Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
This is the second peer review for this article. After the first peer review, I brought the article to FAC— Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Title_TK/archive1—but one editor identified that the article needed more work outside of FAC. I have used that editor's feedback to polish the article as much as possible. Of course, I look forward to all other editors' feedback as well. Thank you very much. Moisejp ( talk) 04:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments: Sorry for the delay here, I haven't forgotten but life is hectic at the moment!
Thank you, Sarastro1. I will see how far I can get with this in the coming days, and let you know if I need further advice on these particular points. Cheers, Moisejp ( talk) 06:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
More: Sorry for the long delay. The lead looks much, much better to me. I've done another copy-edit on it, but please revert anything you don't like. I've also done some copy-editing later on as far as the end of "subsequent recording". I'll stop there and see what you think. Feel free to shout at me and revert anything you don't like. It's looking good overall so far. Sarastro1 ( talk) 13:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Sarastro1. Thank you very much for the copy-edit. I was really happy with most of your changes. I made some minor changes to your edits that I hope are acceptable to you (let me know if any aren't, and we can discuss these bits more). Besides these, there were two or three sentences that were nice edits but that unfortunately don't match the sources perfectly. I would like to think about these for a couple of days and try to come back to you with some good alternatives. Thanks again! Moisejp ( talk) 05:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Here are my concerns that I alluded to above:
Here are what my two sources say specifically about Macpherson and Farley, by the way:
To summarize, again I agree that your version is more concise, but mine would solve the problems I mention above. Let me know what you think. Thank you. I'm very much looking forward to your next batch of comments and/or edits. Moisejp ( talk) 13:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
More: Thanks for your patience on this. Here's a few more, and I'll try to speed it up a bit for you; I think we're getting there now. Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
:* In an earlier version of the article, I had a lot fewer instances of "reviewers" but for some reason I thought in your FAC review you pointed out an instance where one was lacking, so I worked hard to add a bunch of them. But now I can't find your comment where I thought you'd said that. I must have misread one of your comments. In any case, I'm really happy to cut a bunch of them out. I'll try to work on that, as well as looking at your other comments, in the next couple of days. Thanks.
Moisejp (
talk) 05:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC) I realized afterwards that I misremembered something about this, but rather than explaining this and confusing the issue more, I'm just taking this comment out.
Moisejp (
talk)
06:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Songs: I've no real problems with this section, just a couple of thoughts. First, I'm never a fan of long lists of quotations and I'd prefer more paraphrasing, but that wouldn't be a huge issue for me either way, so it's your preference really. Secondly, I think some of the paragraphs could be combined a little. The short paragraphs make it a bit choppy, and it becomes a slight chore towards the end. Combining the paragraphs might help. Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Release and reception: Again, generally OK. Just one last point on this, which I mentioned back in the FAC. Most of the quotes are positive. Could we not say where the reviews come from, e.g. Rolling Stone, the Guardian. I also return to the Allmusic review I mentioned a long time ago; despite it's four stars, there are some negative things in its review, and these might be included for balance. Feel free to disagree on this though. Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Overall: That's pretty much it I think. It looks much improved to me, and might be worth another tilt at FAC now. Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you again for all of your help! I am happy to keep discussing these final points if you feel more needs to be done. Moisejp ( talk) 06:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi FrB.TG, Stifle, Robvanvee, Prism, SchroCat, IndianBio, Sparklism, and Famous Hobo. Thanks again for your support for Title TK during its FAC in May. Since then, I've been doing lots of editing of the article based on comments by Sarastro1 (who has made edits too) and the article has evolved quite a bit from the version you all approved. My work here with Sarastro1 is winding down, and I hope to bring this back to FAC in the relatively near future. I was wondering if you'd be kind enough to look at this new version, and see if there are any issues that might prevent you from supporting again. If so, I'd like to catch these in this peer review, rather than in the FAC itself. Thank you in advance! Moisejp ( talk) 07:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
It's only been five days since I pinged everybody, but haven't had a response from anybody except SchroCat; I will optimistically assume this means any of the other editors' concerns would likewise be minor. If anybody does have any other concerns, I'll deal with them in the FAC, and will now close this peer review. Cheers. Moisejp ( talk) 03:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
This is the second peer review for this article. After the first peer review, I brought the article to FAC— Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Title_TK/archive1—but one editor identified that the article needed more work outside of FAC. I have used that editor's feedback to polish the article as much as possible. Of course, I look forward to all other editors' feedback as well. Thank you very much. Moisejp ( talk) 04:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments: Sorry for the delay here, I haven't forgotten but life is hectic at the moment!
