Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Title TK/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Title TK

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to nominate it for FA and would like to get feedback first, to catch any issues before then. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that I will be taking up this review. I just got back home after a long day, so I'll be taking a look at this sometime tomorrow. Famous Hobo (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Title TK is the third studio album by the American band the Breeders, released in May 2002. Can you say what the band's musical genre is, even if it's as broad as "the American rock band Breeders". It gives the reader an idea of what to expect.
  • The group's second album, Last Splash, came out in 1993. In the following years, various band members left, and by 1997, singer and songwriter Kim Deal was the only regular member remaining. The sentence about Last Splash feels a bit out of place, try "In the years following the release of the group's second album Last Splash in 1993, various band members..."
  • Title TK generated three singles. It may be a good idea to list them out here.
  • Done the above three. I had thought before about specifying the three singles in the lead, but I hesitated because they are mentioned in the infobox right beside that. But infobox notwithstanding, I agree with you it's probably a good idea to specify the singles in the lead. I also added a tidbit in the main text about chart positions for a couple of the songs. Moisejp (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical appraisal of the album has mostly been positive. Can you write what reviewers liked and disliked? The sentence is fine, but it is a bit vague in terms of what they liked.
  • In theory, I really agree with you. The only thing is that my inclination would be in the lead to try to find trends (commonalities) in the various reviews, and sum these up with "Reviewers noted..." etc. But unfortunately I don't see any real commonalities in the reviews I've quoted. And I have looked for other "quotable quotes" in the various other reviews, but there aren't very many—for me, a "quotable quote" is a statement that gives the writer's opinion about the album, and also clearly shows whether the reviewer liked it or not. But in a lot of cases (in the various reviews included in the Professional Ratings infobox) there aren't many quotes that, when quoted by themselves and taken outside of the review as a whole, clearly show whether the reviewer liked the album or not. Do you have any suggestions about how to handle this? Moisejp (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @Famous Hobo: OK, I had a stab at this. Let me know what you think. I added the sentence "Reviews have included praise for Albini's contributions to the sound of the album, as well as for the way the arrangements highlight the individual musical components, such as vocals, guitar, and drums." This is meant to encompass three of the reviews: Betty Clarke's, John Robinson's, and Matt Cibula's. Does it work? Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Background and initial recording attempts

  • (Between 1989 and 1996, Carrie Bradley was also sometimes in the Breeders.) I think this sentence would work better as a footnote. It doesn't appear important enough to have an entire sentence dedicated to it
  • Freegard reports that Deal was "totally lost" and that after seven weeks in the studio, there were no usable recordings. Instead of reports, try remarked. Reports feels off.

