Wikipedia:Peer review/No Line on the Horizon/archive1

No Line on the Horizon

 * This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually bring the article to FA. A lot of hard work was put into a promotion to GA, and I can't see any issues with the article after the GA concerns were addressed. However, a fresh pair of eyes would be very much welcomed. I think the Charts/certifications, Linear, and U2 360 sections are without worry, but if someone could look over the rest of the article it would be much appreciated!
 * 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 June 2009.

Thanks, MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Brief comment: The purpose of the lead is to provide a summary of the whole article (per WP:LEAD. At present the lead makes no reference to the "Linear" film, which has a significant section in the article (although the section is not well integrated with the rest of the article). I suggest that the lead is extended to make reference to the film, and that the film section itself is given a better relationship with the album that is the article's principal subject. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence on Linear to the lead, but I'm not sure how to better integrate the section with the rest of the article. Do you have any suggestions? MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with Brian on the Linear film - it needs to be i nthe lead, and it seems to be covered in a bit too much detail here - perhaps this is a WP:WEIGHT issue? Seems fairly close to FAC, here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * Added, but as above I'm not sure how to edit the section so that it fits better with the rest of the article. Any thoughts on how to do it? MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I also noticed that the article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve flow (in almost all cases).
 * Okay, some sentences and paragraphs have been merged with others to make them longer. Sections on the singles and the tour have been expanded a bit, and the Development heading in the Linear section has been moved to encompass the two lone sentences that were at the top . MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In some of the sentences the focus seems odd - for example In July 2006, the band's official website sent e-mails to subscribers confirming that U2 had begun work on... might read better with the focus on (subject as) the band itself, so something like In July 2006, U2 sent e-mails to subscribers at (via?) their official website confirming that the band had begun work on... Presumably of the official website was authorized by the band...
 * The writing is decent but I think it could use another polish before FAC - there is a tendency to repeat words within sentences or in consecutive sentences that gets tiresome after a while, for example look for the words band and material in The band eventually decided to cease recording with Rubin and the material from these sessions was shelved, with the band expressing interest in revisiting the material in the future.[10] followed by another double band sentence band subsequently employed Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois as principal producers, who were also given the opportunity to write songs with the band. Fours uses of band in two sentences (and twice more in that paragraph).
 * There is also some repetition within sections - we are told Every breaking wave was cut from the album three times in the space of three paragraphs, for example.
 * The tentaitve original release date information and postponements thereof are also repeated in the Recording and Release sections.
 * Have you checked on Flickr to see if there are any free images of the band from this tour? Three fair use images may be seen as a bit much.
 * From the tour or from the recording sessions? There will undoubtedly be some from the tour (I know that a few are already on the U2 360 article), but I doubt there will be any from the recording sessions since so few people are privy to seeing them. I'll check though, and if that fails I'll remove an image in the hopes that two fair-use will be okay. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From the tour - I would also make it clearer that the fair use Morocco piucture was taken during the recording of the album. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the clarification. I'll see if I can find some photos, preferably one of the stage. Commons might have something already. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (Edit): Caption changed and stage image added. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Can something that is recorded in one take really be "developed" over time? See Moment of Surrender", "White as Snow", "No Line on the Horizon" and "Unknown Caller" were developed over this time, all of them being recorded in just one take.[15]
 * Hmm, I think that's more of a bad word choice. Instead of "developed over" I think "created during" would be more appropriate. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to ""Moment of Surrender", "White as Snow", "No Line on the Horizon" and "Unknown Caller" were written at this time, each track being recorded in one take. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The German name for Lake Constance is "Bodensee" - is "Boden Sea" a typo?
 * Not as far as I can tell; the source uses "Boden Sea" each time, and as far as I can tell it's just the title of the photograph. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the refs are incomplete - current 94 and 114 are just links and titles, but internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * I think all of the refs have been checked and completed now. Author's are now included where known, as are dates of publication. U2.com references have been trimmed and replaced with other more suitable references where possible. MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much to both of you for your reviews and comments (and my apologies for not getting back to you sooner; I was away for a week). I'll begin integrating your suggestions shortly (my comments have been indented below yours); your fresh pairs of eyes have certainly been useful! MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what might help to integrate the Linear section better in the overall article is to put the focus more on U2. Since Linear is now in the lead, readers should know what it is. I would then perhaps start the section with something like The idea behind Linear, a silent film that is included with the albunm in several formates, stemmed from a U2 video shoot with Anton Corbijn in June 2007. During the shoot, Corbijn asked the band to remain still while he filmed them; this created a "photograph on film", in which U2 did not move but the objects around them did.[75] Make it clearer that this was a U2 project, relate it to the band. Does the Chapters subsection of the Linear section need to be included? The listing order is given in the previous section and the lengths are all a bit longer than the track lengths (given elsewhere).
 * I also would try to get someone to copyedit this before FAC - the language still is a bit rough in spots. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, and I think I can see how to work it better now. Now that you mention it, I'm not entirely sure that the Chapters subsection is necessary. I originally wrote it with the perspective that when more information and reviews were made it could be split into it's own article, but that seems highly unlikely now. Since the running order is mentioned in the plot summary, it could probably be removed. I haven't gotten around to fully editing the language yet, but I'm hoping to be able to polish it up soon. Thanks again for all your feedback! MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (Edit): I've tried to solve the weight issue by reordering some parts and putting some more emphasis on the band. How does it seem now? MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It reads better and the section does not seem as disproportinately large with the Chapters subsection removed. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent; I've done a bit more clean-up prose-wise and have asked a couple of people if they wouldn't mind doing a copyedit (one of whom has already done so), and when that's complete I think all of your points will have been addressed. Thank you so much for all your feedback and help! MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)