Wikipedia:Peer review/(sic)nesses/archive1

(sic)nesses

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need a peer review to maintain meeting the Featured topic criteria. It is a short article, so reviewing the article shouldn't be too hard. Thanks, CrowzRSA 23:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The article is certainly short (530 words excl. quote) compared with other album articles I have reviewed, and seems far from comprehensive. For example there is no background section, and no recording history to speak of. The promotion details are very vague ("several theatres in the United States several days prior to release"). Other points:-

• Prose: several awkwardnesses, e.g.:-
  • "though professionally..." what is meant here?
  • "this was thus far based" - clumsy.
  • "Whilst" → "While"
  • If "satan" is not capitalised in the quotation, it should be followed by [sic]
• The long verbatim quotation looks like a copyright violation; please see WP:copyright violations, in particular "... material copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder (unless brief quotation used in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation."
• There are numerous unformatted or incomplete refs, in particular 11, 12 and 16.

Overall this article looks to be its early stages, and perhaps should be brought back to PR when it has developed further. Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)