Wikipedia:Peer review/LCD Soundsystem discography/archive1

LCD Soundsystem discography

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like input on how I can make this a Featured List soon.

Thanks, What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire. 06:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments certainly a good start.

"consists of 3 studio albums, 2 extended plays..." would write all these numbers as words, even eighteen and fourteen. Just makes for more elegant prose.
I often recommend that we link "discography" too.
"The band first gained attention when it released the single "Losing My Edge" on his own DFA label..." The band... his label... Who is "his" here?
You link stuff like "disco" but not "indie".
Link "certified" in the lead.
" stated that he just wanted to make" unless you directly quote him lose the "just".
Shouldn't full length be full-length in "full length album"?
" of the Billboard 200" normally " of the Billboard 200".
"spawned 3 singles" three.
The 2010 album final cell of the table appears to be missing.
Where are the two non-charting EPs referenced?
Where are the remix albums referenced?
And the heading in that table shouldn't be "EP details" should it?
Where are the first three singles referenced?
Don't mix date formats in the refs.
Check WP:DASH in the ref titles (e.g. ref 30)

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire. 06:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Michael Jester

Is there a photo that will show the other members of the band?
"The album was certified gold in the UK,[5] but failed to chart on the US Billboard 200.[6]" no comma needed after UK
Italicize 45:33
"LCD Soundsystem's second full-length album, Sound of Silver, was released to extremely positive reviews from critics,[8] and peaked at number 46 on the Billboard 200." No comma needed after critics.
A big problem here is that the tables do not fit WP:ACCESS. The tables should use !scope="row" and !scope="col", as well as other things. Take a peek at WP:DISCOG and look at their table. It doesn't have to be exactly from there.
Abbreviations in the certification column should be from the provider (e.g. UK should be BPI)
In the tables, you have wikilinks like Fin and NZ, but they should really link to Fin and NZ—the chart itself or the chart provider.
I'd consider removing the US Heatseekers and Internet charts, since a majority of the albums have charted on the Billboard 200
Live albums table: is there a need for two references to show one chart position?
What does NA mean in the music videos table?
En-dash needed for ref#9. Same ref also have a different date system than the other refs.
Ref #22: Official Charts Company -> Official Charts Company; no italics needed

—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 20:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but are the tables okay now? What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire. 01:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]