Wikipedia:Peer review

The peer review list on this page is automatically generated. Please do not edit this page to add or remove peer reviews. Individual peer reviews can be edited by following the edit section links next to the article titles, which are now stored on /archiveN pages from the very start (the term archive for these pages is purely historical). Please see the instructions below and report any problems on the talk page.

Wikipedia's peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate. It is not academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other. Nominators are strongly encouraged to make use of the peer review volunteers page, which lists users who are willing to be contacted on their user talk pages for review participation. Active Wiki projects or the revision history of related articles may also be consulted to find editors to help with review. For feedback on articles that are less developed, use the article's talk page or requests for feedback. For general editing advice, see Wikipedia style guidelines, Wikipedia how-to, How to write a great article, and The perfect article. Content or neutrality disputes should be listed at Requests for comment.

Shortcuts: WP:PR WP:REVIEW The path to a featured article Start a new article Develop the article Check against the featured article criteria Get creative feedback ← Apply for featured article status Featured articles

[edit] Arts

[edit] Dimple Kapadia

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch peer review

I've been working on this article for the past few months (though I had a break recently due to lack of time). The article has gone through major expansion, more than I had ever hoped for. And now I have new plans to take it a few steps further. I naturally believe that a broader number of opinions would help improving it further, so here I am. Please let me know what else can be done. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz' Comments

• Lead: IMO, para 1 should be things the subject is best known for, like Bobby and Rudali, which won her the awards, in this case. Life should start (marriage, comeback) in para 2. A model followed in Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Abdul Karim (the Munshi), Ram Narayan etc.
• More on the weekend...

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 8 February 2012, 17:46 UTC)

[edit] Dan Leno

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because of the extensive work I have undertaken in the last few weeks and I now feel confident the article meets GA criteria. This will be my second GAC and one that I have thoroughly enjoyed working on. I would like to take this to FAC in the next few months, depending on how well it does here. Please be as critical as you like as this will not only help the article, but will also help me as an editor in the future. Many thanks! -- Cassianto (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 8 February 2012, 10:44 UTC)

[edit] We Found Love (music video)

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to make this article an FA. If people who are very familiar with the FAC process could comment, in addition to anyone else, I would be grateful.

Thanks, Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 03:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Brief comments from Nikkimaria

• Some overlinking - for example, illegal drug trade twice in the lead alone

  Y Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• Don't italicize quotes

  Y Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• Some inconsistencies in citation format - for example FN 2, 4 vs 6, etc

  Y Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• This and this would be questioned at FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  I found an alternate source for the AOL source and replaced it. And for Popdust, I have emailed the reviewer who wrote the review asking about her educational background and what her qualifications are for writing about music. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

WP Comments

Per request at talk page. I'm copy editing the article as I go and will be listing issues by which I am confused, here.

Lead

• As you can see, I have trimmed the lead as it was quite long. Yes, I know this is a good article, but too much was there. Waffle was reduced as well. Just throwing that out.
• Residents driving around the location of the set informed BBC that traffic in the area was congested as drivers wanted to see the singer. - Resident is awkward here: residents of what? Why not People instead?

  Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• Most critics agreed that the way in which the video had been shot was reminiscent of being a film - unclear what this sentence means. Rewrite in simple and clear English?

• Done. I guess because I'm a film student, that line makes sense to me. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

  I can understand what you were trying to say, but the sentence needed to be re-worded. By the way, music videos are short films by definition. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Some critics also compared the controversial content to those of Rihanna's videos for S&M and Man Down. The video caused controversy from activist groups, including The Rape Crisis Centre in the UK. - Okay, order needs to be revised here. You discuss the controversial content comparisons before actually saying that the video caused controversy?

• Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• Christian youth pastors Brandon Ward and John Colonnello as well as Ulster Cancer Foundation, for Rihanna's portrayal in the video of having sex whilst under the influence of illegal drugs, not being a role model to young girls and women and for smoking. - Does not read like a proper sentence. Missing word maybe?

• Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• As a result, the video was banned from being shown before 10pm on French television due to it's controversial content. - Isn't it redundant to say both As a result and due to its controversial content in the same sentence? Maybe remove the latter?

• Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• Remove all occurrences of whilst throughout with while. They mean the same thing, only one is too formal for Wikipedia.

  Done. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• Revise article throughout for your incorrect usage of It's, when Its should really be there. Its represents possession, while It's is a contraction for It is.

• Done. Only one had to be changed though. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• Check for overlinking throughout. MTV, Requiem for a Dream, S&M (song), Man Down, Agyness Deyn, Britney Spears are all linked more than once in the body.

• Done. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Development

• The video was filmed in a field in the town of Bangor, County Down, ahead of Rihanna embarking on the European leg of the Loud Tour (2011) and was directed by Melina Matsoukas, who had previously directed the videos for Rude Boy (2010), and the controversial S&M (2011). - I do not understand the Loud Tour part of the sentence and how it is relevant. Also, missing comma after (2011)? Sentence needs revising.

  Done. It's background info about it. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• a red bandana top, long flannel shirt, and dirty denim - Quotations are used for quality and special wording. This does not need quotation marks (maybe the dirty denim, but not the rest.)

  Done. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• an American flag bikini, denim vest, and ripped jeans - same here. This needs some slight paraphrasing. Maybe A bikini with the pattern of the American flag, as well as a denim vest and ripped jeans.

• Done. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• When the filming did become to my mind unacceptable I requested the filming to stop ... it became apparent to me that the situation was becoming inappropriate and I requested them to stop and they did - this is almost repeating what you said in your own words. Trim it down.

• Done. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• It was reported that extras were not told about what was expected of them until a very short time period beforehand, in order to keep the content of the video as secret as possible. - WP:WEASEL word. Who reported this? Also, by who were they not told of their expectations? The until a very short time period beforehand - needs to be re-worded. It's a bit awkward. I can't think of anything clever at the moment, but maybe until the last minute?

• Done. I don't know who told them that, someone on set most likely. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• Could we elaborate on what this violent experience she had? It's vague right now.

• Done. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• Isn't using two block quotations from one interview a bit too much?

  No. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 13:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• It is, but considering this is just a peer review, suit yourself. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 02:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  I don't see the problem with it. Both are too long to be in the prose. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 02:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Synopsis

• Running amok is somewhat of an inaccessible expression that many readers will not understand. Clarify.

  Reworded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• ... possibly due to the heavy drug abuse. - needs source as this is personal interpretation. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 17:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

  Removed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

References to popular culture

• Not a major issue, but comparing the two lead sentences: The video for We Found Love references popular culture in the form of films. versus The video also features multiple popular culture references to other artists in the music industry. They are worded a bit too similarly. I think the second could be worded a bit more creatively. Something like Elements of the music video have been compared to the works of recording artists Britney Spears, Eminem and Madonna. It's a little more fresh , wow and interesting. My suggestion you don't have to follow, because I know you can write better.
• Actually, overall, I think the whole section could use some copy editing to make the wording more variant and compelling. It's slightly repetitive now. This part of the article has a lot of potential as an interesting read. I see a lot of the same The video features this, which is a lot what this film/song does. As a challenge, try and be creative. This will obviously be difficult, let alone for FAC, but it will vastly improve the overall flow.
• Spears is shown as a successful singer constantly hounded by the media and - maybe the word hounded is a bit colloquial. Maybe something like bothers?
• Also, may I add that this isn't actually reference to music, but other music videos? A video can easily illustrate the lyrics of another song, but this isn't what is dicussed in this section. So there may need to be some re-naming. Thanks, —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

  Done all. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Another point: I think the section jumps from comparison to comparison a bit too quickly. I think elaborating on each reference will make the article flow a lot better. It's a bit choppy and list-y right now. See if you can dig for more discussion from the sources. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  I've just made it one section. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Can it be expanded? And what's the difference between this and the Comparisons section? Both are comparison sections really. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  I've moved it to the Britney/Chris section as one seciton. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Release and reception

• Matthew Perpetua of Rolling Stone found the footage looks like a remake of Trainspotting, writing [We Found Love] matches its thumping rave beat to footage that often looks like a remake of Trainspotting - missing quotation mark? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 11:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  No? Lol. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversies

• The video also came under fire from Brandon Ward, - can this be more formal?

