This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, as with the 1952 list, I want to check up the quality of prose and also to get some assistance with finding references.
Thanks, 03md 00:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from TbhotchTalk C. 16:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Remember that per lead, this paragraph, of a list, summarize the entire article.
Some comments I can give are:
- The UK Singles Chart, compiled by the Official Charts Company,... -> Did you mean "The UK Singles Chart, compiled by the Official Charts Company,?
- Songs that entered the top 10 in 1992 but did not peak until 1993 are listed in a separate table and -> commas and WP:NUMBERS = Songs that entered the top ten in 1992, but did not peak until 1993, are listed in a separate table, and...
- ...table and in List of top 10 singles in 1993 (UK) and similarly... -> table and in the next year chart, and similarly
- songs that peaked in 1991 but remained in the chart are listed in List of top 10 singles in 1991 (UK). -> songs that peaked in 1991, but remained in the chart are listed in the previous year chart.
- I have changed your wording slightly and changed them in the article.
- different singles reached their peak -> maybe "topped the chart".
- "Reaching their peak" doesn't necessarily mean getting to the top of the charts.
- four singles recorded in 1991 and one that did not peak until 1993 also charted in the top 10 during the year. -> commas = four singles recorded in 1991, and one that did not peak until 1993, also charted in the top 10 during the year.
- ...1992 with four. -> ...1992, with four.
- Done.
Those are some comments. Also I recommend a copy-edit. TbhotchTalk C. 17:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
-
- Your Welcome. TbhotchTalk C. 16:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