Thank you, Sarastro1. I will see how far I can get with this in the coming days, and let you know if I need further advice on these particular points. Cheers, Moisejp ( talk) 06:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
More: Sorry for the long delay. The lead looks much, much better to me. I've done another copy-edit on it, but please revert anything you don't like. I've also done some copy-editing later on as far as the end of "subsequent recording". I'll stop there and see what you think. Feel free to shout at me and revert anything you don't like. It's looking good overall so far. Sarastro1 ( talk) 13:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Sarastro1. Thank you very much for the copy-edit. I was really happy with most of your changes. I made some minor changes to your edits that I hope are acceptable to you (let me know if any aren't, and we can discuss these bits more). Besides these, there were two or three sentences that were nice edits but that unfortunately don't match the sources perfectly. I would like to think about these for a couple of days and try to come back to you with some good alternatives. Thanks again! Moisejp ( talk) 05:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Here are my concerns that I alluded to above:
Here are what my two sources say specifically about Macpherson and Farley, by the way:
To summarize, again I agree that your version is more concise, but mine would solve the problems I mention above. Let me know what you think. Thank you. I'm very much looking forward to your next batch of comments and/or edits. Moisejp ( talk) 13:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
More: Thanks for your patience on this. Here's a few more, and I'll try to speed it up a bit for you; I think we're getting there now. Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
:* In an earlier version of the article, I had a lot fewer instances of "reviewers" but for some reason I thought in your FAC review you pointed out an instance where one was lacking, so I worked hard to add a bunch of them. But now I can't find your comment where I thought you'd said that. I must have misread one of your comments. In any case, I'm really happy to cut a bunch of them out. I'll try to work on that, as well as looking at your other comments, in the next couple of days. Thanks.
Moisejp (
talk) 05:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC) I realized afterwards that I misremembered something about this, but rather than explaining this and confusing the issue more, I'm just taking this comment out.
Moisejp (
talk)
06:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Songs: I've no real problems with this section, just a couple of thoughts. First, I'm never a fan of long lists of quotations and I'd prefer more paraphrasing, but that wouldn't be a huge issue for me either way, so it's your preference really. Secondly, I think some of the paragraphs could be combined a little. The short paragraphs make it a bit choppy, and it becomes a slight chore towards the end. Combining the paragraphs might help. Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Release and reception: Again, generally OK. Just one last point on this, which I mentioned back in the FAC. Most of the quotes are positive. Could we not say where the reviews come from, e.g. Rolling Stone, the Guardian. I also return to the Allmusic review I mentioned a long time ago; despite it's four stars, there are some negative things in its review, and these might be included for balance. Feel free to disagree on this though. Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Overall: That's pretty much it I think. It looks much improved to me, and might be worth another tilt at FAC now. Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you again for all of your help! I am happy to keep discussing these final points if you feel more needs to be done. Moisejp ( talk) 06:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi FrB.TG, Stifle, Robvanvee, Prism, SchroCat, IndianBio, Sparklism, and Famous Hobo. Thanks again for your support for Title TK during its FAC in May. Since then, I've been doing lots of editing of the article based on comments by Sarastro1 (who has made edits too) and the article has evolved quite a bit from the version you all approved. My work here with Sarastro1 is winding down, and I hope to bring this back to FAC in the relatively near future. I was wondering if you'd be kind enough to look at this new version, and see if there are any issues that might prevent you from supporting again. If so, I'd like to catch these in this peer review, rather than in the FAC itself. Thank you in advance! Moisejp ( talk) 07:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
It's only been five days since I pinged everybody, but haven't had a response from anybody except SchroCat; I will optimistically assume this means any of the other editors' concerns would likewise be minor. If anybody does have any other concerns, I'll deal with them in the FAC, and will now close this peer review. Cheers. Moisejp ( talk) 03:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)