Wikipedia:Peer review/Kylie Minogue singles discography/archive1

Kylie Minogue singles discography
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I am preparing this article for the FL process. Besides the lead, I want a portion of the review to be focused on the accuracy of the chart positions. Some IP edits slip under the radar and they stay as is.

Thanks,  I Help, When I Can. [12] 23:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: The peer review cannot begin while the Underconstruction banner is in place. Please advise here when the major article construction is complete. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There was not much editing in the last few days so I removed the banner. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:
 * You need to fix the dead links in refs 26 and 27
 * The lead section needs to be subdivided. It's 1000+ words and six paragraphs at present. I would suggest a relatively short lead with two prose sections, possibly dividing at the end of what is now the third paragraph - or possibly after the fourth.
 * Per MOS guidelines I would use numerics for values over 10, e.g. "51", "28" etc. That would be consistent with "68 million".
 * "Due to the single's success..." → "Following the single's success..."
 * "They would create..." is the wrong tense here; simple past: "They created...", or connect to previous sentence: "where they created...." Look for other wrong uses of "would"
 * "in the beginning" → "at the beginning..."
 * "herself" not "her self"
 * "4 singles" should be "four" per MOS
 * "of the United Kingdom" → "in the United Kingdom"
 * "to completely miss": apart from the ugly split infinitive, the word "completely" is redundant.
 * "reached the terms stated in her recording contract": is this an overcomplicated way of saying she completed her contract?
 * "She decided not to renew it, and a Greatest Hits was released." Replace "and" with "after which"
 * Fourth paragraph: another redundant "completely"
 * "All of the singles ... did not peak..." Very clumsy. "None of the singles ... peaked..."
 * "2000's Light Years is not incorrect, though inelegant. ''Light Years, in 2000,..." better
 * "...peaked at number two and gave Minogue her first number one album in Australia." Where did it peak at no. 2?
 * "stayed within the bounds of..." is unnecessarily verbose. Just "achieved" will do
 * "Still" is too imprecise for a WP article. "As of February 2011..."
 * She "garnered"? Wrong word, "garner" means "to store away".
 * "included" and "include" in close repetition in the final paragraph
 * I think "greatest hits" should have quotes
 * The term "spawned" is used three or four times. It's an unattractive term and I think strictly once only, if at all.

The charts themselves look excellent. I can't vouch for their accuracy, of course, but it looks as though you've done your homework here. As I am not able to watch all my peer reviews, please use my talkpage if you have any queries arising from this review, or if you would like me to look again. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * , except
 * I don't know where to make up the links for the refs that were dead. I'll find a way, I always do.
 * Due to the typical format of discographies, I'm not sure if I want to divide the lead.
 * We at WP:Kylie are still in debate on which charts should be used, so not all of them are locked down and verified yet. But they will be before the article attempts WP:FA.
 * Thank you so much for your help.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 22:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)