Wikipedia:Peer review/Love in Motion (Anika Moa album)/archive2

Love in Motion (Anika Moa album)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… it quick-failed GAN because "WP:MOS not applied to majority of the article. WP:RECENTISM applies for the whole article." I personally can't see any examples of this, and would like some pointers. What else needs to be done to get it up to GA-standard?
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Adabow  ( talk )  09:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That's quite a brief GA review. In future, if you're unsure of where the problems are, it might be worth asking the reviewer to be a bit more specific. They're not obliged to give a detailed review, but if you ask, they may point out some more specific problems that you can work on. I'm not sure what they mean by WP:RECENTISM since this is an article released this year. I presume they may be worried about future stability and the fact that there might be many more sources available in a few months. That's worth bearing in mind. I'll go through the article by section and point out what I notice.
 * Comments from Belovedfreak

Lead Background and recording Musical and lyrical composition  Promotion singles files References
 * As mentioned in the previous review, per WP:LEAD, the lead needs to adequately summarise the whole of the article. Complying with WP:LEAD is a must to pass GA criterion 1b. I can tell at a glance that this isn't the case at the moment because of the three very short paragraphs. I would expect an article of this size to have at least one substantial paragraph (try not to make it look too "choppy" by spacing it out as much as you have so far) and possibly two substantial paragraphs. At the moment, "background & recording" and "composition" aren't covered by the lead.
 * Watch out for overlinking; only give links that will help a reader's understanding of the article. It's not too bad, but decide whether or not you really need to link studio album and singer-songwriter, for example. Will most readers know what they are? Will they want to click through to read those articles?
 * "Reviews for the album ranged from three stars to five stars." - I'm not too keen on this sentence. Try to summarise them in terms of whether they were positive or negative. Not all reviewers use star-rating systems, and we can't assume that all would be out of 5.
 * "a concert tour is expected in May and June" - this appears to be out of date now.
 * Citations in the lead are generally not needed as much as in the rest of the article. Opinions do vary, but generally only cite things in the lead that are controversial or likely to be challenged. Everything should be repeated/expanded on later anyway, where you can put a citation. I don't think that any of the citations currently used in the lead are for particularly controversial facts. (Similarly, no need to cite producer and single release date in the infobox as these are cited in the article body.)
 * If there is any more information on particular tracks about their relationship, include that. (a quick glance at this link suggests there may be room for expansion).
 * Link "civil union" to Civil unions in New Zealand, as this is more directly relevant (unless I'm mistaken and it happened outside of NZ)
 * "Moa claimed ..." - try to avoid the use of "claimed" - it's not very neutral and suggests that she might be lying or mistaken.
 * "this is the first album that I really thought about what I wanted....I wanted to keep them [the songs] simple in structure, concentrating on the layering of vocals and guitars." → this is the first album that I really thought about what I wanted ... I wanted to keep [the songs] simple in structure, concentrating on the layering of vocals and guitars.
 * Is there any information about where the album was recorded, or who produced it? (I realise this is in the credits, but is there anything that could be prose?)
 * This is a very short section. If nothing can be found to expand, I would suggest combining it with the above section.
 * "Lyrically, Love in Motion has been called "honest"" - I think this belongs more in the reception section. Its just a reviewer's opinion of the album.
 * At this point, I notice that you haven't actually mentioned the release of the album. Somewhere there needs to be release details - date, label, what countries it was released in. As the promotion section is short, this could be a combined "release and promotion" section.
 * Headings generally shouldn't contain the name of the article so, Tour rather than Love in Motion Tour
 * "A concert tour was held in May and June 2010." - please say which country (I know it's in the table, but it needs to be specified in the prose too.)
 * no need to link "concert tour"
 * use spaces on either side of elipses: Moa's risky decision ... to follow her own path ... was the right one.
 * When you talk about how many stars a reviewer gave, it would be helpful to specify how many possible stars that is out of. Not all reviewers use five stars. Some use ten, some three. You perhaps don't need to mention all of the star ratings either, try and concentrate on what they actually say.
 * "The album has been on the chart for eleven weeks" - this will date quickly, so needs an "as of" date
 * no need to link "lead single"
 * Is there any reliable info about future singles?
 * I think you need to state in the fair use rationale for the audio file that it's being used in this article as well as the single article.
 * The fair use rationale for the concert image needs some work; "To illustrate the text of the article." isn't really good enough, and I'm not really sure you can justify it's use here. It does seem to be purely decorative.
 * Reference formatting needs some work. Include where possible, dates of publication, publishers, authors, access dates. Titles of print sources (books, magazines, newspapers) should be in italics and those of non-print sources (websites) should not be in italics. A few examples:
 * 1) Vodafone New Zealand shouldn't be in italics. I'm not sure how reliable this is for a genre.
 * 2) Is Libel Music a print source of a website? If the latter, not in italics.
 * 3) GayNZ.com shouldn't be in italics
 * I see some links are already archived. It might be worth archiving more of them to prevent link rot.

