the ones used in "19th century". It recommends using blockquotes instead but only for quotes of four lines or more. This particular quote is much too short for a blockquote and should simply be embedded in the text in ordinary quotation marks. The quote should be in regular type rather than italics.

Phrases like "the Bell company" and "the Canadian Performing Rights Society" and "the Société Ste-Cécile" should be in ordinary type rather than italics.

A bit of overlinking occurs here and there. For example, 19th century and other centuries should not be linked, and words like musician, newspaper, radio station, and poet are so common that linking them is probably just distracting.

The article needs another round of proofreading to catch typos and other small errors. For example, in "1939 - 1959" a sentence says, "During the great depression, the majority of Canadians listened to what we would call today swing (Jazz) just as country was starting it's roots." "Great Depression" is how it usually appears, and "it's" should be "its". Further down in the same section, a sentence says, "1958 saw it's first Canadian rock and roll teen idol Paul Anka, who went to New York City where he auditioned for ABC with the song, Diana." Sentences in Wikipedia articles should not start with digits; years don't literally see, and "it's" should be "its". These are only examples and not a complete list of small errors.

It's generally best to place directional images so that they face into the page. For this reason, Calixa Lavallée would be slightly better on the left, and Guy Lombardo would be slightly better on the right.

It's generally best to avoid embedding links in the main text that go to external sites. The links to "The Canadian Boat Song" and other songs should be turned into in-line citations that give sources, urls, access dates, and other data in the usual way. In addition, the link to "The Merry Bells of England" does not seem to work.

The dabfinder tool that lives here finds 14 links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

The fair-use license for the Guy Lombardo image lacks a fair-use rationale specific to this article.
How can a fact-checker be certain that the uploader of the Rush image could license it as public domain since the uploader is not the author?

Ideally, the web citations should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date. Just at a glance, I can see that the access dates are all missing, and that other data is missing that would be fairly easy to find and add.

WP:MOSNUM#Format consistency says the date formatting in the citations needs to be internally consistent. Some in the existing citations are yyyy-mm-dd, and some are m-d-y. You need to choose one format and use it throughout the references.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog, on a topic of your choice. Finetooth (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]