Wikipedia:Peer review/Year Zero (album)/archive1

Year Zero (album)
This has been looking like a very good article. I want to sumbit it as a good article candidate, but it has failed the criteria once already. So I'd like it to be reviewed before submission.

Cheers,

-- Reaper  X  03:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * At a quick glance, it appears to me that none of the suggestions from the GA review have actually been addressed. That seems like the most obvious place to start, as all of the suggestions there are very good ones, at least in my opinion. Drewcifer 04:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually some have been addressed. Lead has been expanded, release dates sorted out, the Promotion section has been redone (so issues with USB drives and Radio subsections were dealt with during that), and a critical response section has been started, and I plan to expand it. -- Reaper   X  05:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, either way, I'd stil like to help out. Here's a few things I've noticed. I'll try and keep adding more stuff as I find the time. Hope this stuff helps. Let me know if you have an questions. Drewcifer 04:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Drewcifer 18:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * One release date should be in the infobox (the earliest). The flags won't be neccessary if you do that.
 * Alot of the article reads like proseline and recentism.
 * I think the USBM section is kind of unnecessary. The important points could be summarized in a single sentence and put in the promotion section. Along the same lines, the link to the Patriot Act is semi-Original research, and I'd just take it out.
 * Same thing with the thermo-chrome section: could be condensed into a single setnence and put in a better section. The second paragraph of the sentence is especially unnecessary.
 * Same thing with the leak section. Goes into too much detail - it includes information that all but the most hardcore NIN fan wouldn't care about.
 * The intro doesn't summarize the article. It also introduces content that isn't in the article itself (such as the block quote).
 * Alot of the ARG-related stuff could be linked. Such as websitse, phone numbers, organization names, etc.
 * The first sentence of Themes is awful.
 * "doesn't sound like With Teeth" doesn't imply anything to do with lyrical style, nor does "shift in direction".
 * Critical Reception section should be dramatically expanded.
 * The prose in the track listing section is unnecessary. Does anyone actually care about the mini-site and the way it revealed the tracks?  And, related question, is it verifiable?
 * it would probably be worth going into a bit of detail about the film/tv project. You can add a main article link to the main YZ ARG page's section on that, as well as steal a bit of content from the page.
 * Trim down the charts section. Add sources to the ones you keep.
 * Don't link to blogs (http://blogs.courant.com/eric_danton_sound_check/2007/04/year_zero.html) or forums (http://www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=46325). Both of these examples are citations for stuff I recommended deleting anyways, so that might take care of itself.
 * Check all the references. this, for example, doesn't tell me anything about anything.
 * Change the leetspeak in the intro. Again, this isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article.
 * The writing of the article is generally pretty poor. I don't think this is anyone's fault, since this article has gotten alot of attention from alot of different authors. A very thorough copyedit is definitely needed.
 * The stuff about the vinyl artwork is unnecessary and (I presume) unverifiable/unsourceable.
 * In general, I'd recommend not putting in-line citations in the middle of sentence, unless a particular phrase is very surprising or significant. In those cases, if such facts are indeed so important, they might warrant their own sentence anyways.
 * The mention of Reznor's opinion of emo comes out of nowhere. I'd say either delete it or lead up to it a little better.
 * Take out the NIN Wiki link.


 * I've crossed out the items I have or have tried to take care of, and added ref notes to some I wish to argue with. Cheers.


 * -- Reaper  X  06:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good to see some improvements have been made, good work so far. To respond to your concerns:
 * a link between the Beareau of Morality is completely an association based on opinion. And, in this case, only one person's opinion.  Since that's a pretty broad association to make, I would either avoid it altogether, or at the very least attribute the opinion to whoever is making it.  Taking it out is, in my opinion, highly preferable, since your basically expressing the opinion of an individual in an article where individual interpretations aren't really necessary or expected.  But, since you're aiming only for GA status at the moment, either route would be fine.
 * As for YZ ARG linking, i'd recommend linking USBM, the phone numbers, and any websites mentioned. You'd have to do this via article subsections, using the article name, a pound sign, and the subsection, i.e. Bureau of Morality or Exterminal
 * The film/tv project section looks fine.
 * Also, although you checked off the bullet point above, the references still need to be checked and cleaned up alot. For example, check on #1 (check archive.org for an archived version, and if you find one follow the format of citation #25), #22 (dead, check for archive), #32 (three external links?  There should only be one, to the source itself), #33 (same), #34 (no publisher), #35 (just a link), and #45 (not sure what's up with that).  Also, all instances of similar publishers should be consistent: of example all cases of theninhotline.net should have "The NIN Hotline" as the publisher value, same with the few instances of Rolling Stone.
 * Drewcifer 21:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 13:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)