Subsequent recording and coalescence of the group

  • She began recording again in 1999, first in Austin, Texas, and then at Electrical Audio studio in Chicago with Steve Albini,[4] whom she had previously worked with on Pod,[9] Pacer,[10] and the Pixies' Surfer Rosa. Since you linked Dayton in the previous section, you should link Austin in this sentence.
  • Removed link from Dayton. If I kept that link and followed consistency to the linit, I guess I would also need links for Chicago, New York City, and London, which seems like too much. Moisejp (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although Kim Deal performed most of the instrumental parts herself at these 1999 sessions, Kelley also had some involvement. Was the band Kim had prior to her disappearance still together, or did they break up? If they didn't break up, then I feel you should restate that the band was still together at this point, even after Kim's "lost year". The reason for this is that when Kelley is mentioned, it kind of caught me off guard, since I thought the band had split due to Kim.
  • The 1997 band had broken up, but Kelley wasn't in the 1997 band, she left in 1995. And she didn't leave because she wasn't getting along with Kim, but because she was arrested on drug-related charges, and then was undergoing rehabilitation. (I didn't include that detail in this article because I felt it was outside the scope of the breezy background I was going for.) In any case, Kim and Kelley are sisters and are close, and even when Kelley hasn't been "in the band" she has always been at least somewhat on the sidelines, and she just organically started working with Kim again in 1999 (but at this point there wasn't really a band), and then again in 2000 as a band member when the new band coalesced. But I don't know that I have any sources that say that explicitly, that's more from reading between the lines of lots and lots of interviews. But isn't it clear there was no band in 1999? The article does say "Deal liked the songs recorded so far, but realized she would not be able to tour without a band.[3] She returned to New York to look for a backing group in March 2000." And band or no band, wouldn't it be unsurprising for someone to come back to working with her sister—her family—after a hiatus? If it's really not clear to you, and you have a good idea for a solution, I'd be happy to change it. But otherwise, in the absence of explicit descriptions in the sources, I feel it would be better to leave the circumstances around Kelley's return vague.
  • OK, re-reading your comment, I'm guessing your interpretation was that even before 1997, various band members left because they didn't get along with Kim? I don't think that's true at all, and I didn't think that was implied. The article does say "By this time (1997), she had reportedly become difficult to work with, and had adopted very demanding musical standards for her bandmates." I don't think that implies she was difficult in, say, 1989–1995. I could try to clarify that Kelley and Josephine Wiggs's reasons for leaving in 1995 were not due to personality clashes, but Wiggs's reasons were kind of complicated (see Pacer_(album)#Background)—although in The_Amps#Background_and_formation I focused on a different angle for the Breeders' hiatus in 1995. Would it help for me to add a footnote about this to try to clarify Kim wasn't always difficult? But I don't want to add too, too many footnotes, and I had also aimed to keep the first part of the Background short and sweet. But I'm open discussing this idea, or other ideas you might have, if it is truly unclear why Kelley would be back in 1999. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While recording Title TK, Kim Deal adopted a philosophy she calls "All Wave". Why say Kim Deal, and not simply Kim?
  • This is kind of tricky because, for an encyclopedic tone, I would prefer to use mostly last names throughout, and hence when there is no ambiguity I refer to Kim Deal as simply Deal. But because there are two Deals in this story, that's not always possible. So there are places such as "Kelley has stated that "Little Fury" and "Sinister Foxx" started as "just ideas" by her and Kim that turned into full collaborations by the group" where just first names sound more natural. But whenever possible, I prefer to use last names. In the sentence you cited, I would have liked to have just used "Deal", and maybe it would be clear, but in this case the last Deal mentioned was Kelley not Kim, so I compromised by using "Kim Deal". Let me know if you disagree with my logic. Moisejp (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @Famous Hobo: I've reworked it so that I don't use only first names anywhere in the article (except for just a couple of instances of "sister Kelley" that I felt couldn't be helped for flow—these are Kelley's first mention in the lead and in the Background, and contain a wiki-link to Kelley Deal). Kim Deal is always referred by just her last name, or by both names when there could be confusion with Kelley. I think it is much more consistent now, and flows well. Let me know what you think, thanks! Moisejp (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics

  • Honestly, nothing to mention here, very well written for a section that can easily get out of hand.

Release and reception

  • Title TK was released on May 20–21, 2002,[2][30] on labels including... May 20-21? If the exact date is unknown, maybe consider adding a note stating that.
  • I believe it was released on May 20 in the UK (its British label, 4ad, lists that date) and May 21 in the U.S.A. (Billboard and AllMusic list that date) but I don't have any source saying explicitly that this is the case. Do you have a suggestion about how you would handle it? One thought I had just now was "May 21–22 worldwide"? But even that I can't be sure—there likely are places where it was released later depending on the distribution deal. Moisejp (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Matt Cibula of PopMatters "really like[s]" Title TK, and opines that it sounds "buzzy and funny and swaggering in that special Albini uber-geek sort of way". Can you say something other than "really like[s]"? Something like lauded, or complimented, because really likes feels ... off.
  • I'm actually a little bit partial to "really like[s]". The reason is that it's not often that you get a reviewer who uses the words "I really like this" as Cibula does in this review. And when you're trying to add variety to each review summary by using different words each time (comments... says... finds... hears... praises, etc.) to be able to use "really like[s]" is fresh and helps keep things unrepetitive. But if you feel strongly that it sounds off, then I can try to change it. Moisejp (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • This is more of an aesthetic comment, but I never liked the single row references, so maybe create columns like in the footnotes section.