  Reworded, used scrutinized Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• The negative reaction to the video is the third by Rihanna in 2011 to be criticized by various organizations - Rihanna had the negative reaction? Re-word. You mean The video is the third by Rihanna in 2011 to receive a negative reaction from organizations?

  Yep :) Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• S&M was the first, and was banned from eleven countries around the world due to its explicit sexual content,[3][4] while Man Down attracted media attention when the Parents Television Council (PTC), a non-profit organization that advocates responsible entertainment, criticized Rihanna for cold, calculated execution of murder in the video and for portraying a scenario of rape.[5] - this is dragging into too much unnecessary detail

  Shortened Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Why are you even talking about the promotional picture? It's not related in any way to the video. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 14:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  Removed. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comparisons

• Among the similarities, critics ... - critics were among the similarities?
• What's bad boy archetypes?
• that is also against guns that politicians felt the need to talk about it. - guns?
• According to her, the videos continue with a xenophobic portrayal of British people as villains by American pop culture. - not sure where the by American pop culture fits here? What about them? Clarify.

I guess I'm done then. Ping me if you need help. Great job on the article. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 10:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've done them all. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

My love is love comments

This article isn't complete; The year-end lists of the best 2011 music videos should be added. I've seen We Found Love on some of them. I think Pitchfork Media, AOL, Consequence of Sound, Slant Magazine etc. Plus I've seen this on the talk page and it isn't added in the article. So, first add everything you'll find about the music video and then nominate it for an FA. My love is love (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Added the 2011 lists I could find/which are okay for FAC. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Note - I haven't forgotten about this. Will make the changes after the blackout on Thursday. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 01:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 6 February 2012, 03:51 UTC)

[edit] Gwen Cooper

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in submitting it for a good article nomination, but would like feedback on spelling, grammar, content and content/lack of bias. I'd particuarly like help regarding the real world perspective on the character in the 'Characterisation' and 'Reception' sections, and whether the material there is too much.

Thanks, Eshlare (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 3 February 2012, 17:40 UTC)

[edit] Lady Gaga

Previous peer review

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it's been a while since its last peer review and the article has changed much seeing as Gaga's career has extended profusely even in the last year. I, along with many others I am sure, would like to get this up to FA standard as soon as. Please be as critical as you like. :)

Thanks, Stephenjamesx (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from a huge fan :) Yay, Gaga! I'll read through it some other time, but a technical check for now:

