Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I need some rewrite advice in how to trim the "concept" section of this page while still retaining all of the contents therein. I also need help in figuring out what other sections are missing/need expanding upon.
Thanks, Red marquis ( talk) 08:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Lede
Concept
Packaging
Book and film
Guns, God and Government Tour
Critical reception
See also
Sources
Images
I think there is a whole lot of mix-ups in the use of quotation marks (single, double, existent, or non-existent) here. The same goes for the use of italics and bold.
There are several instances of the noun plus -ing constructs. Please see User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing on why this construct is discouraged and how such instances can be improved.
Supposedly this album was part of a greater project, so why is there no mention of the gestation and early parts of the project? The article talks about the Columbine incident but makes no explanation of why or how this album is related to it. This two points are in response to the Origin and recording section because they should have been addressed there. Instead, the chronology is messed up by having relevant material (about the background) in the later Concept section.
I think Concept is too broad a section (and presented in words that are either too vague or complicated). "The record makes numerous references to events and figures in pop culture history to audit everyone's participating role in creating the culture that culminated in Columbine." comes across to me as a complicated phrasing (audit?). Go for simpler phrasings. It is difficult to suggest alternative phrasings or ponder if the structure of the article is sound if one is confused by the words used. The contents of "Origin and recording" and "Concept" (and I think the entire article) should be reorganized and rewritten. I suggest: "Background", "Production", "Book, film, and tour", "Themes", and "Reception". Jappalang ( talk) 06:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I need some rewrite advice in how to trim the "concept" section of this page while still retaining all of the contents therein. I also need help in figuring out what other sections are missing/need expanding upon.
Thanks, Red marquis ( talk) 08:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Lede
Concept
Packaging
Book and film
Guns, God and Government Tour
Critical reception
See also
Sources
Images
I think there is a whole lot of mix-ups in the use of quotation marks (single, double, existent, or non-existent) here. The same goes for the use of italics and bold.
There are several instances of the noun plus -ing constructs. Please see User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing on why this construct is discouraged and how such instances can be improved.
Supposedly this album was part of a greater project, so why is there no mention of the gestation and early parts of the project? The article talks about the Columbine incident but makes no explanation of why or how this album is related to it. This two points are in response to the Origin and recording section because they should have been addressed there. Instead, the chronology is messed up by having relevant material (about the background) in the later Concept section.
I think Concept is too broad a section (and presented in words that are either too vague or complicated). "The record makes numerous references to events and figures in pop culture history to audit everyone's participating role in creating the culture that culminated in Columbine." comes across to me as a complicated phrasing (audit?). Go for simpler phrasings. It is difficult to suggest alternative phrasings or ponder if the structure of the article is sound if one is confused by the words used. The contents of "Origin and recording" and "Concept" (and I think the entire article) should be reorganized and rewritten. I suggest: "Background", "Production", "Book, film, and tour", "Themes", and "Reception". Jappalang ( talk) 06:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)