| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I was going to work on it for an FA and I thought that a peer review will be better to know the weakness about the article. I want a peer review that will help in developing the article for FA. I will also take assistance of the main contributor IllaZilla, but also a peer review will be helpful too.
Thanks, TheSpecialUserTalkContributions 04:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Comments
- Most FAs have no refs in the lead these days, the point being that everything in the lead should be expanded upon (and therefore linked) in the main part of the article.
- "has sold 1,005,000 copies " a little too precise for my liking here, perhaps "over one million copies" and then "more than four million worldwide".
- "Later that year, it was confirmed that the band worked ..." since this is placed chronologically when Vig was still working, wouldn't it be better to say "it was confirmed that the band was working ...."?
- "2009 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Championship " worth a link? Particularly to us non-US sports types who don't know the significance of such a game.
- You link vinyl but not CD, why not?
- " at #1 on " avoid hash per WP:HASH.
- Please make all tables comply with MOS:DTT with regard to row and col scopes. This will allow screen reader software to access the tables.
- Album awards, results column, not sure why "won" and "nominated" are in lower case.
- Where is the release of the non-charting "Last of the American Girls" referenced?
- Certifications table, the "summaries" row shouldn't sort with all the others.
- Looks like there are a few marked dead links.
- There's dmy and mdy date formats mixed in the refs, would pick one (probably mdy for a USEng article) and stick with it.
- Ref 60 is a little oddly formatted and points at a blog.
- Check all refs have all the relevant fields, like accessdate etc.