Wikipedia:Peer review/Bohemian Rhapsody/archive5

Bohemian Rhapsody
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it really has chances to become FA.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, TGilmour (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your interest in improving this article. I see you have made relatively few edits to it. I would make sure to look at the article history, which includes several other peer reviews and two unsuccessful FACs. Those will also have ideas for making the article better, and here are my suggestions for improvement.
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many FAs on songs at Category:FA-Class song articles. One that may be a good model is Paranoid Android by Radiohead, which is also a song in several parts and cites this song as an inspiration.
 * Article has one dead external link here would need to be fixed before FAC
 * Biggest problem as I see it is a lack of references. Just in the Release section, this needs a ref Eventually the unedited single was released, with "I'm in Love with My Car" as the B-side. (and the actual release date would be good to add here), as does and is also the only single to have been UK Christmas number one twice with the same version. The second was upon its re-release (as a double A-side single with "These Are the Days of Our Lives") in 1991 following Mercury's death, staying at number one for five weeks.
 * In the video section The video then fades into them playing their instruments. In the opera section of the video, the scene reverts back to the "Queen II" standing positions, after which they perform once again on stage during the hard rock segment. In the closing seconds of the video Roger Taylor is depicted stripped to the waist, striking the tam tam in the manner of the trademark of the Rank Organisation's Gongman, familiar in the UK as the opening of all Rank film productions. needs a ref, as does After a few weeks at number one, an edit of the video was created. The most obvious difference is the flames superimposed over the introduction as well as several alternate camera angles.
 * Critical reaction ... section has a citation needed tag and this also needs a ref ''On 30 September 2007 on the Radio 1 Chart Show, for BBC Radio 1's 40th birthday, it was revealed that "Bohemian Rhapsody" was the most played song since Radio 1's launch. In 2004, BBC Three featured the song as part of their The Story of... series of documentaries dedicated to specific songs. First broadcast in December 2004, the programme charted the history of the song, discussed its credentials, and took Roger Taylor and Brian May of Queen back to one of the studios in which it was recorded.
 * First three paragraphs of Live performances seem to have no refs and all need them. Much of the Composition and analysis section also needs refs - for works of art some things that are obvious from the work itself do not absolutely need refs, but much of this seems like it needs refs.
 * My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Lots of little MOS issues also will need to be fixed before this owuld have a chance at FAC
 * Article does not follow WP:ITALIC in its use of italics for quotations (and they are italicized inconsistently anyway)
 * Article uses & for and
 * The article quotes an awful lot of the lyrics, which may be a WP:NFCC issue.
 * Watch for NPOV language - imapssioned in ... and the vocals change from harmony to an impassioned solo performance by Mercury. is one example - note that if this quoting or paraphrasing a reliable source, it is OK to use, especially if attributed (i.e. something like what music critic X calls "an impassioned solo" by Mercury)
 * Article does not follow WP:MOSQUOTE - quotes within a quote use single quotation marks, all else use double quotation marks. so "Did he say 'I am fine' to you?"
 * Language is OK, but could stand a copy edit at some point (fix all the other issues first).
 * In its current state this would be a quick fail at FAC and I am surprised (with the large number of uncited statements) that it is a GA.
 * There is someone who seems to know what s/he is talking about raising what seem like valid points aboiiut recording studios and such on the talk page
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thinking there were several issues, the article found out to have a plethora of problems :( TGilmour (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)