Wikipedia:Peer review/Take on Me/archive1

Take on Me

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 I would like to take it to GA status, I think that it meets the criteria (at least the a-ha part), but Im not so sure about the cover versions. I also wanted to check the grammar and the prose, since english is not my first language. Thanks, Frcm1988 (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huntthetroll

I have just a few comments about the introduction—commonly referred to as the "lead"—and the a-ha part of the article.

The third sentence of the lead says that the song "combines synthpop with electronic sounds." Isn't this redundant? I would think that the defining characteristic of synthpop is the explicit use of electronically-generated sounds.
What does "took three times to become a hit in the United Kingdom" mean? Does it mean that, as the UK chart stats indicate, it was number two for three weeks in a row in 1985? Does it mean that the song was released as a single by three different bands (as indicated by the Reel Big Fish and a1 sections)? Does it mean that a-ha released the song in the UK three times (as indicated by the chart performance section)? Or does it mean that the song charted in the UK three times?
There seems to be some material that is repeated in both the "Recording and production" section and the "Chart performance" section.

I've also made a few edits: [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5].

Huntthetroll (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article. I corrected the things in the lead, and removed some parts that were repeated. Please let me know if you have other suggestions or comments. Do you think is ready for GA? I wonder if the cover versions need to be more detailed? Again thanks for the review. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]