Wikipedia:Peer review/The Black Parade/archive1

The Black Parade

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 July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the GA nomination has passed and I am wondering in what ways this article can be improved to bring it closer to FA. Is more information needed in some places? What sections aren't as strong and need work? What other things are there to do to further improve this article? Any help is greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Orfen ^T • _C 19:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- There is an unreferenced paragraph, the first paragraph of Versions.
- Per the MOS, titles of web links shouldn't be in all capitals.
- What makes the following reliable sources?
  - http://www.musicpix.net/index.php
  - http://www.everyhit.com/index.html
  - http://www.ukmix.org/
  - http://swisscharts.com/index.asp (says its the official Swiss charts, but how do we know that?)
- Current ref 22 is just a link, it shouldn't have the publisher and last access date run into the link title, they should be separate.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 11:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

What is here generally looks good, although it seems a bit brief. While length is not a FA criterion, comprehensiveness is, and it may be that the article needs to be expanded to be more comprehensive. Just as an example, the lead to the The Black Parade World Tour is a much better summary of the tour article than what is in this article. See WP:Summary style
Only the Reception and Versions sections are longer than one paragraph. I also note that the reception section has a one sentence paragraph The album holds a 79/100 score based on 24 reviews at Metacritic, which equates to the site's categorization of "generally favorable reviews".[26] which should be combined with another or perhaps expanded.
Could these two sentences be combined somehow: The Black Parade has also been certified platinum by the RIAA for selling over 1,100,000 copies.[21] As of August 18, 2007 the album has sold 1,169,697 copies in the U.S.[22]? Professional prose is an FA requirement.
A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many album FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music that may be good models. I am not a music article person, so this is about all I could think of.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]