Alright, a bit late at night, but hey, I got the review in much quicker than I normally do, so I'm pretty proud of myself for that. Anyway, very well written article, most of my issues are minor. Famous Hobo (talk) 05:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, @Famous Hobo! I will get to responding to these in the next couple of days, and also get back to finishing your review in the very near future as well. Thanks again, Moisejp (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo, I have addressed all of your comments. Let me know what you think about my ideas for the more difficult issues. Thank you again so much for your review. The next task on my list is to get back to completing my review of your article. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

edit
  • "Title TK is the third studio album by the American alternative pop-rock band" – why the definite article? It's so British.
  • "No. 130 in the United States" → number 130.
  • "The first engineer she hired was Mark Freegard" – I am not sure if the misplacement of words is the case here or a missing comma (after engineer).
  • Would it be clearer for you if it said "The first engineer that she hired..." The sentence originally had "that" in it, but another editor removed it during a copy-edit [1]. I'm happy with it either way. Moisejp (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On a second read, it looks perfectly fine. Don't know what I was thinking. FrB.TG (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in which she "[went] AWOL in New York".[7]" - what is AWOL? I mean does a wiki-page exist on it?
I am not sure, as it seems some kind of abbreviation of something. I will leave it up to you. FrB.TG (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it that you use Kim Deal's full name inconsistently?
  • Please see my reply to Famous Hobo's question above "While recording Title TK, Kim Deal adopted a philosophy she calls "All Wave". Why say Kim Deal, and not simply Kim?" Do you have advice about what you would do? Basically, I would like to use just "Deal... Deal... Deal..." throughout for an encyclopedic tone. However, because there are two Deals, I sometimes have to use first names to distinguish them. But I guess I'm torn because if I only use "Kim" throughout, it sounds possibly overly casually. But if I always use "Kim Deal" (both first and last name) then it sounds overly wordy. So I guess I have stuck myself in the middle trying to find a balance of both. But as you and Famous Hobo have pointed out, then it becomes inconsistent. One option might be to only use "Deal" when it is clearly referring to Kim (not Kelley) and only use Kim when I need to distinguish Kim and Kelley. That would have a certain level of consistency (although more casual, perhaps, than I would prefer). I just hope nobody would zing me for being "inconsistent" because I'd be sometimes using "Deal" and sometimes "Kim". What do you think? Moisejp (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have been in this situation myself before, where there are multiple people sharing the same surname. What I do is use the full name on the first instance and go with the subject's first name afterwards. I don't think that sounds casual in this case, and the inconsistency is not for sure any better. FrB.TG (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am concerned there are long stretches where Kelley is not mentioned, so I feel kind of uncomfortable talking about "Kim... Kim... Kim" (first name only) throughout. So I have tried another approach, which is to use last names consistently, and additionally use first names where there would otherwise be confusion. (There were just a couple of places where I referred to "sister Kelley" (no last name), and felt that this couldn't be helped.) Using both first and last names several places may risk sounding just slightly wordy, but I felt it was the lesser evil. I also tried to use "the Deal sisters" or "the sisters" in two or three places where I would otherwise need to say "Kim and Kelley Deal". Please let me know what you think. Sorry, it means asking you to read through the whole article again. I really appreciate your feedback on this point, thanks! Moisejp (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great! FrB.TG (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Grandmaster Recording Ltd. studio in Hollywood" – how about Los Angeles?
  • Replace "No." with "number".
  • Why is critical response in present form? Articles of its kind present reviews mostly in past form. Not sure on this one.
  • The present tense is common for describing reviews in academic writing. While it's true that many (OK, maybe most) articles in Wikipedia use the past tense for reviews, there are examples in the present. Here are some FAs that follow this pattern: Night (book), The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (in the Legacy section), School Rumble. I'm found those by just randomly looking, and I'm sure I could find more if I looked more. Even if using the past is more common throughout Wikipedia, I believe there is enough precedence (in articles such as those I mentioned above) to allow the present tense as a legitimate alternative. In all my GA and FA articles about songs and albums, I've used the present in the Reception section (there are exceptions—for example when there is an explicit time marker in the past), and I believe you are only the second person who has ever questioned this choice. All things considered, I prefer the present. But the past could work too. During this peer (and later FAC) review process, if any reviewer were to strongly object to the present, I could change it without too much anguish. Moisejp (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you need ratings in brackets for example (7.4/10) can simply be 7.4/10.

