Wikipedia:Peer review/Orchid (album)/archive1

Orchid (album)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to archive it on GA or FA. This article can to receive a GA or FA review? Thanks, T.R.Elven (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments by Bradley0110

Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia. In order to gauge whether this article is suitable to be promoted to Good Article or Featured Article, you should read the Good Article criteria and the Featured Article criteria, then decide whether this article meets those standards.

Bradley0110 (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * The lead states that the album was released "in Europe" on May 15, 1995 but the Release section states just the UK and Poland for this date. Was it a continent-wide release or just these two countries?
 * Why is "old" in quotation marks?
 * Background
 * Is there any info on why Petterssen left?
 * No, the only info that I found was that he later left the band after a show.
 * Recording and production
 * The language in this section feels a bit informal and bit wordy. For example, "The recording generally went smoothly. Most of the recording sessions had no problems, despite the band members still being slightly nervous about everything. The only major problem that occurred was not having enough time to record the acoustic piece, "Requiem", properly." could easily be compacted down to "Despite the nervousness of the band members, the recording sessions ran smoothly. However, the band regretted not having enough time to record the acoustic piece "Requiem".
 * Musical styles and lyrical themes
 * "Opeth sounded much different than the casual black or death metal bands at that time". Are there any examples of contemporaries of the band?
 * "Orchid is the album that best represented the Opeth's diverse influences and it is the rawest." You shoud state that this is an opinion of a writer on the Rocknworld website. On closer examination, s/he says it is arguably the rawest, not that it is. You should check all review sources to ensure the opinions of the writers are accurately presented in the article.
 * "Oath", as "The Twilight Is My Robe" used to be called, "is a satanic song. Like an oath to Satan." Who said this?
 * The high number of quotes in this section makes it difficult to read smoothly. Consider whether some of them can be paraphrased. For example, "He said also that "The Apostle in Triumph" "has a really nice melody" and lyrically, "it's a combination of nature and satanic worship"" can become "He also complimented the melody of "The Apostle in Triumph" and considered it to be lyrically "a combination of nature and satanic worship".
 * Release and reception
 * It's not clear where the 2000 Candlelight reissue was but it seems to imply the U.S. Can this be clarified?
 * "Some critics like Matt Smith of Maelstrom wrote that it is one of best Opeth albums". "Some critics" requires at least two opinions, otherwise it should just be "Critic Matt Smith of Maelstrom wrote that it is one of the best Opeth albums."
 * "Critical reaction to the album was mostly positive." Unnecessary repetition?
 * References
 * Ref 3 should have a page number if it is available.
 * This ref is from the main article: Opeth, and it doesn't have a page number.

I did some changes in the article, can you take a look on it? and thanks for your review. T.R.Elven (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)