Wikipedia:Peer review/Nevermind/archive1

Nevermind

Question: Can we get Nevermind by Nirvana to FA-status before the album's 30th anniversary, and have it featured on the front page on September 24, 2021?

Recently I've been thinking about the fact that in less than two months, Nevermind will celebrate its 30th anniversary. When I browsed the article a couple months back, I was surprised that the article had never elevated to Featured Article status, let alone gotten on the front page of this website. As one of the most significant recordings in the history of popular music (and also coming from a self-admitted fan of the album), I feel that this album deserves to have its article featured on the front page on its upcoming anniversary. While I admittedly haven't contributed to the article yet, I was wondering what this article needs in order to get to FA-status in these two months. Would it be nearly impossible for this to happen in two months? The article at the very least has maintained its Good Article status for over a decade, and quickly glancing through the references, there aren't any unreliable sources I could note. But anyway, what do you guys think? Is it feasible or unreasonable to bring this article to FA status by September?

Also sorry if my comment's a bit too long, this is my first peer review.

Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Wetrorave

One of the most memorable albums of all time, but it doesn't need to be an FA to be on the main page. In case you want it to be shown on the main page in the exact day that the album was released, see WP:OTD (On this day).

I'll mostly focus on the lead/infobox and last sections, along with other miscellaneous comments of anything that stands out. A good read before FAC is WP:RECEPTION.

Lead and infobox

• At the Recording parameter of the infobox, where is it stated on the body of the article that the album was recorded in April 1991? There's some info about that month on the Background section, but not on the Recording one
• Remove Nirvana from the Producer parameter since it's redundant; it's already stated that Nevermind is a "studio album by Nirvana"
• Where is it stated on the body that "Come As You Are", "Lithium", and "In Bloom" were released on the dates that are listed on the infobox?
• "radio-friendly" – maybe link to radio edit?
• "Nevermind features" → "The album features" for less repetition of the album's title
• "and is therefore considered a significant departure from their debut album, Bleach." → "being considered a significant departure from their debut album, Bleach (1989).", however I don't see where Nevermind being considered a departure from Bleach is mentioned on the body
• "to sound like" – maybe a bit informal; perhaps change to just "to be"?

Track listing

• Even though WP:TRACKLISTING states that this section "does not need explicit citation", I still think it's helpful to use {{Cite AV media notes}} here

Personnel, charts/certifications and See Also

• All of them look good

References

Nearly all of the below changes are per Template:Cite web suggestions, which follow WP:MOS. I've checked through the first half of them; I'll check the second half soon.

• Some of the wikilinks don't make sense, e.g. Rolling Stone is linked on ref 48 but not on ref 3; if you're in doubt about this, or if putting the links in a correct order would be too much work, I recommend following MOS:REFLINK, where one basically just links all publication/author names regardless of repetition
• Remove all .com's from publication names, so e.g. "gibson.com" → "Gibson" and "Sun-Sentinel.com" → "Sun Sentinel"
• Cite Gibson on the first ref as a website/work
• On ref 4, capitalise "the" of "the Guardian"
• Ref 10 should be fixed, since it is a "permanent dead link"
• Cite Radio X of ref 38 as a publisher, since it's a radio station
• Ref 40 is without publication name
• Cite AllMusic on ref 63 as publisher
• Ref 67 has a syntax error
• On ref 94, Acclaimed Music should be cited as publisher
• Ref 100 lacks publication name
• Pitchfork on ref 102 should be cited as website/work
• Grammy on ref 109 should be cited as publisher

External links

• "at YouTube" should be "on YouTube"

Misc

• Wikilink Smart Studios to Smart Studios in "Release", like done on the infobox
• Wikilink dissonant of "dissonant guitar riffs" to Consonance and dissonance in "Music", like done on the lead
• Remove the "clarification needed" on Background, since it's pretty obvious that Vig was the one who gave the interview; Nirvana is not even mentioned at the same sentence

That's my review for now. I wouldn't say it's impossible for the article to gain the Featured status before September 24, but it's unfortunately unlikely. However, as I said above, the article doesn't need to be Featured to be on the main page. Wetrorave (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wetrorave: Well, thank you so much for the review... and I really should've replied to this a couple weeks ago (but then again, I should've requested a peer review of Nevermind several months ago so that these issues could have been fixed by now). I guess for now I could try to fix some of these aforementioned issues, like some of the references via MOS:REFLINK and the "clarification needed" tag, but if the article can't attain the FA rating by the 24th of next month, then I'll settle for an On This Day feature on the homepage instead. I would still like for this article to rise to FA-status anyway to celebrate its 30th anniversary regardless of whether or not it reaches the front page on the 24th; I think this article has sustained its GA status long enough. Maybe later I'll ping some of the editors on the Nevermind talk page to help me as well; I'm also a bit new to the whole "GA/FA" thing so I think having more experienced editors here would help improve this article a lot more.

Also, another issue that arose recently is the debacle surrounding the album cover, namely Spencer Elden suing the band for the cover being taken without his consent. I wonder if that would significantly affect the status of the article now; for the most part it looks like other editors did make sure to carefully write that section up however.

Anyway, once again thanks for your help. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It's ok to not answer me in a short Time PantheonRadiance. Time is often a rare resource in today's exponentially evolving World.

About the album cover, I don't think it's gonna be affected (at least on this website). Even though Wikipedia is of course very popular, individual articles are far less popular, especially articles of not-so-recent media like Nevermind. Wetrorave (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@PantheonRadiance: are you still working on these comments, or can we close this PR? Z1720 (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: Sadly, yes, I'm done. I originally thought I would have time to fix parts of the article when Wetrorave gave his feedback, but school and other projects have kept me from revising the article, along with realizing that it probably wouldn't become an FA in time for its 30th anniversary. Perhaps another person who wants to make this article FA may use this peer review as guidance. Otherwise, I'm done with the review. You may officially close it. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review Sidebar

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your user page to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)