| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe in terms of structure and content, this is very close to the FA standard. However, might need some extra pair of eyes. I would want a peer review mainly on the prose and some spotchecks and just to make sure that there is no close paraphrasing that comes under plagiarism. Thanks, —IB [ Poke ] 12:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)' Good work in this article. It covers probably everything about this single. There are few things I would advise:
- While the manual of style says the four paragraph is the limit for the lead, I found this article's lead too detailed. Try trimming some parts like "Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Switzerland, while reaching the top five in Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Scotland, the United Kingdom, and the United States" with instead "multiple countries" while focusing mostly on English regions since this is the English Wikipedia
- All references need to be archived for FAs so I used the archive bot on this article. However, I think there is one dead url.
- Personnel seems to leave a lot of blank space which might leave a bad impression to reviewers. I would suggest reorganizing but I'm not an expert in this project so I leave it to you.
Other than that I see no massive issues. If you have time one of these days could you also comment in own peer review? Cheers and Merry Christmas.Tintor2 (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)