Wikipedia:Peer review/Beat Bop/archive1

Beat Bop
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it's had only a small number of editors working on it, and I think both I and the editor who has provided most of the content would like a few more to take a look. In particular, advice on how it might be raised to GA (or even FA) level would be appreciated.

Thanks, Camembert (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * General comments
 * There are no disambiguation links in the article which is always good, and the external links are all working.
 * I'd recommend archiving all of the online references in case the webpages are taken down at a later date; that way the sources remain even if the original content does not. Web Cite is a quick and easy to use option, and with only 16 online sources it shouldn't take too long to do. They can be slid into the citation templates using the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= parameters.
 * Looks like all three of the images used in the article are missing alt text; this is used for readers who are blind and require programs to describe the images for them. That addition will be a must for any FAC should you take it that far. You'll also need specific rationale for fair-use images (how does their use significantly aid the reader's comprehension of the subject?)
 * The audio sample needs a specific rationale for the article in addition to the general rationale automatically added with the upload. I'm not entirely sure why it's tagged as needing a smaller version; since the song runs for 10:10 and the sample is :28, it should fall under the guidelines imposed.
 * Most of the references look good, but authors should be added where applicable. You may want to link the sources where possible (ex. Allmusic, The Guardian, and so on). Works that are only online, such as Allmusic, should not be in italics; you may want to consider using "publisher" in place of "work" in the references for those. Additionally, I'm not sure how reliable a source Discogs is considered to be; you may want to find an alternative for those.
 * Everything in the lead should also be mentioned elsewhere in the article, so you may want to move the "Holy Grail information" down to Legacy.
 * Finally (and last point from me), is there enough in the way of reviews to create a section for Reception? That would, I think, help add to the article. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)