Wikipedia:Peer review/No Line on the Horizon/archive3

No Line on the Horizon
This peer review discussion has been closed. Hello everyone; I've listed No Line on the Horizon for a Peer Review request for a couple of reasons. The big one is that the article has twice been at FAC and has twice not promoted; I'm confident that it meets all of the FA criteria with the possible exception of prose. If anybody could take the time to look over the article and offer suggestions for improvement, it would be most welcome, especially if it relates to the prose.
 * Previous peer review

Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not into music, so I'm not qualified to judge the article's contents. I scrolled down the pages and the article seems well researched and complete. I DID edit the Introduction. Based on that, your article does need proofing.Bettymnz4 (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick skim, but I actually reverted your edits. Per the manual of style, album, film, and book titles go in italics, and the only part of the article that should really be bolded is the name in the lead. To avoid having a mixture of numerical characters and words (except when as a proper name, in the charts table, runtimes, etc.) we've elected to just spell them out throughout the article (hence the selection of twelfth instead of 12th). Also, U2 articles on Wikipedia use British English instead of American English. In British English band names are treated as a plural noun, which is why we've used "U2 are" instead of "U2 is" on just about every U2-related page. The full discussion (including a seperate archive) on that can be found at Talk:U2; we carry it over to other U2 articles for consistency. You'll find it's not an uncommon practice; Oasis (band), Pink Floyd, The Corrs, etc. all use the plural are/were instead of the singular is/was. Cheers, and thanks again for the quick review; MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I've reviewed this one before, and I can add a few more thoughts. In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I know next to nothing about U2 except what I'm reading here. I can't, therefore, give anything like expert advice on the content. On the other hand, I can give advice about prose. The prose in this article falls short of professional quality chiefly because it's too wordy. Fixing it will be time-consuming, but you can do it. Although I didn't do a complete line-by-line review, I've made quite a few specific suggestions below about tightening the prose. I'm sure you can find other places in the text where a small number of words can replace a bigger number without changing the meaning.

Lead
 * "The material was originally intended to be released as two EPs, titled Daylight and Darkness, but it was decided to combine them into one album." - Rather than the passive "was originally intended to be" and "it was decided that", could you make this active? Suggestion: "U2 originally intended to release the material as two EPs but decided to combine them"? Note that my suggestion uses 15 words, whereas the original uses 25.


 * "A companion film, Linear, was developed and released in conjunction with No Line on the Horizon." - Passive voice is necessary sometimes, but it's generally better (more punchy and efficient) to flip passive to active if possible. To do this, you need to say who developed and released; i.e., X developed and released a companion film, Linear, in conjunction with... ". Also, is it really necessary to say "developed and"? If not, the sentence can be tightened to "X released a companion film, Linear, in conjunction with... ".


 * "The band collaborated with producers Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois from June 2007 to December 2008 for the album, allowing them to be involved in the songwriting process." - This could be tightened to "The band collaborated with producers Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois, allowing them to be involved in the songwriting process from June 2007 to December 2008." The original is 28 words long, while my version is 25. The words "for the album" are not strictly necessary because the context makes this thought clear without saying it. If I were rewriting the article, I would try to reduce every sentence to the minimum number of words needed for clarity.


 * "No Line on the Horizon was planned for release in November 2008 when the band had written approximately 50–60 songs, but it was delayed as they wished to continue writing." - Would this be better as "after" rather than "when"? Otherwise it might mean that the band wrote 50 to 60 songs in November. Also, "50 to 60" would be better here than 50–60. Also, this sentence is passive. Maybe, "The band had planned to release "No Line on the Horizon" in November 2008, after they had written about 50 to 60 songs, but they re-scheduled because they wanted to keep writing."

Recording and production
 * "In July 2006, U2 sent e-mails to subscribers of U2.com, confirming that the band had begun work on the follow-up to 2004's How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb with producer Rick Rubin in the south of France and in Abbey Road Studios." - Everything is here that the sentence needs, but the arrangement has an unintended and slightly comical effect (how to dismantle an atomic bomb with producer Rick Rubin). Suggestion: "In July 2006, U2 sent e-mails to subscribers of U2.com confirming that the band were collaborating with Rick Rubin on the follow-up to 2004's How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb. They were working in southern France and in Abbey Road Studios."

Sessions with Brian Eno
 * "The six of them traveled to Fez and rented out the courtyard of a hotel Riad, turning it into a makeshift recording studio." - Tighten by removing "out"? Also, Riad seems to mean a building with an inner courtyard. Would this be more clear as "The six of them traveled to Fez and rented the inner courtyard of a hotel, turning it into a makeshift recording studio"?
 * "Recording in Fez at the same time as the World Sacred Music Festival allowed the band to listen... ". Tighten by changing "at the same time as" to "during"? Anyplace you can tighten like this will make the prose more professional.
 * "The initial intent behind the album was to create a series of "future hymns", songs that would last and continue to be sung forever." - Tighten to "They intended to create 'future hymns', that would be sung forever"?
 * "The open-air Riad allowed the band to hear the overhead birdsong during their sessions, as captured in the introduction to "Unknown Caller", but the birds also defecated on Mullen, Jr.'s drum kit." - Suggestion: "In the roofless courtyard, the band could hear birdsong during their sessions&mdash;as captured in the introduction to "Unknown Caller"&mdash;but the birds defecated on Mullen's drum kit." If the defecation was a one-off, maybe "but on one occasion the birds defecated..." would be better.

Composition
 * "No Line on the Horizon" stemmed from Larry Mullen Jr. experimenting with several different drum beats... ". - Suggestion: ""No Line on the Horizon" stemmed from Mullen's experiments with several different drum beats... ".
 * "Magnificent" is an uptempo song that begins with synthesizer line by Eno before the song's guitar riff begins." - Missing "a" before "synthesizer line"? Also, should "riff" be linked on first use? Also, delete the second "begins"?
 * "created out of a series of chord changes during a jam, was worked continuously by Bono" - Should "jam" be linked on first use? Tighten by replacing "out of" with "from"?


 * The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find no dead links and good alt text. The dabfinder tool spots one link to a disambiguation page. It's kind of an odd one, "Time Out", because the redirect page goes to the dab page.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for all of that feedback! That'll definitely give me a good start, and I think I know what to look for now. Thanks very much for the review! Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)