Wikipedia:Peer review/Paramore discography/archive1

Paramore discography
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I had a lot or work with it recently and I think - based on past experiences as a nominator of discographies for FAC - it's ready to be promoted. But, before nominating it for FAC, I wanted to start a peer review for it. Also, there's only a thing I need help - I'm not good on doing the alt text main image of the article.

Thanks, Decodet (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I have reviewed the article and there isn't much wrong with it that I can see. The only major problem I have found is that the introduction contains information which is not referenced. This is an important part of the article therefore it should be referenced. Another (very minor) thing is that where it says ""—" denotes singles that did not chart or were not released in that territory", it should be part of the chart tables placed at the very bottom rather than in the "Notes" section. See the Bon Jovi discography article to see what I mean.


 * Good work! :) Savvi72 (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added references to the lead. About ""—" denotes singles that did not chart or were not released in that territory", some FAC have told me in the past that it could be in the table itself or in the "Notes" section, so I don't think it's a major problem. Thanks a lot for your review! Decodet (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 Cr im so nF ox  talk 00:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ref 22 has the date with the year at the end instead of the beginning
 * Image needs alt text

Finetooth comments: I added the missing alt text. It's just a matter of describing the essence of the image to someone who can't see it. WP:ALT has details. Otherwise, I have only three suggestions.
 * Thanks for your support! My first language is not English and I'm still not fluent on it, so description for me is something a little bit difficult. Decodet (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead
 * "In 2009, the band released their third studio album Brand New Eyes, which ended to debut and peak at number two in the US" - "Which ended to debut and peak at number two" doesn't seem to make sense. "End" and "debut" are usually opposites.
 * Switched "ended" to "managed". Does it sound better? Decodet (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Heads
 * Instead of repeating "albums" in the subheads under "Albums", I'd shorten two of them to "Studio" and "Live".
 * Done! Decodet (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

References
 * The date formatting in the citations needs to be internally consistent. Either yyyy-mm-dd format or m-d-y is OK but not a mixture of the two.
 * Done! Decodet (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope these few comments prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your review! I think I'm now ready for a FAC. I'll nominate it after the end of this peer review. Decodet (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Be sure to nominate it as a Featured List and not a Featured Article. Discography pages are considered to be lists. :) Savvi72 (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)