Wikipedia:Peer review/System of a Down 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've listed this article for peer review because the lead section certainly is not good, and need to be improved. I need "others eyes" to take a look. Layout suggestions are welcome too.
Thanks, Cannibaloki 03:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments:
This article seems to stick quite closely to the style and format of the abundant featured list discographies. As you suspected there were numerous problems in the lead, but these were mainly of a minor kind, such as comma violations, grammatical slips, redundant or repeated words, etc. I have fixed all these; you had better check it out to make sure I haven't inadvertently altered any meanings.
A few general points:
- According to the lead, the group's debut (eponymous) album topped the Heatseekers chart. In the Studio albums chart its peak U.S. chart position is shown as 124. Can this be right?
- I chose the number 1 on the Heatseekers chart, because is better than 124.
- I think, then, you need to explain what the Heatseekers chart actually is. Excuse my ignorance, but an album that only reaches 124 in the US charts gets certified platinum? What's going on here? Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- I re-wrote this whole part, take a look. Cannibaloki 06:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think, then, you need to explain what the Heatseekers chart actually is. Excuse my ignorance, but an album that only reaches 124 in the US charts gets certified platinum? What's going on here? Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- I chose the number 1 on the Heatseekers chart, because is better than 124.
- Is there a reason why the "Sugar" song gets no mention in the lead (all the other singles do)?
- Added.
- In the tables, I am curious to know why these particular 10 countries are represented rather than others. For example there is no United Kingdom, although the UK is mentioned in the lead and in the certification column. Likewise Brazil is mentioned in the certifications.
- First see MOS:DISCOG; Brazil has no chart, and the UK chart positions are very low and irrelevant in this case.
- I don't know what you're referring me to MOS:DISCOG for. Why are UK chart positions irrelevant? Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- In the case of multiple-charts, "comprehensive" does not necessarily mean an exhaustive list of countries and charts the artist has charted on. A limit of approximately 10 separate charts is suggested, using any combination of country, component, or competing charts. There is no set inclusion criteria for which charts should and shouldn't be included, but a good rule of thumb is to go by the relative success of the artist on that chart.
- I don't know what you're referring me to MOS:DISCOG for. Why are UK chart positions irrelevant? Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- First see MOS:DISCOG; Brazil has no chart, and the UK chart positions are very low and irrelevant in this case.
- Would it be a good idea to say, in the lead, when the band ceased to function, which from the dates I assume it has?
- Sorry, I forgot.
That's about all, really. I hope this has helped. Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
(later) The impression I have is that the charts will only really be understood by people in the know. People not in the know may struggle to make sense of it. But perhaps its just me. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Um, I think only you. Anyway, I re-added the charts due a large empty space on the page. Cannibaloki 06:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)