Wikipedia:Peer review/Crocodiles (album)/archive1

Crocodiles (album)

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 May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've substantially added to it and would like to get it to GA.

Thanks, JD554 (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

A model article is often useful for ideas to follow on structure, style, refs, etc. There are many album FAs at [[1]] that should give some useful ideas.

The lead seems a bit sparse, although it does cover pretty much all of the major topics in the article.

Article gould use a copyedit, for example I think "by" should be "from" in The album received favourable reviews by the music press, receiving four out of five stars by both Rolling Stone and Blender magazines. and The LP did not include two tracks, "Do It Clean" and "Read It in Books", which were recorded for the album[,] because the managing director of Warner Bros., Rob Dickens, thought that they contained swear words – although they were included on the cassette version of the album.[2] this sentence should probably be broken into two sentences. Without the comma I added [,] in brackets, it reads as if two tracks were recorded because the director thought they contained obscenities (which seems a better word choice than "curse words"). Perhaps it could be something like Two tracks, "Do It Clean" and "Read It in Books", were included on the cassete but initially omitted from the LP version of the album because the managing director of Warner Bros., Rob Dickens, thought that they contained obscenities.

Fixed. "Obscenities" was the word I was looking for but my mind had gone blank, thanks! --JD554 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally has good references but a few places still need them: Dickens realised his error and the tracks were included on the American version of the album, which was released by Sire Records on December 17, 1980. The two tracks were included with the UK release as a limited edition single.

The reference for that paragraph already covers this. --JD554 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I would move the reference to the end of the paragraph to make that clearer. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The album was first released on CD in May 1989 by WEA in the UK. It was released on CD in the US by Sire Records the following year, 1990. The track-listings of these versions were the same as the original LP releases for each country.

It's not necessary to reference all release dates. --JD554 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and Scottish band Idlewild covered the track "Rescue" on their single "These Wooden Ideas" in June 2000.

Reference added --JD554 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Fixed. {{Cite web}} had been used where necessary anyway. --JD554 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found the Background and recording section difficult to follow. Since this was band's debut album, I think it would be useful to give a few sentences on how they formed and came to their label and to making this album.

Expanded and (hopefully) clarified. --JD554 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the information on the album cover, but it seems odd that there is more information in that section than in the Background and recording or Music sections - these should be expanded if possible.

Background and recording expanded. I've included the limited sources I was able to find for the music section so I've combined it with the Cover section so it doesn't look as odd. --JD554 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is a free picture of Ian McCulloch performing in concert on Commons, why not include it?

WP:IMAGE#Pertinence and encyclopedicity states that "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significantly relative to the article's topic." I'm not sure that a picture of Ian McCulloch singing in 2005 or 2006 is significantly relative to a 1980 studio album. --JD554 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason the Notes could not be one section instead of two?

No particular reason. But it does seem to be a method used on FA class album articles such as Anodyne (album) and Be Here Now (album). --JD554 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out for short paragraphs as they break up the flow of the article. I also wonder if the short Covers section could not be combined with another section as it is only two sections.

Yeah, I wasn't too keen on that section. I've moved it to the end of the Releases section. --JD554 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it certainly did help. Thanks for your thoughts, --JD554 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it was helpful - I am not as familiar with music style, so apologies for any incorrect suggestions Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]