Wikipedia:Peer review/List of number-one albums from the 2000s (UK)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of number-one albums from the 2000s (UK)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have been working on this article for the past month now, and would like to see if I can get it up to FL status. My main areas of concern are the quality and length of the prose, and whether the lead contains too many wikilinks. I'm also concerned about the "Certification" column - does it work, or is it just a bit much? Also, is the Christmas number ones section entirely needed? I also welcome any other ways in which the article could be imrpoved. Thanks very much in advance. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good to me - I did a copyedit on the lead, mostly as the language could be tightened in some places - please revert if I made things worse. I have a few quibbles and suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. WHile there are no UK number-one album FLs, there are several for number-ne UK singles by decade - see for example List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK)
  • I don't think the first sentence follows WP:LEAD, which says in part The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject. The current first sentence is about the UK albums chart, but does not mention number-ones or the decade (and yes I now see the model I suggested does the same thing). I still think this should mention number-ones and the 2000s.
    Changed per your suggestion below.
  • I also found "week-end album sales" in the first sentence confusing - makes it sound as if the chart is based on sales only on the weekend and not the whole week. The model uses The chart week runs from Sunday to Saturday... if that helps.
    Rewritten.
  • I would add the decade here In total, 275 different albums by 171 artists reached number one. In fact of this were added to the first sentence (perhaps after a semicolon and with "in the 2000s added" at the end) I think that would be a better first sentence.
    Done.
  • I think this sentence is problematic Following its birth in the early 21st century, reality television began to have a significant impact on the British music industry. The article on reality television says it has been around since the earliest days of television and rose to prominence in the 1990s. Perhaps something like Following its greatly increased popularity in the early 21st century, reality television began to have a significant impact on the British music industry. Not great but you get the idea.
    Done.
  • Need to explain in the key what "re" means in the list / table itself.
    Done.
  • Certification does not sort properly.
    I'll do that, but it might take a while.
    Done. Didn't actually take too long after all... A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems very odd to me that an album could be number one in the whole UK for a week and still not sell even 60,000 copies.
    Yeah, that seemed odd to me too, but the BPI's website doesn't list those albums as having achieved any certifications at all, so I felt that the article should reflect that. It seemed like anything else would be original research.
  • Captions seem fine but things not in the chart(s) need refs - so the Vera Lynn caption needs one, for exmaple (oldest person ever)
    Done.
  • For the number-one albums by artist table, could the weeks at the top for each album be given (perhaps after the year)?
    Done.
  • I would wite it as "Sing When You're Winning (2000, 2001)" (no need for two lines that say the album name twice here)
    No, they are actually two completely different albums, albeit with extremely similar titles.
  • Why not just add a symbol to the table for the 10 Christmas number-ones? That would eliminate the need for the table, though I would still include some explanatory text similar to what is there now.
    That's an idea...
  • Facebook does not seem to me to be a RS. Even if it is, how do we know the same group of artists was under contract to Columbia over the course of the whole decade.
    I'd have thought that Facebook would be okay in this context, as it's an official page maintained by the label itself. But I'll try to find a more reliable source.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review and the copy-edit, Ruhrfisch! It's been very useful! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/List_of_number-one_albums_from_the_2000s_(UK)/archive1&oldid=1078796359"