Wikipedia:Peer review/The Living End discography/archive1

The Living End 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 September 2008.
 * 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 September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because… i believe it has become very close to FA status, with some tips/someone else reviewing it needed before making it a FAC.

Thanks, kiac (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't done a peer review before, so take everything I say with a pinch of salt. Nonetheless here are some suggestions as to how you may improve the article. Hopefully they will be of some use to you.

Lead
 * There is some overlinking going on in the lead; I count two copies of The Living End, three links to ARIA chart and two "Second Solution/Prisoner of Society". I also do not feel you need to link to sophomore album or discography in this case. However you may want to link to single (music) and possibly the first instance of double A-side (note the capital A).
 * ✅ Discography always seems to be a necessity in discographies, they always say to add it in FAC conversations. I think sophomore is appropriate for those who may not know what sophomore means, it's not all that commonly used.


 * Some of the links in the lead go to redirects, try &#91;[studio albums]] → &#91;[studio album]]s


 * WP:MOSNUM suggests using numbers under ten as words in the body of an article. For this reason I am usually wary of writing "#1" and instead favour writing "number one". For consistency you should also use this for larger numbers, but can use digits in place of the number itself, for example "number 49".


 * With regards to double A-sides, note that WP:SLASH allows a spaced slash when one or both items has an internal space; for example "Second Solution / Prisoner of Society". This can be more readable but does require excessive piping if the articles are not similarly punctuated.
 * ✅ Never knew that, learn something new everday.


 * The lead of an article is meant to summarise its contents, as such the lead should not contain information pertaining to the history of the band unless it concerns a release. Information regarding lineups should probably be removed, and regarding the formation of the band should be kept minimal. Also, you do not generally need to state what a list does not include.
 * Fair point, i'll give it a working over.


 * "Their sophomore album release..." – Use either "Their sophomore album..." or "Their sophomore release..."

Body
 * Date autolinking is now deprecated per MOS:SYL and so all dates should be delinked if possible.
 * ✅ Autobot did it.


 * Are sales estimates really necessary when the certifications are given?
 * See, i'm not sure, but it's not like people know the significance of certifications, it might be of more value to just put a note somewhere, i'll check out how some featured discogs put it.


 * Again, avoid redirects where possible, such as NZ.
 * ✅ thankyou.


 * For the notes section use the and  templates to minimise the line spacing. Also, the notes should ideally be in their own section, or with reference in a section titled "Notes and references". See WP:FOOT.
 * Will look into it, thankyou.

That is all I can come up with right now. If you found my suggestions helpful, I would appreciate some feedback on another peer review I have opened. Good luck with the FLC – Ikara talk → 23:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not replying earlier, i totally forgot to watch the page and had no idea you had replied. Apologies. Thanks for the review, helped a lot. Hopefully i find time to do a review for yourself, again thankyou. kiac (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)