Wikipedia:Peer review/King James Version (album)/archive1

King James Version (album)

I've listed this article for peer review because… lol I had a random splurge of facts and information and I think I have got this page to B class. I want to get this to Good Article status to be satisfied enough. I have to work on formatting the credits section and check for the authorship of citations, but most of the article is pretty much sorted now. It's very close to being finished. Please check for: typos, nonsensical paragraphs, things that I may have missed/need to include, etc.

Thanks, Chchcheckit (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

Some comments after a quick skim:

• "Reception" section falls into the "X said Y" pattern and relies on quotes. I suggest reading WP:RECEPTION on how to format these sections.
• The last paragraph of "Commercial performance" does not feel like it belongs there, as it talks about the band's breakup and reuniting, not its commercial performance. It might be better in a Legacy or separate "After release" section.
• Legacy section suffers from "X said Y", and a lot of those comments seem like they belong in a "Reception" section. Legacy usually talks about an album's influence on future work or events, but this Legacy section talks more about the album's reception several years after its release.
• Do not have sources in all caps, per MOS:ALLCAPS
• New York Post might be challenged at a GAN, per WP:NYPOST
• I'm not sure Globecat will be accepted as I am unable to ascertain the credibility of the site's creators
• Ref 34 and 35 seem to be the same web page, so those refs should be merged.

If you are looking for someone to check for grammar, typos, and the like, I suggest submitting this to WP:GOCE. Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

thanks a lot! This is all really useful stuff!! I'll format stuff into "retrospective reception" and "aftermath" as it does fit the mold a lot better.

Also, I did want to say as well that there's an interesting detail with the Globecat Reference. The author (or one of the co-authors) is Evan Sawdey, who also appears to have written the PopMatters legacy article on the band. While this makes me uncertain on the status of the sources "credibility" I do understand the concerns you bring. I'll see.

New York Post was more of a filler citation and you're right; I will attempt to find a more credible source discussing the London-Sire merger.

Anyway, cheers; will get to this. Chchcheckit (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Things done since Peer Review:

1. The last paragraph of "Commercial performance" does not feel like it belongs there, as it talks about the band's breakup and reuniting, not its commercial performance. It might be better in a Legacy or separate "After release" section.

( has been reorganised and rewritten into an aftermath section)

2. Do not have sources in all caps, per MOS:ALLCAP

(sorted)

3. New York Post might be challenged at a GAN, per WP:NYPOST

(replaced NYPOST ref with more reliable source)

4. I'm not sure Globecat will be accepted as I am unable to ascertain the credibility of the site's creators

(debatable: the author in Globecat also features on Popmatters, also credited in wikipage, so his work precedes him)

5. Ref 34 and 35 seem to be the same web page, so those refs should be merged. (sorted)

To do:

1. "Reception" section falls into the "X said Y" pattern and relies on quotes. I suggest reading WP:RECEPTION on how to format these sections.

2. Legacy section suffers from "X said Y", and a lot of those comments seem like they belong in a "Reception" section. Legacy usually talks about an album's influence on future work or events, but this Legacy section talks more about the album's reception several years after its release.

////////

so yeah. Chchcheckit (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Things done since peer review (10/25/22):

1. More information added, many, many rewrites, reception has been appropriately formatted, and references have been dealt with accordingly.

2. Legacy section is still needing to be done

3. Composition needs some rewriting in lieu of new citations

/////

Chchcheckit (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)