Wikipedia:Peer review/Feeder (band)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Feeder (band)
I have been working on the article for a few days, adding references for statements that have not been given citations, and also cleaning up ones that have, with author names etc.
I hope to bring the article to a decent status like "Good Article", and maybe "Featured Article".
Marcus Bowen 21:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Yannismarou
- I think that you should tighten a bit the prose and its flow in the lead, so as to get a bit more coherent. As it is now, the prose there looks to me a bit choppy, and I do not also like the stubby paragraphs. For an article of this length two "solid" paragraphs would be OK. And something else: you don't have to over-cite in the lead. Especially, things that you will re-examine and develop in the main text.
- "Following the release of their limited edition debut EP "Two Colours" in 1995",[13][14] the band toured the UK extensively,[15][16] and released their "mini album" "Swim" in 1996 to some acclaim in Kerrang! magazine,[17] which was soon followed by debut LP "Polythene" in 1997.[18]" Sentences like this one in your article are too heavy with references. This is not good for the reader. Try to have them at the end of the sentence (unless you need them in the middle for emphasis reasons), and you can also combine them so as not to hav emore than one citation in a row. See examples in Tourette syndrome, and Battle of Edson's Ridge.
- "The band's 4th full-length album "Comfort In Sound" was released on the 21st October 2002." Wrong style. Prefer to have dates like this: "The band's 4th full-length album "Comfort In Sound" was released on the October 21, 2002", and wikilink full dates as I did here.
- "Their albums "Polythene" and "Yesterday Went Too Soon" both appeared in end of year lists. Alongside Metal Hammer, they appeared in the end of year lists of Kerrang!, Melody Maker and Q Magazine.[56][57][58][59][60]" It is not nice to have five citations in a row. You could combine them per above.
- You have no analysis of their music styles, influences, the interaction of the band's member, how do they work together etc. In general, it is a well-cited article, but for me it is too "dry", listing statistics, events and numbers, and not luring the reader to focus its interest on the article and the band.--Yannismarou 12:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- The article is definitely improved, and the addition of "Influences" is positive. But personally I find it a bit listy. I would prefer it in prose.--Yannismarou 20:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I think the article is ready for WP:GAC. After you reach GA status and before going for FA, maybe you should launch another review.--Yannismarou 13:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
-
