Wikipedia:Peer review/Mine Is Yours/archive1

Mine Is Yours
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I feel like this could have a chance at being a possible GA but many things keep it from it. The "Background and Recording" and "Music and Lyrics" sections seem to harm it; as far as how much detail I should put into it and if I should put quotes and pictures in it. This is the first article I've written with much detail and time put into it and I would love to hear your opinions on what more I can do to improve it.

Thanks, DepressedPer (talk) 29 April 2014, 08:37 (UTC)

I'll probably have to do this a bit now, a bit later (I'm in class). This will be some first impression things.


 * The "Deluxe Edition" cover seems like ambiguous fair use. The cover doesn't differ significantly from the primary cover, and doesn't really add anything to the article.
 * Lead is good. Opening sentence might need to be broken up. I'd end it after "...indie rock band Cold War Kids" and reword the release information. Further, there shouldn't be a "the" before Cold War Kids if that isn't the name of the band (which it doesn't appear to be).
 * "Background and recording" could definitely use some expanding, but what is there now is good.
 * "Music and lyrics" could be a good spot to throw a picture or two in.
 * Still on "Music and lyrics", "differ strongly" seems unnecessary and sounds weird. I'd suggest dropping the "strongly".
 * Noting that the interview was with 'Spin'' feels unneeded, just cut that opening and start with "Willett explained that Cassavetes'..."
 * "men-women relationships:" Why does this end in a colon and not a period?
 * "Many critics noted that the production throughout the album was reminiscent of bands like..." Yet only one critic is sourced for each example. I'd say find more critics that say this, or remove it.
 * "Singles" is solid, but I don't like the YouTube reference for Louder Than Ever's music video. Surely there's a better source for this.
 * "it at a Pioneertown concert on November 5". Which November 5? Year should be specified.
 * "several appearances in music festivals and talk shows" Should be "at musical festivals..."
 * The list of all touring locations needs to go. It's just clutter. If the tour is notable enough for its own page, move it there, but it doesn't belong on the album page. Also, if there are photos from this tour, get them in here.
 * "who we're divided by the change". This should be obvious.
 * "a normalised rating out of 100". This is an American band, isn't it? Should this be in American English?
 * "He also said that the album will divide fans saying '[So] there’s a give and take at work on Mine Is Yours, one that fans of their earlier work will either love or hate.'" Unneeded quote, end it after "divide fans", or say that he believed the album would be divisive or something. No need for more quotes than are necessary.
 * "'Longtime fans are apt to be disappointed by the change in direction, which for sure renders the band less unique.'" First half of this is redundant, second half could easily be paraphrased. "Mikael Wood of the Los Angeles Times also commented on the divisive take the fans will have with the album, as well as its removal of the band's uniqueness" or something similar.
 * Heather Phares review can also be paraphrased. "Heather Phares noted the album's newfound polish and maturity differing from the band's previous releases", for example.
 * "From a negative perspective" ---> "In a negative review." Establishes that the rest are bound to be negative.
 * "'Mine Is Yours? You can keep it, thanks.'" This quote needs to be changed to reflect why she didn't like the album, not just show that she didn't.
 * "18,000 copies in its first week, 4,000 less from before." Weird wording. Maybe something like "in the same position as their previous album despite selling 4,000 fewer copies."
 * Whole "Critical reception" section seems to compare it to their previous album too much. Suggest removing, or condensing it to one blanket sentence.
 * Track list looks weird, shouldn't be in separate columns. Use instead. Make deluxe edition and bonus tracks collapsable when you do.
 * Personnel contributions don't need to be capitalized (ex. Lead guitar)
 * Refs look good (other than the aforementioned YouTube).

That's all I got for right now, I'll comb through it again when I get home. All in all, this article is looking pretty good. Not sure it'll be quite ready for good article (short on info and pictures) but you're definitely doing some good work.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  14:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions you made. As far as the suggestions you made, the pictures for the Music and lyrics section I might add but the Critical reception section, I don't know how well I can rearrange the reviews that only talk about the album that's being reviewed and not compare it to the previous album. DepressedPer (talk) 2:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)