• Avoid having references in the lead if the information that is being cited recurs later on in the article (where it should be supported an in-line citation).
• If multiple sources are needed to support a claim, consider bundling citations to avoid an unappealing plethora of in-line ref numbers ([173][174][175][176][177], [179][180][181], [132][133][134], etc), as is done for ref 138.
• Refs should be reordered consistently (e.g. [132][18][135] should be [18][132][135])
  • Fixed Stephenjamesx (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• After gaining early admission at 17, she eventually lived in an NYU dorm on 11th Street. source?
• Devastated, Gaga returned to the solace of the family home for Christmas and the nightlife culture of the Lower East Side. source?
  • Fixed Stephenjamesx (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• A sleeper hit, lead single Just Dance had preceded the album's release by four months but only hit the summit of the international charts in January 2009. source?
  • Fixed Stephenjamesx (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• In addition to exceeding 8 million copies in worldwide sales, Born This Way has received 3 Grammy Award nominations, including her third consecutive for Album of the Year. source?
• She has covered a wide variety of topics in her songs: while The Fame (2008) meditates on the lust for stardom, The Fame Monster (2009) expresses fame's dark side through monster metaphors. Born This Way (2011) is sung in English, French, German and Spanish and includes common themes in Gaga's controversial songwriting like love, sex, religion, money, drugs, identity, liberation, sexuality, freedom and individualism. source? I realize that all of these claims are located at the end of paragraphs, and as such may be backed up by subsequent sources in the following paragraphs. However, for reassurance, try having every paragraph in the article end with appropriate sources. Auree ★ 01:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• In 2008–10: The Fame and The Fame Monster, several previously wikilinked terms are re-linked: metal, synthpop, New Kids on the Block, Just Dance, Poker Face, Best Dance Recording, and 52nd Grammy Awards. Most of these double links are unnecessary.
  • Fixed Stephenjamesx (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Same for 2011–present: Born This Way: best-selling singles worldwide, Marry the Night, Elton John are duplicate links, though I suggest keeping the first one.
  • Fixed Stephenjamesx (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Duplicate links for Influences: musical theatre, glam rock. Glam rock reappears in Musical style, as does heavy metal.
  • Fixed Stephenjamesx (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• In Philantrophy, Born This Way, Manhattan, John Lennon, 2010 MTV Video Music Awards, The Edge of Glory, and dress are re-linked.
  • Fixed Stephenjamesx (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Reference 176 contains a dead link; References 10, 29, 45, 56, 61, 62, 80, 91, 101, 162, 180, 182, 186, 194, 200, 202, 212, 220, 222, 229 contain uncategorized redirects (path or sub-domain changes, etc); Ref 51 also returns an error (see here)
• No disambiguation links. Auree ★ 01:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Thursday 2 February 2012, 11:42 UTC)

[edit] 21 (Adele album)

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I desperately need some fresh pairs of eyes to look it over. I'd love to take it to FAC soon, and wanted to make sure that it was up to standard before I nominated it. My major issue right now is the prose. Also, the article could use a bit of trimming, but I've grown too emotionally attached to edit it down. Any help or suggestions welcomed.

Thanks, Orane (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Brief comments by Lemonade51

Thank you for your work on this, not the biggest fan of Adele alas but I don't think anyone can deny that her voice is magnifique. This is a very well produced article so kudos. I won't go into much detail on prose unfortunately nor haven't checked for Oxford comma but skim reading this, here is what I have found (of course if I find anymore I'll let you know...)

• The media scrambled to ascertain the..., is scrambled the word you are looking for?
• In 'Titling' you use the word 'symbolized'. Should that be 'symbolised' because the majority of the article looks to be written in British English?
• Under 'Promotion', it states The singer underwent vocal surgery in November 2011. Perhaps there needs to be a short addition about the result of the surgery, that it was a success? Doesn't have to be a lot of sentences because it has nothing to do with the article, few words in that already constructed sentence would do.
• ...performing on Britain's Royal Variety Performance on 9 December 2010, BBC Radio 1's Live Lounge on 27 January, and on the finale of reality singing competition The Voice of Holland, on 21 January 2011, Voice of Holland should come before Live Lounge.
• Switzerlandand, spacing.
• Ref 70 was published on The Observer, not its sister publication The Guardian.
• Ref 139 states the work as 'BBC Online'. I believe Newsbeat, the news platform for Radio 1 is a division of 'BBC News'. So maybe BBC News should be the work?
• Couple of dead links which should be the least of your worries considering you are looking for prose checks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonade51 (talk • contribs)

• Thank you so much for the input. Will set about implementing your suggestions immediately.
• Scrambled was the word I was looking for (the idea of a media frenzy and journalists tripping over themselves to come up with reasons to explain the album's success), but I'll remove it since it's syntactically awkward. Orane (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks again for the comments. Orane (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Jivesh

