Wikipedia:Peer review/Nick Drake/archive1

Nick Drake

Could do with some extra eyes to help improve this article. Any feedback from the community would be appreciated. Thanks - Coil00 22:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 18:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article, couple things though. The songs probably need some better fair-use justifications for some editors judgement - basically why you chose these songs for the specific article. Needs a copyedit, too, for various grammar-related stuff and small things, which I can help out with if you like. The most common thing I noticed was misuse of semi-colons and lack of italics on publications/films. In the Posthumous Popularity section, it leads off with two quotes. Is this appopriate style? I don't know, myself. The "Sound" section needs a more appropriate title and, ideally, I'd like to see the Sound/Lyrics sections merged or expanded, depending on how much info is available. I can start copy-editing tomorrow if you'd like. Cheers and nice work. Wickethewok 06:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for the toughtful comments. I've merged Sound/Lyrics (there's very little sources out there on these, unlikely to be expanded much more), and removed one of the the leading quotes from the "Posthumous" section (no, its not appopriate ;). I think I picked up most of the minor bits and pieces re semi-colons, and am continuing to comb the copy for awkward phrasing. The fair use rational I need to think about a bit, but the reasons you've used for Sasha provide a good starting point. Anyway, thanks again for that Wicketh. - Coil00 21:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cooltastic. If there's anything specific you need some feedback on, lemme know. :-) One more minor thing with the sound clips, too. If you get a chance to re-upload them, they should probably be at lower quality if possible (Audacity should be able to compress them more than they are now) and a quick fade out on the end, too, is preferable so you don't get a suddent cutoff. Not really anything major to worry about though. Wickethewok 22:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and a few are over the 30 second mark. Will do, tks. - Coil00 23:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. One thing I'm curious about: "the first signs of psychosis". This seems to imply that there was a true psychotic break subsequently. Is that the case? Marskell 08:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't - a more accurate phrasing would be 'early signs', but its a direct quote...The best thing here would be to replace that quote with a less ambiguous one. Anyway, thanks for looking over. - Coil00 22:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]