I found very little wrong with the article. A pleasant read. FrB.TG (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your review, FrB.TG! Your comments were definitely helpful. I'm especially eager to hear whether you have any ideas for resolving the issue of name inconsistency. Moisejp (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: So I guess that's about it. Please drop me a line when you get this to FAC. FrB.TG (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again very much for your review, FrB.TG! I really appreciated all of the feedback. I'll let you know when I take this to FAC. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SchroCat

edit
Background and initial recording attempts
  • First mention of The Breeders in the article proper, and should be linked
Done. Thank you.
  • An indication of musical style or genre is needed
Done. Please see what you think.
  • "by 1993's Last Splash": this reads a bit casually to me: ""by their 1993 album Last Splash", or similar would be better
Done.
  • "adopted very demanding musical standards": this sounds laudable, rather than the disruptive approach I suspect you're aiming for. Perhaps "overly demanding" or similar
Done.
  • "At least two of the former Amps": were there only the two named, or others? If it's just the two, then it should read "Two of the former Amps"
For the second and third paragraphs in this section, my three main sources are Smith, Klosterman, and Aston, but none of them spells out every detail 100% explicitly; it is pieced together from details told by each. Aston explicitly says the recording sessions started with the former Amps, and that Macpherson quit because it was no longer fun. Smith says "Kim's behavior took its toll on what remained of the band. The guitarist Nate Farley, a friend from Dayton, became so deeply depressed that Kim's father, Ed, drove to New York to take him home." So that source hints that all band members ("what remained of the band") were affected—which is why I used "at least"—but it is true that nobody explicitly mentions the circumstances around Luis Lerma's leaving. I also realized reviewing this just now that none of the sources clearly say that these three (Macpherson, Farley, and Lerma) were the first to leave, as the article probably currently implies. But from Smith it seems clear that several other musicians came and went from the recording band throughout 1997 due to the sessions not being very fun. So I agree with you that I definitely need to rework this sentence. I'm going to have a good think about the best angle for it, but please let me know if you have any good ideas.
  • I'm trying out the following wording, which may solve the previous issues—but let me know if you think it still needs to be changed (or don't hesitate to copy-edit it, if you wish): "This caused strain on the Breeders;[3] Macpherson and Farley have recounted how they left the group during this period due to the unpleasant atmosphere of the recording sessions.[3][7] Several other musicians recruited throughout the year likewise left.[3][4]" Moisejp (talk) 05:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "quit": fine in music journalism, but not too encyclopaedic: "left the band" would be better (there are a couple to rephrase into slightly more formal language
Great, I have edited the word out in the "former Amps" and "Agnello left" bits described above and below.
  • "Multiple recording engineers" —> "Several recording engineers"
There are three that are explicitly mentioned in one or more sources. It's possible there were more, which may have been part of the reason I had gone with the more general "multiple". But it's true we only know what we know, so I have changed this to "Three recording engineers".
  • "the Amps' Pacer.[8]": you need to help out those of us who don't know about the band. Is this "the Amps' album/single/book/etc Pacer.[8]"?
Done.
  • "Agnello quit the 1997 sessions after ongoing frustration, culminating when Deal disappeared for several days.[3]" A couple of problems with this, which is probably better re-drawn along the lines of: "Agnello, who was becoming increasingly frustrated with the lack of progress, left the sessions in (month?) 1997 after Deal disappeared for several days.[3]"
I'm trying out a variation on your suggestion. Please tell me what you think: "Agnello became increasingly frustrated with Deal's drug use and the difficulty of keeping musicians, and left the 1997 sessions after Deal disappeared for several days.[3]" One thing I noticed just now is that I mention her drug use in the lead and in the image caption (I always try to make the caption mirror details mentioned in the main text), but not currently in the main text. For a long time it was mentioned in the first sentence of the third paragraph, but I copy-edited it out at one point. All three of Smith, Klosterman, and Aston mention her drug use, and Agnello talks about it as having been a big problem. So if it works OK for you, I'd like to try to include it in this sentence. Moisejp (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. – SchroCat (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your comments so far! Moisejp (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestions and changes all look good so far. A few more points on the next section:

