Wikipedia:Peer review/Radiohead/archive3

Radiohead

I plan to resubmit the article for FA soon, so I'd be grateful for any improvements anyone could suggest.Atlantik (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several problems with non-free media in the article. I'll start tagging them with notices for work to be done. In brief, the fair use rationales don't explain why the audio samples are necessary and irreplaceable in this article per WP:NFCC#10c. A lot of non-free media also needs to be reduced in size. The free media could also be moved to commons. I know this is all very pedantic, but for FA we really need to organise our media properly. I'll try to review the text properly soon. Papa November (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Does Followmearound.com have permission to reprint myLaunchs articles? (ref 1) If not, the link should be removed (and be replaced with a magazine ref). I'm concerned at some of the quality of the sources as well. Who are myLaunch; are they a reliable source? CloudNine (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments More will be added as I think of them.

Remove all links to unlicensed reproductions of magazine articles on fan websites. That's infringing on copyright. Credit the sources just as if you were citing directly from the magazine.
This article is currently 70kb, making it the second-longest article under the scope of WikiProject Alternative Music. Try and make the prose of the article more concise. One suggestion is to remove the 'Solo work' section, as its tangential to the band itself. CloudNine (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need the chart positions in the Discography section (especially when chart positions in only two countries are listed). That's what the main Radiohead discography article is for. All you need to list are the studio albums and release dates. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just trimmed the discography section myself. CloudNine (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are some statistics to do with the page size, as the total can sometimes be misleading. Size (using User:Dr pda/prosesize.js) of this revision:

File size: 193 kB
Prose size (HTML): 58 kB
References (HTML): 67 kB
Wiki text: 68.4 KiB (10100 words)
Prose size (text only): 33 kB (5568 words)
References (text only): 9 kB

May be helpful. CloudNine (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Atlantik (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's some excellent work in this article. Here's some points that will beat it into shape for an FA nomination:

The opening paragraphs should follow the guidelines at WP:LEAD (3 paragraphs, concise, accessible, vital information only).
The "In Rainbows" discbox section could be either completely removed or put into the album's article if it isn't already there. Similarly, it's probably best to keep release details out of the lead because knowing they plan to release a discbox doesn't really give somebody who doesn't know the band at all a vital piece of information on them.
The article is looooooong. Go through the entire article and try to reword any parts that are expressed in too many words. Try to make things leaner and more concise.
~~Put the discography into a table format like other featured articles (The Smashing Pumpkins, Elliott Smith, John Frusciante)~~

Actually, the current trend (with many alternative music articles at least) is to keep the Discography section as simple as possible, and then save the detail for the main discography article. (see Pearl Jam, Frank Black etc.) Adding a tabled discography to the article would not reduce its length. CloudNine (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a point well-made, so I'll strike my suggestion. ;) - Phorque 15:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phorque (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]