Wikipedia:Peer review/Ni Es Lo Mismo Ni Es Igual (album)/archive1

Ni Es Lo Mismo Ni Es Igual
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I really need help with the article. I can't seem to find enough information on the Internet regarding recording and production. The only listed is that the musician's record company allowed him to make his own schedule. Additionally, I'm not sure if some of the sources are verifiable and one of the links just died. Any other suggestions be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Magiciandude (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Brief commant: The title is completely meaningless to anyone who hasn't heard of this album. Titles should indicate what an article is about; this looks like a complete riddle. At the very least you should add (album) to the article, as is done with other album articles. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the naming style under WP: Albums: When there is no other encyclopedic use of the album title, the article should reside at the normal name e.g. London Calling, not London Calling (album).. Magiciandude (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That might work OK for English language titles, but what you have here is a Spanish phrase that not that many people will recognise even as that. I am suggesting that you give your readers some help, rather than simply complying with standard album naming guidelines. But it's up to you. Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC) (By the way, ref. 5 is a dead link)
 * Okay, I took into consideration and decided to take your suggestion to rename this article into "Ni Es Lo Mismo Ni Es Igual (album)". Magiciandude (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally think that is a wise decision. If the consensus is insistent otherwise, it can always be changed back. I will try and review the article in the next day or two. Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A few more comments

I have read through the article, and it obviously needs expanding; at present it is about a quarter of the length of the better album articles. A few examples: Be Here Now (album) 3,573 words, In Utero (album) 4,773, Debut (album) 2,270, Bad (album) 3,007. I took these at random from the FA and GA listings (all have (album) added to the name, incidentally).

As am not well-informed in this field I am unsure where you will find new sources dealing with this album, but why are you limiting youself to online sources? Other album articles use journals (Rolling Stone, Melody Maker, Entertainment Weekly etc.). Some use reviews in newspapers, some use books. I think the key to expanding this article is to look beyond the internet – and perhaps to make fuller use of the sources that you have. For instance, this longish article could surely be used to provide more interesting background information. This looks to be another underused source.

Sorry I can't help more. Brianboulton (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well can anyone else lend a hand please? Magiciandude (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)