Wikipedia:Peer review/Bohemian Rhapsody/archive3

Bohemian Rhapsody

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

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 January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it an FA and I would like some feedback on it before nominating. Is there anything seriously wrong? Are thee enough refs? Thanks, TopGearFreak 14:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a and ask someone to copyedit it before going to FA. As I wrote some of this, the prose will be far from perfect, and some people love displaying their perceived superiority by pointing that out in aggressive terms. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to reliable sources. Forums and fan pages are not reliable sources, and there's no way they would pass at FA. The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table of chart positions should be in alphabetical order (see Wikipedia:Record charts), and I think they should be sourced to reliable sources on every one of them.Frcm1988 (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting sources, but looks better in order of peak position rather than alphabetical order. And I didn't see anything anout alphabetical order. TopGearFreak 14:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]