Wikipedia:Peer review/List of number-one singles from the 1990s (UK)/archive1

List of number-one singles from the 1990s (UK)

 * 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 December 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 December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because, having completely re-formatted it, added images and a proper lead, etc, I'd like to know if there's anything else I might need to do before I put it up for FLC.

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review by User:Darth Panda Following WP:WIAFL, as per your request.


 * Prose.
 * Check your comma usage.
 * "During the 1990s record companies began making singles available to radio stations much further in advance of their release dates and making greater use of direct marketing techniques, as a result of which the number of singles entering the charts at number 1 increased dramatically, and it became commonplace for singles to enter the charts at the top and then plummet down the listing soon afterwards." -> "During the 1990s, record companies began making singles available to radio stations much further in advance of their release dates and making greater use of direct marketing techniques. As a result, of which the number of singles entering the charts at number 1 increased dramatically, and it became commonplace for singles to enter the charts at the top and then plummet down the listing soon after wards ."
 * I didn't copyedit very thoroughly, but I doubt there are all that many more errors anyways.


 * Lead.
 * No issues.


 * Comprehensiveness.
 * Not that I would know, but it looks fine to me.


 * Structure.
 * You definitely want to enable table sort for your two right-most columns.
 * Though a table of contents is not automatically added, you might want to force it to appear.


 * Style.
 * Since you have only eight refs in your reflist, is preferred over.


 * Visual Appeal.
 * Many of those images are unnecessary, but I don't really know what I'd replace it with...


 * Stability.
 * No issues.

Cheers, and best of luck! D ARTH P ANDA duel 22:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Jameboy: I'd expect to see some kind of links to enable me to quickly jump to the equivalent lists for the 1980s and 2000s, but I can't see any. I don't know if there is a template like "this is the next/previous article in the sequence", if not then maybe link via a See also section? Jameboy (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just discovered the Next and Previous templates, but they seem a bit clunky and don't seem to be widely used. Not sure what else is available. --Jameboy (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers for the comments, gents! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)