Wikipedia:Peer review/Everything That Happens Will Happen Today/archive1

Everything That Happens Will Happen Today

 * 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 April 2009.
 * Revisions made Based on the automated review above, I have created a more comprehensive lead, inserted a relevant image from Commons, inserted non-breaking spaces, and deleted contractions. The suggestion about summary style is apparently irrelevant and I will review the suggested style guidelines. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Revisions made Based on the automated review above, I have created a more comprehensive lead, inserted a relevant image from Commons, inserted non-breaking spaces, and deleted contractions. The suggestion about summary style is apparently irrelevant and I will review the suggested style guidelines. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… Thanks, —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It passed the good article nomination.
 * I asked the reviewer what changes to make for featured article status.
 * I made said changes (dashes and sources)
 * I think the article is of the quality and comprehensiveness of a featured article, so I would like any constructive feedback on what is keeping it from getting there.

Zeagler comments
 * The "Release history" section is redundant. Every version of note is covered in the prose "Release" section.
 * Comment This is in keeping with ALBUM and this section has unique information (e.g. catalogue numbers and digital formats.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Even though WP:ALBUM mentions such a section, it's trumped by WP:NOTDIR. Catalog numbers don't help to further our understanding of an album, neither does the date that the album was made available on Napster, etc.  Again, you've already covered the relevant information perfectly in the "Release" section.


 * I don't believe the prologue to the "Reception" section is necessary. Also, the "Awards" subsection would be better in prose form (appended to the "Critical reception" subsection) with a few of the most important rankings explicitly mentioned.  Then end the paragraph with something like, "The album appeared on a further ## year-end lists", with a reference that encompasses the rest.
 * Comment Prologue deleted. I modeled the awards after similar lists (e.g. There_Will_Be_Blood); making it prose is a bit too cumbersome in my opinion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you might try a table, as done with the FA Blood Sugar Sex Magik.


 * Let's remove those red links.
 * Comment I deleted a few red links that seemed unlikely to be made into articles, but I have left some that are appropriate (e.g. the album personnel.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * One little, often-overlooked MOS comment: full dates require commas after the year (e.g. "The album was self-released on August 18, 2008, exclusively....").
 * Done. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Zeagler (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can the "Personnel" section be condensed by listing each contributor once? I'm not sure it's necessary to know who contributed what on every track...
 * e.g.
 * David Byrne – vocals, guitars, clavinet, piano, surdu, percussion

Zeagler (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The quote from Jim DeRogatis is probably too long to constitute fair use. I would cut that down to a sentence and give additional short quotes to back up the common threads you've found running through the reviews.  Also, I've never been a fan of slipping in a reviewer's overall rating when introducing his/her quote (e.g. "Audra Schroeder, writing for the The Austin Chronicle gave the album two out of four stars noting..."), but I don't know that there's anything wrong with doing that.
 * Another thing that just might be me, but all those short phrasal quotes in the "History" section break up the flow. I think it would be beneficial to rewrite 1/3 to 1/2 of them in your own words.  Tell us the story yourself instead of guiding us from quote to quote.
 * I've seen the actual deluxe edition, and it doesn't look as detailed as the current picture. Nothing major, but it'd be an improvement to have a photograph of the real thing.
 * You might ask User:Ealdgyth to scrutinize your references. Also, check out this guide to help you with the prose.  Taking care of this stuff now will save you a lot of consternation at FAC.