Wikipedia:Peer review/OK Computer/archive2

OK Computer
This peer review discussion has been closed.
 * Previous peer review

A few other users and I have recently been working on shaping this article up for featuring, and it's very nearly there. One of the users has been meaning to do a copyedit but it's been a while since I've heard from him. A peer review in the meantime couldn't hurt, right? I'm mostly looking for a pair of fresh eyes to make sure the quality of the prose is feature-worthy, but if any other issues needs to be addressed then please give the whole article a look! Thanks. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been busy off-Wiki. The copyedit will take place over this weekend, and I have started on the lead. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's all good man, thanks for starting the copyedit. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Make sure the citations are consistent; just saw two different ways of formatting a magazine cite in the Background section (with and without templates). Comb through the entire article and make sure everything lines up. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've double-checked and it looks like all citations in the article now use templates, good catch. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is one of my favorite albums (although I am not an expert on it). Thanks for your work on this article, here are some suggestions for improvement. 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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Kid A and In Rainbows are both FAs about Radiohead albums and seems like they would be useful models to me.
 * The lead seems a bit sparse / too short to me. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, and I think the lead here could easily be three paragraphs. See WP:LEAD
 * Watch WP:OVERLINKing - Britpop is linked twice just in the lead, for example.
 * The most difficult FA criterion for most articles to meet is a professional level of English (1a). The prose here is decent, but sentences like They were encouraged by recording sessions with engineer Nigel Godrich, who had assisted John Leckie in producing The Bends and had produced several Radiohead B-sides.[2] would be problematic at FAC - the antecedent of "They" is unclear (as the previous sentence refers to the band and several people who could have been producers).
 * Avoid needless repetition - as one example consider these two sentences. The last sentence of the first paragraph of the Recording section is: While at Canned Applause, the band completed preliminary recording for "No Surprises", "Subterranean Homesick Alien", "The Tourist", and "Electioneering".[8] Then the fifth sentence of the second paragraph of the same section is In spite of these difficulties, the group had nearly completed recording four songs—"Electioneering", "No Surprises", "Subterranean Homesick Alien", and "The Tourist"—when they left Canned Applause.[11] This does not need to be in the article twice.
 * I also note that wikilinks should be used on the first use of the term in almost all cases - in the previos two sentences, No Surprises is linked on the second occurrence.
 * The MOS says to use "per cent" (Brit Eng) instead of % in most cases. I would also split this into two sentences. ''O'Brien was similarly pleased with the recordings, estimating that 80% of the album was recorded live and [. He] noted "I hate doing overdubs, because it just doesn't feel natural. ... Something special happens when you're playing live; a lot of it is just looking at one another and knowing there are four other people making it happen".[17]
 * I would also split this into two ...But not emotionless at all. In fact, the very opposite".[27] and [He added] that "Loads of the music on OK Computer is extremely uplifting.
 * I would make this the start of a new paragraph "Paranoid Android", the band's second-longest recorded studio track at 6:23, ...
 * Also I would clarify the whole "band's second-longest recorded studio track at 6:23" bit - second longest ever? (then say as of 2011). Second longest to date (when they made this album)? Then say that. My guess is that clarifying will also require splitting the sentence (start the new one after this part).
 * I know this is a direct quote, but it reads oddly - probably should be checked against the original It's a song where there doesn't have to happen anything every 3 seconds.
 * Again need to clarify - highest chart position (ever? to date? for this album?) ''Despite a lack of radio play, the song charted at number three in the United Kingdom, giving Radiohead their highest singles chart position.[64]
 * I would add more free images - there are quite a few of the band members, some from the era when they were writing / recording this. If this is a FA and appears on the Main Page it needs a better free image than the house where they recorded much of the album.
 * Some articles put sales figures in the Reception section
 * No information on significant covers - Christopher O'Riley has covered songs from this album on both his Radioead cover albums (they both have articles here and have gotten some press).
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Comment Move the reissue section into the release section to keep things nice and orderly. Jamming it into the tracklist section is far less logical organization. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I moved it to just after the Legacy section. I don't particularly want to put it under Release because that screws up the chronological flow of the article. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment Refrain from relying on reviews (which are essentially opinion pieces) for factual information like "no remastering had been done on studio tracks, and the liner notes are not expanded or supplemented". The latter is covered in the direct quote from the review anyway in the following paragraph in a way that's clearly couched in the reviewer's POV. Also, I don't see the need to detail the reissue bonus DVD contents in the tracklist section. Outside of a prose context, it comes off like a product description. WesleyDodds (talk)