| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted it to be thoroughly revised so that I could nominate it for a good article. I have tried to nominate it twice, but it failed to be upgraded. Not wanting to fail again, I've decided to ask for a peer review for this article. I've fixed many problems that was identified during the GA reviews (citations, references and expanding the "commercial" section) but I just want you guys to see if there are still more problems.
Thanks, Jal11497 (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Comments
- Let's start with References.
- References 71, 90, 99, 103, 145, 159, and 190 all come back dead on Checklinks. Are there archives of these pages available?
- I personally cannot access references 69, 82, and 215. This may be a problem on my end, or it may be a problem with the site itself.
- References 12, 28, 73, 91, 109, 127, 129, 142, 156, and 161 all throw redirect errors. Can you make the urls more direct?
- Reference 24, 155, 156, 157, and 161 are missing an access date.
- I see you cited some of the track listings, but not all of this - is there an album article-specific reason for this that I'm just not aware of?
- Images
- A lot of your images are missing alt text. Can you fix this? You may find WP:ALT to be helpful.
- This is more personal preference, but in many of your multiple image boxes, the images are different heights; it would be more aesthetically pleasing if they were all the same height within each box.
- Style
- but doesn't live up to their debut, Hybrid Theory (2000). should be expanded from the contraction into 'did not' or 'does not', or otherwise include it in a direct quote.
- There are numerous places, such as immediately after the style and composition heading, and in the singles section, where text is 'boxed' between two images or an image and another box. Is it possible to space the images out so this doesn't happen? --TKK bark ! 00:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)