Wikipedia:Peer review/She Wolf/archive1
Appearance
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed GAN once and I want to make sure it doesn't happen for a second time. I think this peer review will sort out problems before it is nominated again.
Thanks, WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- I feel obligated to chip-in here - I have a few ideas.
- The sentence structures in "Songs and repertoire" follow this formula, at least for the most part:
- A song's influences
- Lyrical content
- Writers & producers
- If a Spanish-language equivalent exists and was used on the album
- I'd like to suggest attacking each of these ideas in separate paragraphs. For example, "The songs on the album were largely influenced by [genres]," listing and describing the influential genres from most-influential to least.
- Then, summarize the album's lyrical content, grouping similarly-themed songs together and describing them in brief sentence clauses.
- Finally, the last paragraph can denote whether Spanish-language versions exist and where they were used.
- I'd recommend against reiterating who wrote or produced what unless it proves particularly vital to the nature of the song; for example, if a producer stated during an interview what kind of vibes they were going for and said something creative, it might be worth quoting that, but again avoid the songwriters & producers for the most part as they're already listed a few sections below with the track listing. LazyBastardGuy 06:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- This issue has been addressed after your GA review. Please take a look. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Very well done! It's much easier to read now. Sorry if I was beating a dead horse here, I hadn't thought to check the article before posting here. LazyBastardGuy 18:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you! Are there any other problems with the article? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Very well done! It's much easier to read now. Sorry if I was beating a dead horse here, I hadn't thought to check the article before posting here. LazyBastardGuy 18:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- This issue has been addressed after your GA review. Please take a look. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)