Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/No Line on the Horizon/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No Line on the Horizon

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm bringing No Line on the Horizon up for peer review because I would like to see it reach FA. After one peer review and a failed FAC, I think that all the issues that were brought up have been addressed. I would like to make sure that it meets the FA criterion though. Having put a lot of work into this article over the last 9+ months, I probably consider it to be a lot more perfect than it really is, and so I would appreciate fresh sets of eyes looking it over and finding any errors. I am most concerned with the prose (particularily in Composition), any possible repetition of information, and with the licensing rationales for the two audio clips, as I think the latter was ultimately the reason why the last FAC failed. Opinions regarding the quality of references would be much appreciated too.

Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jafeluv

Lead:

  • "with Rick Rubin" → "with producer Rick Rubin", or otherwise indicate who Rubin is
  • "Fez" – one has to follow the link to know what "Fez" is; also, why the piped link instead of using Fes directly?
  • One of the tracks on the album is called "Fez - Being Born". Fez and Fes are used interchangeably, but Fes is the name of the article (while Fez leads to a disambiguation page). Using Fez instead of Fes is just a matter of consistency regarding the spelling of the song name. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aborted sessions with Rick Rubin:

  • "Bono" → "Lead singer Bono" (or similar) – Indicate who Bono is when he's first mentioned, so that the reader doesn't have to follow the wikilink to find out.
  • "Two songs from these sessions were released on the compilation U218 Singles; a cover of The Skids' "The Saints Are Coming" with Green Day, and 'Window in the Skies'." – I think a colon would work better than a semicolon here.
  • "with Steve Lillywhite also being brought in to produce..." – The "with + -ing" structure is not grammatical (see, for example, here) and the article uses it a lot. I'd suggest rewording to "and Steve Lillywhite was also brought in to produce..."

Sessions with Brian Eno and Danny Lanois

  • "The music that the band recorded in Morocco was long and vibe-heavy." – What does this mean?
  • Does "defecated" really need to be linked? I think a reader can be assumed to know what it means.
  • "The exotic influences that the band explored inspired the band to pursue a more experimental sound, as they wished to take more songwriting risks after the band's last two albums presented a more straightforward rock sound." – The long sentence could use chopping up. Also "after" doesn't sound right in the last part, maybe reword it somehow? Also, "the band's last two albums" → "their last two albums" would avoid repeating the phrase "the band".
  • I've switched the two around; it now reads "The band wished to take more songwriting risks after their previous two albums presented a more straightforward rock sound. The exotic influences that they explored inspired them to pursue a more experimental sound". MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink first instance of The Edge, and define who or what he is. Also, be consistent on whether it's "the Edge" or "The Edge".
  • The Bono quote is included twice: once in the body of the text, once in the quote box. Is this intentional?

Linear:

  • I think the first sentence would work better if it started with "A film called Linear, directed by Anton Corbijn, is included..." The way it's written now, I don't think it's evident to the reader why the article starts describing a film all of a sudden, and the start looks like the start of a whole new article.

Composition:

