Wikipedia:Peer review/Skunk Anansie discography/archive1

Skunk Anansie discography

 * 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 July 2009.
 * 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 July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I nominated for FL status but was not successful. After taking all pointers made into account I would like to please renominate but make a peer review first.

Thanks, Marcus Bowen (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I see you have worked hard to incorporate the suggestions of the failed FL. I wish you'd have another look at the text; portions might be written more clearly. I had a go at one or 2 places. There seems to be no reason why Album names are italic and singles names aren't. I fear I've ventured into a content area where I am extremely stupid, but I enjoyed discovering a little about this band and its output. THanks. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: As far as I can tell, this is fine with the exception of a few fairly minor problems. I fixed one misspelling and changed one number from a word to digits for consistency. I hasten to add that I have never written a music article, and I'm not an expert on how the charts are to be done or exactly what's expected.


 * Noticing User:Nemonoman's comment about italics, I will confirm that album names should be in italics and singles' names in double quotes, and I believe you've got them right. This follows the general pattern of small things like short stories in quotes and big things like novels in italics. WP:MOS has a list of which gets which.


 * Should IFPI be spelled out as well as abbreviated in the lead?
 * Some of the citations are incomplete. For internet sources, it's best to add author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date or as many of those as possible. For example, citation 1 lacks the date of publication, which is given as 20 September 2008 by the source. Citation 2, which cites a book, could include the publisher, Cidermill Books, and the place of publication, San Jose, Calif. It takes a while to hunt this stuff down, but the idea is to make it easy for fact-checkers and researchers to find the material. I find it very handy sometimes to look at other people's sources before spending a lot of time starting from scratch. In other words, you are doing a service by producing a bibliography.


 * WP:MOSNUM says in part, "Dates in article references should all have the same format." For a UK-centric article they can either be all d-m-y or yyyy-mm-dd. What you have now is a mixture of the two. You need to choose one format and make all the dates in the reference section conform to it. It can be the same format used in the main text, but it does not have to be.


 * The link checker finds three dead links in the citations. You can run this program on any article. It lives here and will show you which links are dead. They will have to be fixed or replaced by other reliable sources.


 * Good news. The dab checker here found no disambiguation problems.


 * More good news. The image and its license look fine to me.

I hope these few comments are helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, preferably a music article or other article in the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)