Wikipedia:Peer review/X&Y/archive1

X&Y

Even though this is an album article, it is very thorough, well sourced, and structured nicely. But it could still use some tweaking.--Esprit15d 14:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I didn't write this article. I contributed very little to it in fact. :) (I started reading a lot of "you's" that I don't deserve).--Esprit15d 15:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've added a few {{fact}} tags. I don't doubt that what you say is correct, but our very best articles should state their sources so that they can be verified. The reader shouldn't have to take your word for it. --kingboyk 14:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Per WP:LEAD the lead section should be a summary/overview. You mention facts and figures in your intro which you don't mention elsewhere. It might be a good idea to refine the lead somewhat and add a new section header just below the intro with more detailed information about the album's history. --kingboyk 14:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.

• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.

• Please alphabetize the categories and/or interlanguage links.

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

• Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
• You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
• Thanks, Andy _t 15:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• It can be improved by removing excessive links to non-full dates. In this article, there are only two to remove: 'June 2005' and '1970s'. For those that want to address this issue for many articles, a monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 10:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• If you already have something in your monobook, will it still work?--Esprit15d 17:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, your other code should still work. bobblewik 22:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Here goes:

• It seems to me as though there is excessive linking in the lead paragraph. I'm not sure that they are all absolutely necessary.
• There is alot of information about the singles in the lead paragraph, perhaps the article would be better served by putting them in a section of their own. More information about the other singles could be added then.
• A section or link about the 05-06 "Twisted logic" tour may be appropriate
• The influences section needs sources, otherwise it just sounds like mere opinions
• Is the copy control comment in the leader necessary? If not, it may be better served in another paragraph.
• In that vein, maybe a paragraph with more general information about the CD and band at the time would be good - that could also contain the copy control information. Perhaps even a link about why it was needed in some regions and not others (though I didn't know the copy control was only for some) - we probably need a source for that.

Hope that helps -- Jaems 07:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts:

• The article is excessively short, to the point it skips critical details.
• The article doesn't talk about the album in comparison to other studio albums by Coldplay.
• Some general details about who plays on the album, what instruments play and the sound of the album is missing. This information should be kept concise but should still probably be there (at least in part).
• The copy control message could probably be better placed.
• Specific criticisms of the album should be briefly outlined. (This includes both negative and positive criticisms).

On the other hand, I liked the explanation of the cover art — I always wondered about what it was.

Cedars 01:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)