Subsequent recording
  • "Deal then spent "a lost year" in which she "[went] AWOL in New York".[7]" I'd rework this a little to give a point in time – "1998 was "a lost year" for Deal in which she "[went] AWOL in New York".[7]" or similar
  • Done. I did a really quick peek online and there seems to be dispute about whether it is considered bad style to start a sentence with a year. Personally I don't mind, but we'll see if anybody else says anything. Unless you have another suggestion of something else that works well for you.
  • "and the Pixies' Surfer Rosa.": again, the Pixies' what – album, single, etc?
  • Thanks. Done.
  • "Deal liked the songs recorded so far": Perhaps "Deal was satisfied with the material recorded to that point" or similar?
  • Changed to your suggestion.
  • "Fear was based.[3][14] Soon after, Kelley Deal also joined the new Breeders": you need to clarify that the Fear guys joined Breeder, not the other way round
  • Clarified.
  • "replaced by Los Angeles drummer": If LA is the place then strike it as superfluous, if a band, then link or clarify. As we know Jaimez is the drummer, there's no need to repeat the role either
  • Fixed per your suggestion.
  • "Kelley Deal has stated": Just "Kelley Deal stated" will do
  • This is the rule for verb tenses that I'm trying to consistently follow in the article: the present tense for the two Reception paragraphs; the simple past when there is an explicit time marker or when the reader knows implicitly that an event happened sequentially in the same time line as other events in the simple past; and the present perfect when there is no time marker and it is not clear to the reader when it happened—often when people are talking about events after the fact ("Freegard has remarked...", "Deal has said that she likes...", "Albini has described..."—oops, I just noticed I also use the present tense for the Albini footnote—I'll have to look at whether that is justifiable or whether I need to change it). Thus, I really prefer to keep "Kelley Deal has stated..." as is for grammatical/stylistic consistency and coherency. Moisejp (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Music and lyrics
  • "The sound of Title TK has been described as "skeletal"": by who? (Only add if it's a generic group – music journalists, critics etc; if it's more than one group, don't worry about it)
  • I have reworked this sentence, and I think it should be satisfactory now.
  • "described the track": it looks like he described the progress of the track (or similar)
  • I have taken your suggestion, thanks.
  • "have a relaxed and unpolished character": this needs to either be in quote marks, or have names to identify the speakers – it just looks like Wiki opinion otherwise
  • My intention here was to include occasional paraphrases of what critics said to break the possible monotony of non-stop quotations. And while in many sentences I use "critics have said... reviewers have commented... etc." I hoped in this sentence to use a different turn of phrase and—just this once—let the reader infer that, like all the other sentences, and in the context of the stream of other sentences where I specify so more explicitly, this is something that critics said. There are reference numbers at the end of the sentence, so I don't believe readers will think these are just Wiki opinions. If you really think that it's dangerous to keep this sentence as is, and perhaps that it won't get far in FAC, I can change it. My feeling, though, is that in this section there is a fine line where it would be easy for the wording and details to become repetitive-sounding. I'm really trying to find that balance. My hope was that if in most of the sentences I'm explicit about who said what, we could perhaps—for the sake of flow—occasionally give readers credit that they can understand that these other couple of sentences are also being attributed to critics (from the context and the presence of reference numbers that they can easily click to be directed to exactly who said this). What do you think?
  • (Is beer drinking a "theme": a way of life, surely!)
  • If you don't have too strong an opinion, I would like to try to keep it as a theme for now. I feel that in the sense of "a common subject or reference point throughout multiple songs" it can be described as a theme of the album. But, again, I am open to discussion if you quite strongly disagree.
Release and reception
  • "The phrase "Title TK" means "title to come" in journalistic shorthand": I'm not sure this belongs in this section: maybe in the section that deals with the main part of the recording.
  • My reasoning was that in the same way as the art design, the name of the album is part of the package that was "finalized" when the album was released. I think I would like to keep it where it is for now, unless I can find another spot that really seems solid and flows well.
  • "album's art design was done by Vaughan": perhaps "album's design was done by artists Vaughan..." would work better?
  • I would describe Vaughan Oliver more as a "graphic designer" than an "artist" (true, a graphic designer does fall under the very wide umbrella of artist, but the latter doesn't really precise to me). Which option do you think works best: 1. Leave it as it is. 2. "the album's art design was done by graphic designers Vaughan Oliver..." (possibly repetitive: "design... designer"). 3. Use your idea. I'd be inclined with #1, but if you have a strong opinion, I'm definitely flexible. :-)

