Wikipedia:Peer review/Lions (album)/archive1

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's dang close to meeting the featured article criteria but want the opinion of someone not involved in writing it.


Thanks, Zeagler (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

indopug
  • I'll look at the rest later but what makes crowesbase.com a reliable sources? Looks like a fansite to me.
  • Both those videos need to go per WP:NFCC #8. An image of them playing at Letterman is not a significant addition to prose in any way. The music video is more suited for the song's article (where you would discuss the music videos, not here)
  • Why are there two refs after Audly Freed's name in the Personnel section? The section is self referential to the CD itself so you don't need a reference normally. indopug (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was speculation that his actual contribution to the album was nothing more than "watched from the sidelines", so I found references where his contributions are discussed. —Zeagler (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giggy
  • In the pro reviews part of the infobox, if you don't have a URL, just put some publication details there instead (ie. no need for refs).
    • Can you point me towards some articles where this is done so I can see the formatting?
  • The music sample needs a better description (one that actually says something about what it contains) and would look better on the right.
    • Done.
  • An FAC could have concerns over the use of fair use imagery (like, do you need both of those images.... do they add anything?).
    • Will beef up the fair use rationales.
  • And with having more than 1 audio sample, same again...
  • The 1 star NME review isn't mentioned anywhere in the prose. Why not?
    • In general the reception could be longer.
      • The NME review isn't mentioned because I recently found a number of reviews (thanks in part to the Internet Archive) and added them to the infobox at the expense of reviews that only had references. I'll incorporate them into the critical reception section. —Zeagler (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

giggy (:O) 04:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 00:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)