Wikipedia:Peer review/Lions (album)/archive1

Lions (album)

 * 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 June 2008.
 * 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 June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's dang close to meeting the featured article criteria but want the opinion of someone not involved in writing it.

Thanks, Zeagler (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * indopug
 * I'll look at the rest later but what makes crowesbase.com a reliable sources? Looks like a fansite to me.
 * It's semi-official. The people who run it work with TBC management to ensure everything is accurate, and The Black Crowes' official site links to it prominently.
 * Looks like it's official after all: BLACK CROWES: PT 2 - PROTOPLASMIC REVERIES —Zeagler (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Both those videos need to go per WP:NFCC #8. An image of them playing at Letterman is not a significant addition to prose in any way. The music video is more suited for the song's article (where you would discuss the music videos, not here)
 * I'd like others' opinions on this. For the second case, at least, there is precedent at featured articles Adore (album) and Pinkerton (album).
 * Why are there two refs after Audly Freed's name in the Personnel section? The section is self referential to the CD itself so you don't need a reference normally. indopug (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There was speculation that his actual contribution to the album was nothing more than "watched from the sidelines", so I found references where his contributions are discussed. —Zeagler (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

giggy (O) 04:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Giggy
 * In the pro reviews part of the infobox, if you don't have a URL, just put some publication details there instead (ie. no need for refs).
 * Can you point me towards some articles where this is done so I can see the formatting?
 * The music sample needs a better description (one that actually says something about what it contains) and would look better on the right.
 * Done.
 * An FAC could have concerns over the use of fair use imagery (like, do you need both of those images.... do they add anything?).
 * Will beef up the fair use rationales.
 * And with having more than 1 audio sample, same again...
 * The 1 star NME review isn't mentioned anywhere in the prose. Why not?
 * In general the reception could be longer.
 * The NME review isn't mentioned because I recently found a number of reviews (thanks in part to the Internet Archive) and added them to the infobox at the expense of reviews that only had references. I'll incorporate them into the critical reception section. —Zeagler (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
 * As above, what makes http://www.crowesbase.com/ a reliable source? I know you said it's "semi-official" which means it's not truly official.
 * Again, the people who run it work with TBC management to ensure everything is accurate, and The Black Crowes' official site links to it prominently.
 * Looks like it's official after all: BLACK CROWES: PT 2 - PROTOPLASMIC REVERIES —Zeagler (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes http://qfg.info/misc/bcet0901.txt a reliable source? Also lacking a publisher
 * It's somebody's transcript of an article that originally appeared in a print magazine. I don't doubt its accuracy, but that probably doesn't fly...so it's gone.
 * What makes http://www.nudeasthenews.com/ a reliable source?
 * It's an interview conducted by Jonathan Cohen, who co-created the site and was also a Billboard editor.
 * Current ref 15 is lacking a publisher
 * Fixed.
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20010604015958/http://www.sonicnet.com/reviews/rev.jhtml?genreNameForDisplay=Rock&genreDirectoryName=rock&cid=1443456&configPathName=Rock deadlinks
 * Aargh, it worked last week when I added it! Gone.
 * Link works again, so it's back in the article. —Zeagler (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * what makes http://web.archive.org/web/20020127044636/http://cool.syntrillium.com/closeups/freed/ a reliable source?
 * It's an interview, and while Syntrillium had a product to push, the part of the interview I reference has nothing to do with Cool Edit Pro.
 * You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE.
 * Ah, missed that rule. Fixed. —Zeagler (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 00:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)