That's it from me. An interesting article, nicely put together; I hope my comments have been of help! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General comments
  • Think about archiving the weblinks to stop linkrot (that's not a requirement, but it is good practice)
  • Good idea, thank you. I had already checked that archived versions exist online for just about all of my refs (and could be changed later if needed). But I agree that there's no reason not to add them to the article now, so I'm going to do that in the coming days. Moisejp (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to echo IndianBio's comment about having people looking "in" to the article (which is somewhere in the MoS, I think)
  • ALTs look good as do the number of images used - no overlapping or problems I can see.

More to follow – SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you so much for your comments, SchroCat! I only have time to reply to two of them at this sitting but will address the rest of the next in the next day or so. I'll also continue looking at Walt Disney for you. Moisejp (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you again for all of your comments, SchroCat, and please do let me know if you still disagree with any of my reasoning above. Moisejp (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Hi, I finished archiving all of the refs (I know your comment about that wasn't a requirement, but just thought I'd tell you). About your last batch of comments, as you may have seen there are a few where I didn't immediately take your suggestions. But if there are any of them that you quite strongly disagree with my replies, I'm happy to reconsider. After these final comments have been resolved, I will probably close this peer review. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 05:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Moisejp, No, there aren't any I disagree with, as long as you have thought through the rationale and are still happy with what you have, that's fine. If you go to FAC with this, others ma agree or disagree, but at least you've thought it through first. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from IndianBio
  • Moise I was wondering have you thought of a different arrangement for the images and the samples so that they face towards the article and not away from it? —IB [ Poke ] 08:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, IndianBio. I would like to do that. If you have a good arrangement in mind and get to it before me, by all means, please go ahead and change it. But if I have time tonight (not sure if I will) I may try to fiddle with them and see if I get any good results. Moisejp (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianBio: Thank you again for your suggestion (and thanks SchoCat, too, for echoing the suggestion). I have moved the first pic of Kim Deal to the left, which is the most obvious change that needed to be made. Do you think it's OK now? In the third picture, Mando Lopez is facing slightly outwards, but Deal is looking straight ahead. If I were to move that picture to the right, I'd have to move the sound clip to the left, but I don't know how to do that. Or if it's OK as it is now... what do you think? Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp I have changed the date's format (in references) to the "month day year" one to maintain consistency. Feel free to revert if you disagree. FrB.TG (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the edit, FrB.TG. It looks good. :-) Moisejp (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Title_TK/archive1&oldid=1141908129"