Wikipedia:Peer review/Hell Below/Stars Above/archive1

Hell Below/Stars Above

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

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because… I have worked for, months for no reason on this outside of how I believe "just because Interscope fucked your album doesn't mean Wikipedia can". I guess. I've probably milked every piece of information about this album from the internet and the WayBack Machine as much as I can. I've covered nearly everything (albeit i need to do a little adding to commercial performance) and then it should be completely good to go with info. It currently stands at B-Class, but I am definitely aiming to get this to Good Article Status (possibly featured; I can try).

Please critique/peer review and look for: 1. Sentences/sections that may be unclear/do not make sense 2. Anything that may be vague or should be expanded upon 3. Formatting issues. I am aware some sections (i.e. the intro and Commercial performance) is in poor state and I will get to it; however, any constructive criticism on the article generally beyond the key points is very much welcomed here.

Thanks, Chchcheckit (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

Some comments after a quick skim:

"After the album's rejection, the band, who now faced writers' block and were generally unhappy with the album's "mechanical" production, decided to scrap Feeler completely." Needs a citation
"The artwork inside the fold-out liner notes contain an enlarged image of the front cover, with a combination of various words from the album's lyrics running through the middle." Needs a citation
I'm not sure the quote at the top of "Commercial performance" is encyclopedic, and suggest removing it or aligning it to the right.
"Upon its release, Hell Below/Stars Above received generally mixed reviews from critics." Needs a citation.
All web sources should have access dates.
Suggest archiving sources using this
All sources should include the author's name, if given.
Ref 23 and 49 appear to be the same
Ref 65 uses an sfn template but there's no reference section to point to, so it needs the full reference.

If you are planning on taking this is GAN and/or FAC, I suggest reviewing articles now at both of those locations. This will help you build goodwill among Wikipedia editors, causing your articles to get reviewed faster, and will help acquaint you with the GA and FA criteria. I hope these comments help. Z1720 (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will sort these out Chchcheckit (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]