  • "experimental sound" – Wasn't this covered already in the Recording and production section?
  • "got tired of [writing in] the first-person" – This also was already covered before.
  • "with Bono describing it as" → "and Bono describes (described?) it as" (with + -ing again)
  • "Eno-esque" – Are you really sure that's a word? :)
  • "junkie" → "drug addict" (several times) – Use a more neutral wording.
  • "The song is closest to the band's original concept for the album." – What does this mean? Closest compared to what? Is the sentence really needed?
  • "Eno described the song as such:" – I think this could use a rewording
  • "with the guitar solo at the conclusion of the song taken from..." → "and the guitar solo at the conclusion was taken from..." (with + -ing)
  • "with Lanois noting that..." → "and Lanois noted that..." (with + -ing)
  • Why is "O Come, O Come, Emmanuel" pipelinked?
  • Newfoundland links to a dab page. Which meaning is meant here?
  • In general, I think that this section is a bit too long and goes into too much detail when compared to the rest of the article.
  • Hmm, tough question... The section is pretty long, for me it takes up a whole screen. However, the structure doesn't really allow dividing it into smaller subsections. Also, all the information is relevant to the songs in question, and it's sourced as well. An optimal solution would be to move most of the information to song articles, since the detailed information is more relevant to people who want to read about the individual songs. It's not necessary to provide all the details in the album article. However, most of the songs don't have articles and I'm not sure all of them would pass WP:NSONG. Plain removal of sourced information seems wrong as well. If it was I, I'd probably try to put together articles for each of the songs (since each of them already has some sourced material, and I'm sure more could be found) and make the section in the album article a sort of overview of the most important compositional details, and provide links to the song articles. If on the other hand the songs aren't notable enough to have their own articles, I'd say keep the information there and see if the people at FAC have 1) objections to it being there and 2) suggestions on what to do with it. Jafeluv (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the four songs that have articles, three are singles. The one exception is "White as Snow" which, while probably non-notable, has enough developmental information about it to warrant an article (per WP:NSONGS). Going on just instinct, I don't think that (m)any of the other songs would have enough information to warrant articles. I think I'll do as you suggest and wait until FAC to see what other editors think. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Release:

  • "with The Edge commenting..." → "and The Edge commented..." (with + -ing)

Cover art:

  • "Original releases of the album's cover had an equals sign superimposed in the middle of the cover, but later releases featured only the image itself without the equals sign." – redundant

Supporting tour:

  • "Tickets sold out quickly after going on sale" – redundant

Reception

  • "with Rolling Stone labelling it..." → "and Rolling Stone labelled it..." (with + -ing)
  • "with Uncut commenting that..." → "and Uncut commented that..." (with + -ing)
  • "5th" and "10th", but "seventh" – Is there a reason to use these inconsistently?
  • Nope, probably just an oversight (except in the case where "10th" is part of the source's title). All are now spelt out.
  • Why is Brazil wikilinked, while none of the other countries are?

Singles:

  • Is "Belgian Singles Top 50" the same as "Belgium Singles Top 50"?

Personnel:

  • The Edge: "vocals" → "backing vocals" – Otherwise the reader has to follow the wikilink to find out if he sang backing or lead vocals. Same with others below.

Successor chart: - Primera Fila should be disambiguated to Primera Fila (Vicente Fernández album).

Links:

  • This indicates at least one dead link and a couple of suspicious ones – might want to check them before FAC.
  • Now this I find really confusing. I checked the dead link (ref 107) by clicking on it in the References section, and it took me there straightaway with all the data intact. The note says it has been a dead link since 20 August, but if I can still access it then it can't be dead, can it? I don't see any "Suspicious" either; just firewalls on the CNN site and such that won't prevent readers from accessing that information. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the tool isn't perfect, and if you can access the link then there's no problem (false alarm). However, the tool can be very helpful in preparing for FAC since it's a quick way to check if links have been broken without having to click through each of them. Jafeluv (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Layout:

  • Maybe put the Personnel section in two columns? It looks empty when the rest of the article uses more horizontal space.
  • Either would be good, I think. Or if it looks better, just put them back in one column. It's a matter of taste really, and probably a browser-dependent thing as well. By the way, I really like the layout of the article, with well-placed images and quotes, and the chart certification tables being in two columns is a good idea. Jafeluv (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media:

  • They were probably right, since I don't see the exact studio setting described in such detail in the article that would justify using a non-free image to depict it. By the way, since it's a copyrighted image, it'll have to be deleted if it's not going to be used in any article. You might want to tag it with {{db-unfree}} if you're sure that it's not going to be used. Jafeluv (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the non-free use rationales for the audio clips are fine, although you might want to verify that with someone more knowledgeable on the subject.

I hope this helps. Jafeluv (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that helped a lot, thanks! There was loads of little things that had been missed. Thank you so much for going through it all and making those suggestions, it's really appreciated! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/No_Line_on_the_Horizon/archive2&oldid=320495403"