| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need advice on the comprehensibility of the text, that should be encyclopedic but also simple enough to be easily understood. I also need help with the placing of the reference tags. Too few? Too many? Are some references missing? Please, let me know what you think.
Thanks, Lewismaster (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comments from Laser brain
- I feel that the text is comprehensive in terms of background, production, themes, reception, and so on, unless otherwise noted below.
- Overall your strategy for inline citations seems fine; I think you've created a good balance and provided a proper number of citations. There are a couple places where you could combine citations, such as when you've cited one page and then the next page. It's acceptable to cite a range of pages if you make a statement summarized from 2 pages.
- I found the Notes and References sections difficult to read as formatted. Recommend placing References after Notes, and using a multi-column format for your Notes section.
- Unfortunately you will have a long struggle demonstrating that the Swartz BOC FAQ is a reliable source per WP:RS. Since it is cited quite often, you should expect it to be challenged heavily if you attempt to attain GA or FA status for the article. Essentially, there is no indication of an editorial or fact-checking process on that site, and no indication of the credibility or authority of the author. You would need to produce at least 2-3 secondary reliable sources (books, magazines, journals) that refer to the BOC FAQ as reliable and authoritative.
- Attention is needed to the wikilinking strategy. Some plain English words such as "arcane" should be delinked per WP:OVERLINK.
- Take care when assigning literary genre labels such as "gothic" without attribution to an authoritative secondary source. I would consider neither Pearlman nor Popoff an authoritative source in this matter.
- The prose is in need of attention from a copy-editor with a strong command of English. I listed some random pot-shots from the Lead below, but the whole thing needs treatment. This would be a necessary step before the article would be ready for GA or FA status.
- "aptly subtitled 'a bedtime story for the children of the damned'" As this quotation comes from liner notes, who decided it was "aptly named"? It seems an editorial or critical comment that should be attributed to someone other than the album creators.
- This sentence is awkward: "For this fact the album is often considered not a real group effort, but more producer and lyricist Sandy Pearlman's project." I recommend "For this fact, the album is often considered less a real group effort and more a project of producer and lyricist Sandy Pearlman."
- "The album received some critical acclaim but no commercial success" Awkward; you wouldn't say that an album "received...commercial success".
- "cease the contract" is odd; recommend recasting as "end their contract" or similar.
- Why is Imaginos Tour in single quotes?
- "material of the album" is odd; "on the album" would be standard.
I hope these comments provide some direction. I don't want to provide a lot of micro-level comments about the prose until it is more polished. I would be happy to review the prose after it is copyedited. --Laser brain (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your review. I realize that the article still needs a lot of work for grammar and phrasing, but at this stage my concern was for it to be understandable, complete and with the right tone. Regarding the BOC FAQ, it is cited as a reliable source both by Popoff in his book and by the Blue Oyster Cult official website [1], so I relied on some information it reported. Most reviews that I checked on the Internet have references to that FAQ, which is the only online source giving a coherent and comprehensive summary of Imaginos' storyline and production process. I'll try to differentiate the sourcing and find more reliable ones, leaving the FAQ only as a source for the opinions expressed by the fans. I'll treasure your comments and I'd like to contact you again when the article will be in better shape for a GA attempt, if you will have patience and time to spend on it. Lewismaster (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've been re-working extensively the article about the album Imaginos that you started peer reviewing last week and now it should be more readable. If you have time and patience to have a look at my work and give me your opinion, it would be much appreciated. Thank you. Lewismaster (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)