Wikipedia:Peer review/London Calling/archive1

London Calling

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article about The Clash's 1979 album has gone through a complete overhaul. I would like to nominate it for FA status in the near future and any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for balance, it might be a good idea to add some negative criticism somewhere in there. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but all the reviews available don't really have any. Some negative criticism can be found in the songs section though. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. If you do happen to come across any, feel free to toss them in. I also noticed a couple instances where two references were provided for non-controversial statements. My gut tells me you're trying to say something that's not quite hitting the mark of how it appears. For example:

- The album peaked at number nine in the United Kingdom and was certified gold in December 1979.[4][16] The album performed strongly outside the United Kingdom. It reached number two in Sweden and number four in Norway.[17][18]

In the first sentence, are you saying both source 4 and 16 each say the information in this whole sentence? Or are you saying that 4 applies to it peaking at number nine in the UK and 16 refers to it being certified gold in December 1979? Similar question for the second sentence. If it is what I'm thinking, I feel like it should be It reached number two in Sweden[17] and number four in Norway.[18] I could be wrong, of course.

Other than that observation, this is a decent article. I'd consider formatting the footnotes a little differently, maybe use just "p." instead of "Pg." for page numbers. I'm also not sure if using the simplified referencing style for the "Green" source is that helpful, considering it's the only one done in that method... it took me a second to figure out it was in the "Further reading" section. You also might want to run through the text again for copy editing. One error I found was: Its lyrics comment on people who forsake the idealism of youth and urges young people to fight the status quo.[29]... subject/verb agreement says that it should be "Its lyrics... urge young people..." --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

indopug

I'm not sure about the order in which the sections are listed; look at any other album FA. I'd prefer Recording, Songs, Artwork, Release, Reception and influence.
I don't you can use reviews that were written twenty years after the album was released and then say "The album received positive reviews from critics." The RS and AMG reviews would best be treated under a Legacy banner. The article sorely lacks contemporary reviews (1979-80) that would help gauge its impact then. PopMatters and Pitchfork can be completely done away with once you've found those old reviews.
It would be nice if you could get access to one of those books under the Further Reading section; it might help strengthen the article throughout.

This is a very important album (9th most, according to Rolling Stone), so I think more research, especially of older sources, should be done to make the article comprehensive and FA-worthy. indopug (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]