Wikipedia:Peer review/Ladyhawke discography/archive1

Ladyhawke discography

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I think it is well on the way to meeting the FL criteria, and would like some direction and tips on what can/needs to be improved.

Thanks, Adabow (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This list seems to conform to the patterns I see by looking at a few random samples of lists at WP:FL#Artist discographies. The prose is fine. The lead image is good. I have a small number of suggestions about things that might cause objections or raised eyebrows at FLC. Here they are.

Lead

Rather than linking "self titled" to Ladyhawke (album), I'd suggest linking "debut album" to Ladyhawke (album). Otherwise readers may assume that the link is meant to explain the phrase "self-titled". Also, self-titled needs a hyphen.

Studio albums

Would it be helpful to add a note explaining what "US Heat." means? Why not just "US"?
I see that at least some FL discography articles include sales in dollars. See Pearl Jam, for example. Would it be possible to add sales figures like this to the table in this section?

Other appearances

"These songs have not appeared on a studio album released by Ladyhawke." - Would it be better to re-phrase this to make clear that the listed songs are ones that she has sung but which have not appeared on a studio album. Otherwise a reader may smile at the thought of a complete list of songs that have not appeared on her albums. Such a list would include all the songs by Johnny Cash, for example.

References

Citation 19 is incomplete.
In citation 20, the "Etcetera" is puzzling to me. Is that the name of the publisher? Also, what is PNAU? Would spelling it out make the meaning more clear?
Citation 12 links to a web site rather than directly to the PDF file that is being cited. I'd be inclined to link directly.
Citation 11 links to "Radioscope" rather than a page with the title you use.
I didn't check every link, but in general the citation data should match exactly what the source supports; that is, the title should be the actual title and the publisher the actual publisher.

Other

The image needs alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One comment from Belovedfreak

I was just wondering why the lead sentence introduces Ladyhawke as "an electropop singer originally from New Zealand" - this is a bit wordy and vague and implies something complicated regarding her nationality. Why not simply "a New Zealand electropop singer"?--Beloved Freak 10:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article even exist?

This may seem a strange response to a peer review request, but I see it as rather ridiculous that this discography is a separate article. Ladyhawke is still a relatively short article - it's hardly like The Beatles or Genesis (band) where a separate discography article is necessary to keep sizes manageable. Forcing users to load another page to see fundamental information about an artist is really unhelpful. Furthermore, I think a merged article would have a good shot a GA status. Separately, no chance. dramatic (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]