• Before I start, I need to know whether you are using the owner (according to WP) or the the publisher (according to WP) in the publisher parameter in your citations? This can be problematic. For consistency, I will advise you to use the owner (which in most cases is the publishing company) in each citation. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• As per the template specifications, the publishers for British newspapers are the owners, while the publishers for American newspapers are individual persons. So, I used the publisher. Orane (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ok. Lol. now it will be easier for me. :D Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry. I will get to this today itself. In three hours or less. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Take your time. No rush. Orane (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• I may be wrong but this sentence Released on 24 January 2011 in the United Kingdom and most of Europe, and on 22 February 2011 in North America, caused me ask myself, isn't the UK in Europe?
• in the U.S. --> US
  • Hi Jivesh, MOS:ABBR allows for either style of USA as long as the writer only sticks to one. UK on the other hand should never have periods/full stops. MOS only asks for consistency amongst the US abbreviations. Best, —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 10:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well Orane will to apply the U.S. in Charts and certifications as well then. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have never read such a lead. It is perfect. I as moving to the other sections. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

References

• FN 12: Shouldn't you be using Daily Mail and General Trust?

• Done

• FN 16: M - has an article + publisher is Bauer Media Group

• It's actually not the same magazine. This one is an American teen mag; the one in the article is a British Magazine.

• FN 30: WSJ is published by Dow Jones & Company

• Done

• FN 34: Metacritic has an article Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• FN 55: It is a blog. Remove it.
• FN 56: Use {{cite news}}
• FN 57: Rovi Corporation would be perfect as the publisher
• FN 60: Use {{cite news}}

• This is actually not an actual newspaper.Orane (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• FN 61: Not sure about Soul Culture

• Will look into it.

• FN 70: Shouldn't you be suing Guardian Media Group? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • LMAO! Why the hell would he sue Guardian Media Group. Jivesh, your keyboard is too much. :D — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Using. :D My keyboard... hmmm it is legendary. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• FN 82: Link The Official Charts Company
• FN 86: Unlink everything and link in FN 72
• FN 90: Unlink Time
• FN 91: Same as FN 70
• FN 94: Daily News has an article.
• FN 98: It will be questioned.
• FN 99: I think BBC will be more than enough. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• FN 105: Grammy.com has an article.
• FN 111: Correct the work parameter and unlink the publisher
• FN 128: Should be The Official Charts Company
• FN 133: Same
• FN 135: Same
• FN 140: Unlink
• FN 141: BBC Online has an article.
• FN 142: Should be The Official Charts Company
• FN 147: Unlink MegaCharts
• FN 149: State is a magazine and it is published by Roger Woolman.

• No longer an magazine. Ceased circulation. Now an online publication.

• FN 150: Chart-Track has an article. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Waayyy past my bed time, but I just want to say 3 things: 1. I love-love-love your suggestions. And 2 It's actually Official Charts Company (without The) :). 3. I made an edit and screwed up the refs. So the ones you listed here aren't the same ref numbers that appear in the article. But I know which ones you are talking about. Anyway, gotta run, but thanks soo much. Orane (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• You are most welcome Orane. :)) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Think I got 99% of it. Will try to see about a couple sources, like the blog etc. Orane (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I have not finished yet with the references. This is my favorite part. :P Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I see that you have already fixed most of references from FN 151 onward per the above comments.

• FN 199: Over-linking of Ultratop
• FN 202: Over-linking of MegaCharts

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Legolas

• I think the approach that you have chosen for listing the locations of newspapers which are unobtainable from their names, is brilliant and on-par with the citation templates. At a first glance I did not see any discrepancy in the citations. I will inspect it more now and go citation by citation. By the way, some of the references miht be questioned at FAC. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• The Chart Watch/Yahoo sources will be questioned, I'm sure. But I have my defense speech ready hahaha. Are there any others? Orane (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Orane, is there any way to archive the Adele.tv link and the video? It's importance is unprecedented and the article would fall if that link went dead for some reason. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'll try to archive the page. I don't know if it will keep the videos intact, though :(. Orane (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Do you know any sites that host transcripts? Those can be archived I'm sure. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 10:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• No, not aware of any sites. I'm kinda worried now... Orane (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I actually can't archive. When I do, the videos don't work. Compare: load://www.adele.tv/trackbytrack/archive/ and load://www.webcitation.org/659w0g2uy. Orane (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Status

I have nothing to add to this review (sorry), but I just wanted to say how good this article is! You've done