| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has the potential of being a GA. Like the previous PR for Mine Is Yours, the sections I'm worried about are Background and Inspiration. I'm wary if there should be more or if the latter section needs to be retitled. Other than that, I'm curious to see what I need to do if this article has a little ways to go before being a GA. I look forward to your comments on how I should tackle this article.
Thanks, ~~DepressedPer (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)~~
- It's very well-written, but there are a few very minor things that caught my eye on a cursory examination:
- Yesteryear links to a disambig, but it shouldn't.
- In the "Background" section it isn't clear enough that it's the band that's responding to the Pitchfork review as opposed to anyone/anything else.
- Also, if I'm remembering correctly you shouldn't use contractions if they're not part of a quote.
- The sentence "Amongst the thirteen tracks off the album, they deal with a variety of philosophies and politics that range from contemplating suicide, crisis of faith, anonymity, alienation, public security and job satisfaction." could be better worded, maybe to remove "amongst" and "they". Also, it should be cited because I'm not sure where these assertions come from. Jinkinson talk to me 22:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)