Wikipedia:Peer review/Ipecac Recordings discography/archive1
- 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'm listing this article for peer review as I think it could go to WP:FLC. There's only one other record-label discography at featured-status, so it would be nice to set a precedent. Any and all advice, help, and criticism is greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Seegoon (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I have not particpated in WP:FLC mush lately, so I am not sure these are valid points, but here are some suggestions for improvement.
- I think the one sentence initial paragraph in the lead is too short and should either be combined with the second lead paragraph or expanded. The MOS generally frowns on one sentence paragraphs.
- Removed – I think it was a fairly self-evident point anyway.
- To my FAC eyes, the article seems under-referenced. The first External link looks like the source of the list itself, but the discography does not have a ref. Items in the lead that are not in the table itself should also be referenced (some are, but others like the that fact that they also release books) are not.
- I'm not quite sure how to tackle this. Should I simply add a note (as opposed to a reference) to mention which release was a book?
- Second sentence of the lead is not grammatically correct, suggest either splitting it or perhaps something like The label was created to release Mike Patton's band Fantômas' self-titled début,[1] while retaining "all the creative control",[2] and to satisfy the Melvins' – friends of Werckman and Patton's – need for a label. Since this is an American label, I changed "whilst" to "while"
- I've tried to retool this information. I truly drew a blank; they'd ceased to be words to me!
- Avoid words like "Currently" - use thing like "As of 2009" instead (currently soon becomes no longer current).
- I think I've sorted this one.
- I would explain more obscure terms like 7" somewhere.
- Hmm. In a sortable table, it might be seen as odd to pipe links only on their first instance. But I'd have no qualms about it, and I think you're right that these things need glossing. Do you have a suggestion?
- Be consistent on spacing - does a slash "/" have a space after it as in "CD/ book" or not "CD/LP"? (I think a space before and after the slash looks best, not sure what the MOS says).
- Standardised. I don't know what the MOS says either, but any grievances will undoubtedly be aired at FLC one day.
- Any free images of the bands the label represents that could be added?
- There are a few available. Do you think I should just stick one underneath the current image of Patton? Maybe if they were each a little smaller...
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 ><>°° 21:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. I'll swing by the backlog at some point by way of thanks. I used to love this place! Seegoon (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have seen several lists like this that were not as wide as the full screen with photos along the right side - I imagine that would work here. I have also seen lists that have a key, but I wonder if a sentence or two added to the lead might not work better, something "The label has released media in a variety of formats including compact disc (CD), 7 inch single (7"), ... and even a CD / book combination." (working from memory here). If the only book is the CD / book in the table already, then I think the current lead and ref is OK. Finally, could there be a sentence or a note that said something like "This discography is based on the official Ipecac Recordings catalog. with the EL as a ref? Welcome back, by the way, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)