Wikipedia:Peer review/List of number-one indie hits of 2009 (UK)/archive1

List of number-one indie hits of 2009 (UK) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I recently expanded this article and a couple more, and was hoping for some feedback on it, so that maybe one day it could reach FL status. I was hoping for comments on these sections:

At the moment, the article cites about 51 editions of two different magazines. I used a different citation for each edition (as they obviously each have a different issue number and publication date), but that seems a little inelegant. Is there any simpler way to achieve this, that would take up less space? Possibly using Template:Sfn?
For subsequent mentions of Dizzee Rascal, how should he be referred? "Rascal"? "Dizzee"? "Dizzee Rascal"? "Mills"? WP:LASTNAME suggests that it should "Dizzee", but I'm not sure.
Are the images suitable? The one for Alva Academy looks a bit out of place, but it was the only one that I could find.
Does the lead need to be expanded?
I'd like to use this site to verify that songs like "Bonkers" and "Sweet Disposition" achieved silver certification, but there seems to be no way to link to a search result - only the search page itself. Is there anyway round that?

Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Seems to have all the needed information but needs some MOS and image fixes, here are some suggestions for improvement.

There are two images were are not free, but are WP:FAIR USE (the logos for Alva Academy and Liverpool Football Club). I do not think that the use of these images in this artilce meets WP:NFCC - how does it increase the reader's understanding of the hits to see the logos?
If the non-free images are used in the article, they each need a fair use justification on the image's page (see these for examples, but as I mentioned above, there does not seem any justification for using them here.
I think that the refs coould be simplified - I owuld list the general periodical information at the bottom, below the other, individual references. So the first type of repeated ref could be something like "The Official UK Indie Charts". (385): 15. 4 January 2009." and the general ref could be "The Official UK Indie Charts". ChartsPlus (UKChartsPlus) 2009."
Similarly the second type of repeated ref could be something like "Jones, Alan (10 January 2008). Williams, Paul. ed. "Charts sales". Music Week (10.01.09)" and the general ref could be "Jones, Alan. Williams, Paul. ed. "Charts sales". Music Week (London: CMP). ISSN 0265-1548. OCLC 60620772."
The DIzzee Rascal article refers to him as "Dizzee after first mention - in the table, I would spell out "Dizzee Rascal" each time though
The Lead seems OK to me - should not be more than four paragraphs anyway per WP:LEAD
I think you can give the website and say what search term to use - for an example see Ref 1 in Clemuel Ricketts Mansion "NPS Focus: Search page" (Enter: Ricketts, Clemuel, Mansion). National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/. Retrieved April 11, 2010."
Seems OK to me otherwise - assume you have compared it to other recent FLs that are about similar topics (number one hits lists for a recent year, preferably in the UK).

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]