Hope these suggestions help. Do look at other album articles that are already GA or FA quality, look at lots of them to see what kind of information they contain and how they compare visually to this one, and that should help you too.-- Beloved Freak  13:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Belovedfreak - 2nd look
 * I've done a bit of a copyedit, so please check that the changes I've made are acceptable and change any you don't agree with.
 * I don't understand the removal of en dashes and being replaced with nbsps and hyphens Adabow ( talk )  07:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't removed en dashes & replaced with hyphens; they're still there but I replaced the html entity with an actual dash. I did this with a script and until now was under the impression that that was the preferred way to render dashes. I've just looked into it a little further and it seems that there is no hard and fast rule, and that some editors prefer using the html entities, so feel free to change back if you think it's a problem. The main arguments seem to be easier to read in the edit box (– vs. & ndash;) and making it more obvious to casual editors that it is something different from a hyphen so that they don't start adding hyphens. (They are definitely dashes though, not hyphens!) I also added non-breaking spaces in front of the en dashes as per WP:MOS.-- Beloved  Freak  09:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Moa described love as having "so many aspects to it."" - I'm not sure how necessary this statement is. It seems a little meaningless without more context. I don't know, think about that one.
 * It still says "The album has been on the chart for eleven weeks" - a statement that will easily get out of date (if not already).
 * The sentence ends with the use of, and I update the number of weeks every Tuesday, and project the template to the next week - is this not adequate? Adabow ( talk )  07:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd not seen that template before, so it may be ok. I guess you just need to make sure you update it until it leaves the charts! Otherwise, using "as of" at least gives the reader of when the info was accurate.-- Beloved Freak  18:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The reference formatting needs some work still. Some refs are still missing publishers. Other examples:
 * You seem to have "stuff.co.nz" as a publisher for several newspaper refs; should be Fairfax New Zealand
 * the Waikato Times reference needs a publisher
 * Ref currently no. 19 ("Anika Moa - Love In Motion Tour") shouldn't say "eventfinder.co.nz". The work is The New Zealand Herald (in italics) and the publisher should be APN News & Media
 * Check print sources are in italics and non-print ones not. eg.iTunes Store should not be in italics

-- Beloved Freak  16:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How's the lead now? Adabow  ( talk )  07:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit busy in real life at the moment, but I'll try to have another look and comment on the lead later on today.-- Beloved Freak  09:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead looks better. I'm still a little concerned about the amount of information in the article as a whole. Do you know if the album's going to be released outside New Zealand at all? If so, there will hopefully be more sources to use.
 * Had a quick look at the sources:
 * what makes Libel Music a reliable source? LadyFix is also questionable, but it's being used for an interview, so not so bad.
 * What is currently reference no. 10 (The Edge) doesn't seem to be working

-- Beloved Freak  18:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)