User:Keraunoscopia/STP peer review

This GA album article has been solidly stable for pretty much a year now, and I think it's time to kick it up a notch and prep it for FA review. I've done two (failed) FA reviews for another article, so I'm somewhat familiar with the prose issues (flow and grammar!) that can always be tweaked. But I thought this time I'd go the PR route before I attempt FA—learned a little lesson there, methinks. My goals are to tighten the article a bit as well. Any edits I've done in the last couple days have been to prep it for PR. From this point forward, I'll most likely be concentrating on prose, triple checking the citations, etc. Essentially, I'll be working constantly before, during, and after any comments here at PR.

Two things before I continue:
 * 1) I believe that my writing style has a slight dependency on quotes/quotations. I will do my best to incorporate this information in my own words if I find a quote to be more or less unnecessary. Please feel free to point out any quotes you feel aren't needed or are just puffery or should be "absorbed" into the text better.
 * 2) At the moment, I believe there are two tags. These are brand new, temporary, and I tagged them myself due to a dead link. They are connected to information that's pretty filler material at this point and will most likely be removed entirely.

What I'm looking for is essentially a super B-class checklist, I think: Does the article seem comprehensive? Was there too much information, does it get bogged down with facts at any point? Or is the information spread out nicely, and you learned about the album without feeling overwhelmed? One goal here, as said above, is to tighten the article and I may get rid of some superfluous information that seemed important at the time but now, a year later, is probably junk. Are there any terms that you may not be familiar with, like genres or production lingo that I have a tendency to ignore out of familiarity, but that you may notice sticks out like a sore thumb?

FA really emphasizes excellent grammar, and I would love to have several reviewers keep an eye out for any awkward phrases (any grammatical issue) that I most likely haven't noticed simply because I'm "used" to the way I write. How is the style of the article? Several FA reviewers use the term "flow" and as it stands, this article is probably on the clunky side. It was written with the facts in mind, and to regurgitate the facts. One thing FA reiterates is the usage of simple English, so I will undoubtedly by rewriting as much of the article as I can in an easier-to-read format.

In conclusion, I want the article shorter, but just as comprehensive. Any help, even the tiniest most random thing you wish to contribute, will be immensely appreciated.

Thank you – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 09:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)