Wikipedia:Peer review/Radiohead/archive2

Radiohead

Since the last peer review, the recommended changes were made. Also, the article has failed a FA candidacy, so please could you have another look at it and make some recommendations, particularly focussing on gaps in the copyedit. Thanks - Alex valavanis 10:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Kid A, Amnesiac and a change in sound" section is massive, which might make editing difficult for some users. I know a lot of stuff was moved to the Kid A article, but is there a way to further trim it? WesleyDodds 19:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll see what I can do - Alex valavanis 21:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in a good shape but

I don't think mentioning On a Friday in the first line is necessary. It isn't even necessary anywhere in the lead; lots of bands have name changes in the beginning of their careers.
I agree Done - Alex valavanis 22:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Radiohead's lineup, which has never changed, consists of..." is better than "Radiohead's lineup has never changed, and the band consists of...".
Done
"Although criticised for a lack of cohesion, Amnesiac was critically acclaimed and a commercial success." - Unreferenced statement. Done
Maybe the discography can have a gallery of the album covers, as there are only 6 of them so far.

Tommy Stardust 19:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries of album covers are frowned up, because they're hard to rationalize under fair use. WesleyDodds 21:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references could do with some attention. Some are lacking dates, publishers, etc. They're also a mismatch of styles. Sometimes the date is included in the external link (it generally shouldn't be, to allow wikilinking for date preferences), sometimes italicised sometimes the same information is repeated (check #55: "BBC, BBC"). Compare all the citations to BBC News to see how different they are. Needs someone to go through and standardise.

Ref #3 is just user-submitted reviews, and not enough to support the sentence. Ref #4 doesn't show that Radiohead reached their "peak of global popularity" (doesn't show it's their peak, and it doesn't show it's "global", just U.S.). Fact-checking is important.

Done Ref #3 replaced - Alex valavanis 15:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" sections are generally frowned upon; work the links into text if possible (Dead Air Space is already in the text, so shouldn't be in "See also"). I have no idea what Radiohead trivia is supposed to be, but it should be deleted (WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:TRIVIA). Trebor 14:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done See also and trivia have been merged into text. - Alex valavanis 18:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be nice if anyone could comment on the third paragraph of the intro, which I wrote and seem to be the only one editing. Thanks. ErleGrey (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Radiohead released their first single... named a landmark record of the 1990s." should be a different paragraph.

Done

As for the third paragraph, the first 4 sentences can be incorporated into the previous paragraph; the rest can be done away with altogether because a)reference10 is a really biased opinion, Kid A did win a Grammy, and b)ref 11 is a wiki article of Radiohead covers which hardly implies their latter albums' influence.

So, in effect, by splitting the first paragraph and dispensing with the third, there will be totally 3 paras Tommy Stardust 17:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Lead has been reworked somewhat, please could someone have another quick look? Thanks - Alex valavanis 18:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see anything preventing this from becoming a featured article at the moment, but I am slightly concerned about some uncited sentences towards the end of the article. Do these need to be referenced? In the "solo work" section particularly, but also the "collaborators" sub-section. Aside from that, there are no obvious obstacles to FA status, and the more hidden obstacles seem to have been adequately addressed.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you {{fact}} tag the sentences you are talking about? I'll try to find suitable references. Thanks - Alex valavanis 18:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]