Wikipedia:Peer review/Californication (album)/archive1

Californication (album)

This is the first WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers article to get to GA status and it needs some fresh eyes to look over it and point out areas for improvement so that we can pull it up to FA :) Any and all comments are appreciated! Kamryn Matika 12:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated suggestions

I went ahead and used the javascript thingy to make these;

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?] Done

Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Comments from CloudNine

Here's a few points to help you improve the article. I'll add more as I go through it:

~~"Pre-composition"? "Background" works better as a section title in my opinion.~~ Done Kamryn Matika 15:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any information on Californication's release? What formats was it released in, where did it chart (it's nice to have such information in prose form), when did it achieve gold, what are the album's current sales? etc. See Surfer Rosa#Release and Doolittle (album)#Release for an example.
"In March 2006, the Red Hot Chili Peppers' albums were made available to purchase on iTunes. Albums bought there included new previously unreleased tracks. The original tracks, unlike the bonus tracks, were not remastered." Personally, I don't think this is worthy of note in the lead. This is an ideal candidate for inclusion in a Release section.
~~You may want an "Accolades" section; have a search around AcclaimedMusic.net.~~ Done NSR77 ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I see an Accolades section. Is the information about accolades part of the Critical recognition section? CloudNine 19:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is purely a stylistic point, but the book reference should be "lastName, year. p. page". Just a preference of mine.
An external links section would be helpful. I recommend links to Google Music, All Music Guide and Last.fm (et al), and perhaps a {{Wikiquote}} box if there were any interesting Californication quotations. Done Kamryn Matika 15:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In general, take a look at some featured album articles (I've written Doolittle (album) and Surfer Rosa) for general layout and tips.

Hope that's enough to keep you going for now; good work so far! Feel free to strike out points if you feel you've addressed them. By the way, you may want to consider listing this at the alternative music project's peer review page. CloudNine 14:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks a lot - this will be hugely helpful :) Working on it now. Kamryn Matika 15:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan

Consider merging the "Critical recognition" and "Release" sections into one section like I did with "Christ Illusion" (FA). Currently the article is chronologically incorrect in the sense it mentions the recognition before it mentions it being released.

The album has received criticism for what some perceive to be excessive compression and distortion in the process of digital remastering - This is a misleading statement since "some" implies several, whereas Tim Anderson is the person saying this. It'd be much better to say; Tim Anderson of The Guardian noted how the album has received criticism "for excessive compression and distortion".

This change has been attributed by some to the return of Frusciante to the lineup. Has the same problem, since "some" is incorrect. What's correct to say is; Music.com's Greg Prato attributed this change to the return of Frusciante to the lineup.

Citation 20, a link to Amazon.com, is unsuitable and cannot be used since Amazon is a commercial website.LuciferMorgan 23:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of your concerns have been dealt with, thanks a lot for pointing them out. Kamryn Matika 04:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just trying to help you improve the article. :) LuciferMorgan 01:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AllynJ

Nothing major from me, the prose reads fine as it is as far as I can tell. Two points:

Why is Fortune Faded listed under singles? It's a single from Greatest Hits, not Californication, no?

It may simply be that it's just a small number of people calling for it, but Californication has been one of the most criticised albums for it's mastering as a part of the loudness war; certainly by audiophile and music engineering circles - perhaps it's me but I certainly think it could do with its own paragraph (at least!). Couple of sources that would be appropriate for it: The Guardian, Stylus Magazine.

Thanks. AllynJ 13:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, thanks for the Stylus source! The Guardian one is already in the article but I couldn't find any more sources so I couldn't expand the comment about mastering. I'll take a look in a bit and try to improve it. Kamryn Matika 16:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]