There are several problems with non-free media in the article. I'll start tagging them with notices for work to be done. In brief, the fair use rationales don't explain why the audio samples are necessary and irreplaceable in this article per
WP:NFCC#10c. A lot of non-free media also needs to be reduced in size. The free media could also be moved to commons. I know this is all very pedantic, but for FA we really need to organise our media properly. I'll try to review the text properly soon.
Papa November (
talk)
22:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. Does Followmearound.com have permission to reprint myLaunchs articles? (ref 1) If not, the link should be removed (and be replaced with a magazine ref). I'm concerned at some of the quality of the sources as well. Who are myLaunch; are they a reliable source?
CloudNine (
talk)
12:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Comments More will be added as I think of them.
Remove all links to unlicensed reproductions of magazine articles on fan websites. That's infringing on copyright. Credit the sources just as if you were citing directly from the magazine.
This article is currently 70kb, making it the second-longest article under the scope of WikiProject Alternative Music. Try and make the prose of the article more concise. One suggestion is to remove the 'Solo work' section, as its tangential to the band itself.
CloudNine (
talk)
18:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)reply
You don't need the chart positions in the Discography section (especially when chart positions in only two countries are listed). That's what the main
Radiohead discography article is for. All you need to list are the studio albums and release dates.
WesleyDodds (
talk)
12:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. Here are some statistics to do with the page size, as the total can sometimes be misleading. Size (using
User:Dr pda/prosesize.js) of
this revision:
A script has been used to generate a semi-
automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and
house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click
here. Thanks,
APRt02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment There's some excellent work in this article. Here's some points that will beat it into shape for an FA nomination:
The opening paragraphs should follow the guidelines at
WP:LEAD (3 paragraphs, concise, accessible, vital information only).
The "In Rainbows" discbox section could be either completely removed or put into the album's article if it isn't already there. Similarly, it's probably best to keep release details out of the lead because knowing they plan to release a discbox doesn't really give somebody who doesn't know the band at all a vital piece of information on them.
The article is looooooong. Go through the entire article and try to reword any parts that are expressed in too many words. Try to make things leaner and more concise.
Actually, the current trend (with many alternative music articles at least) is to keep the Discography section as simple as possible, and then save the detail for the main discography article. (see
Pearl Jam,
Frank Black etc.) Adding a tabled discography to the article would not reduce its length.
CloudNine (
talk)
21:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)reply