Wikipedia:Peer review/Led Zeppelin discography/archive1

Led Zeppelin discography
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know, if this is ready for FL or not? I am again not sure about the lead.

Thanks, ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: No, it's not ready for FL. The charts look good, but the text has many prose and style problems, and the sourcing does not meet WP:V because many claims are not sourced.


 * Copyediting
 * The article needs a thorough copyediting. You might be able to find a copyeditor via WP:GOCE/REQ. Examples of problem sentences abound, but here's one: "A typical folk and blues album, it peaked alike their second record at number one in the UK and in the US." This sentence makes no sense as written. Looking through the lede, I would guess that many of the errors I am seeing are second-language problems such as the use of "elder" instead of "older" in "After their break-up, the band have released numerous compilation albums and live albums from elder concerts." These are just examples, but I see lots of similar problems in the article.
 * cleaned up, removed sentences, elder -> older, added to Guil of Copy Editors


 * "The group were formed until their break-up by guitarist Jimmy Page, singer Robert Plant, bassist John Paul Jones and drummer John Bonham." - It would be more clear to say, "Until their break-up, the group were formed by... ".
 * reworded


 * "On September 1968 - October 1968 they were formerly known as... " - Maybe "From September 1969 through October 1968 they were known as... "?
 * reworded


 * "On September 1968 - October 1968 they were formerly known as the "New Yardbirds" and later "Led Zeppelin", after an annotation by the Who's bassist John Entwistle, which he reckoned the duo Jimmy Page and Jeff Beck, they would go down like a "lead zeppelin", a term Entwistle used to describe a bad gig." - This doesn't make sense as written, and it attempts to say too much in a single sentence.
 * done (possibly)
 * done (possibly)


 * "On 12 January, 1969," - No comma is needed in 12 January 1969 or any similar dates in this format.
 * removed

Sourcing
 * The second paragraph, which is quite long, has an inline citation (3) above the halfway point. The rest of the paragraph is unsourced even though it includes a lot of information that is not common knowledge. My rule of thumb is to include a source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, every unusual claim, and every paragraph. If one source supports an entire paragraph, the inline citation should go at the very end of the paragraph.
 * shortened, added refs to allmusic, all refs at the end of the sentences, except a few (after comma)


 * The next four paragraphs are unsourced.
 * sources added

Notes
 * Wikipedia articles should not address the reader directly. In the sentences in the notes that include statements like "See for example" the word "you" is implied. In other words, these sentences are telling the reader to do something, which is a no-no. Instead, these should be turned into declarative sentences saying something like "The liner notes ... and the label ... categorize Coda as... ".
 * reworded


 * "charted on the singles chart listed 24.11.2007 (week 46)" - The date formatting in the notes should be the same as the date formatting in the main text; i.e., 24 November 2007.
 * reworded

References
 * Can the double-nesting of parentheses in some of the citations, like citation 3, be eliminated?
 * I don't know exactly what you mean. But I think you meant the brackets in the allmusic refs should be deleted.


 * The date formatting in the citations needs to be consistent.
 * cleaned up


 * What makes Jimmy Page Online a reliable source?
 * deleted

Other
 * The tools at the top of this review page find two dead urls in the citations and two dabs in the text.
 * forgot to do this before adding to the peer review. Done

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I knew that someone would mention the nasty lead :). Thereto I learned things I have never knew, for example that the articles should not address the reader directly. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)