Wikipedia:Peer review/Mediocre (album)/archive2

Mediocre (album)

 * Previous peer review
 * 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 I believe this article has potential to become an A-class (or FA-class) article. It has recently become a good article, and I would like to have feedback so it can be upgraded to at least A-class. If possible, I would love it to meet the criteria for featured articles.

Thanks a million, – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This generally reads well. I have a few suggestions for further improvement.


 * The lead should be a summary or abstract of the whole article. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of the ideas developed in the main text sections. The existing lead does not mention the material included in "Theme" or "Musical style". I think you could fix this by adding some material about theme and style right after the first sentence of the lead and then perhaps starting the second paragraph with "Mediocre reached #10... " The third paragraph would be the one that starts "Mediocre garnered good reviews... "You would then have a three-paragraph lead, which I think would be about right.


 * It's customary to arrange multiple reference numbers in ascending order when they appear together in the text. For example, at the end of first sentence of the second paragraph of the "Theme" section, the note numbers appear as 7,8,4. To fix this, you need to move the ref 4 to first place so that the order is 4,7,8.


 * The Manual of Style advises against linking anything within a direct quote. The reason is that link might give emphasis to the linked material that was not intended in the original. Thus, "'50s", "prototype", and so on should be unlinked. I see five more of these in the Ron Bronson quotes in the "Critical reception" section. If something in a quote cries out for linking, one option is to construct a footnote with a link. That way you can link outside the direct quotation.


 * The link to "Uruguayan" in the "Recording and production" section goes to a disambiguation page. You probably want it to go to Uruguayan.


 * The MoS generally frowns on orphan paragraphs such as "Mediocre peaked at #10 on Billboard's Latin Pop Albums, and #38 on Billboard's Top Latin Albums." The two options are to move this sentence into the bigger paragraph above or expand the single sentence into a longer paragraph if you have sufficient material. Ditto for the orphan paragraph that ends the "Awards and nominations" section.


 * In the "Awards and nominations" section, you don't need to link the word "English" three times and probably not at all. Better, I think, would be to put the English translation in parentheses after the Spanish.


 * Perhaps the other Spanish titles such as "Vidas Paralelas" should also be translated the first time they appear in the main text.


 * The MoS recommends against addressing the reader directly as "you". Instead of saying, "You may click on the arrow to sort it by last name or role", you might say, "Clicking the arrows changes the sort order".


 * It would be good to have another editor copyedit the next revision of the article to look for small errors or deviations from the MoS.

I hope you find these brief suggestions helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hope these helps. --Efe (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Efe comments
 * I suggest you not to use flag icons in the infobox per WP:MOSFLAG.
 * Merge "Recording and production" to related section, if the former cannot be expanded into two or more paragraphs; it looks stubby
 * Same through with "Recording and production", probably merged with the preceding paragraph
 * Why there are red links in the track listing table?
 * I think the singles table could be merged in related section without the table.
 * The credits table is too listy and there are some contents that are not significant in this article.
 * Beware of using samples. It should meet the criteria.