Wikipedia:Peer review/MCMXC a.D./archive2

MCMXC a.D.


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this article to GA status and maybe someday, FA status. So far, I have done substantial work on adding a lot of useful and structured content to this article. I believe it is close to GA status, but I first want to have someone look it over and bring up some suggestions.

Thanks, Lazman321 (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain

 * General
 * Attention seems needed to ensure the article follows WP:MOS, especially in terms of MOS:NUMERAL. I see for example "No. 6" in the lead which isn't consistent with how you write about chart performance later in the article.
 * There are general spelling and grammar errors throughout, for example typos like "realzation" and awkward grammar like "making the realzation (sic)" which is not a standard phrase in English.


 * Lead
 * Overall the lead seems short compared with what I've seen on other comprehensive album articles. I think you'll want to expand it considerably to comprise at least 3 good paragraphs.
 * A sentence ends with "in which" — did something get cut off?
 * The narrative in the lead doesn't seem cohesive... you mention the idea for the album first, and then the idea for the band later.


 * Background and inspiration
 * I don't follow how Cretu pursuing pop music is at odds with his musical education. Are you suggesting he had classical training and then left that path to pursue pop music? That needs clarity.
 * This whole section seems related to the background of Cretu and Enigma, without any specific information about the album. You can start with some context, but you should expand this section to include a narrative for how that context relates to MCMXC a.D..


 * Development and release
 * There are more non-standard English phrases like "across eight months" that suggest the need for a copyedit from someone with good command of the language.
 * The writing here is awkward where you begin three sentences in a row with "Cretu", "Michael Cretu", and then "Cretu" again. I think as part of your copyedit, more variety needs to be introduced into the writing.
 * "The first song they made for the album was the song" Repetitive phrasing (and who is "they"?) is another example of something to attack with a good copyeditor.
 * "Michael Cretu still wanted to remain anonymous." The narrative around Cretu's anonymity is very lightly touched on and I think you'll want to expand this with additional sources.


 * Composition
 * You've used a religion journal as a source for genres which is strange. You should be using mainstream music journalism and people who are qualified to comment on musical genres.
 * In this narrative you write that Cretu "debunks" the idea that "the entire album consists of Gregorian chant". Have other journalists asserted this? What is he really arguing? The term "debunk" suggests that he provided evidence against a prevailing theory but I don't think you've written about this in enough detail or provided a cohesive narrative.
 * Have you ensured that you're writing in your own words and paraphrasing sufficiently from your sources? Something like "the album often evoking lust, cruelty, repentance, and redemption" sounds like it was copied from the cited journal as it doesn't match the overall tone of your other writing.


 * Critical reception
 * Ensure that you are writing this section in your own words based on your understanding of the cited sources rather than just stringing together quotations. This is a common problem I see with album articles.


 * Commercial performance
 * Check for compliance with MOS:NUMERAL especially compared with other sections and the lead.
 * "indicating that it was shipped to the United States at least four million times" This is a good example of awkward/non-standard English throughout.


 * Lawsuit
 * Check for consistent capitalization of terms like "Gregorian".
 * The opening sentence is not grammatically correct.
 * What are d-marks?
 * Most likely money or credits. It was never mentioned in the article what "d-marks" are, so saying that it is either money or credits would be original research.

I think you have a solid start here but it strikes me as a long way off from the GA criteria. At the bare minimum it needs a solid copyedit for basic grammar and spelling, followed by work on expanding sections from reliable sources and ensuring there is a cohesive narrative where I have noted issues. Thanks for the opportunity to review! -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe I have done at least most of your requests. I will do copyediting for MOS adherence later today. As for copyediting for the prose itself, I will be submitting this article to the guild of copyeditors soon, at least before the backlog drive ends. For the expansion of content, I currently have access to the Wikipedia Library and I am currently applying for access to newpapersARCHIVES.com so I will be able to expand the article soon. I will be leaving this peer review up in the meantime. Lazman321 (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)