Wikipedia:Peer review/Isis (band)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isis (band)[edit]

This article has failed what was probably an unwise GA nomination, recently been rated as B-class in WP:BIO and had a previous PR. I feel it's at a new level now, with minimal sycophancy and plenty of citations. Any input whatsoever would be appreciated; I have a goal of this achieving GA status in not-too-long. Seegoon 01:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Certain statements need a citation. LuciferMorgan 03:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? If you mention them here or {{fact}} tag them I'll get to work. Seegoon 13:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: the Isis template at the bottom of the article, have you considered condensing the "Releases" section so that the box doesn't take up the width of the page? You would just need to add a <br /> between the appropriate releases, maybe after Panopticon? You could also make it three lines - but I'd at least get In the Absence of Truth on the same line (just my opinion).
    • Done, nice touch. Seegoon 18:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, have you considered adding music samples. I think they add a lot to a band's article. I added them to the discography section of Harvest; but I've seen them used a number of ways.
    • Great idea, that's something for a long weekend. Seegoon 18:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thirdly, have you thought of adding the track names to the discography? You could possibly link some of the track names to music samples.
    • I'd be reticent about doing this; it'd make the article visually enormous, practically creating an article in itself. Seegoon 18:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hope these suggestions help. By the way, if you're interested in adding music samples in the .ogg format, try out "Power mp3 Cutter 2006 - I got it for a free trial off of cNet Downloads. It makes cutting out 30 second or less samples a breeze (which is the legal length). Also, I've got the Harvest article up for peer review if you're interested in reviewing it. Jamie L. 00:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your suggestions, it's all helpful. I'll give Harvest a lookover when I have some free time. Seegoon 18:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor[edit]

Thoughts:

  • I don't like the "see 1997 in music", that page doesn't really add much to the article.
    • I've removed all of these. It's a WP:MUSTARD reccommendation, but you're right. It adds little. Seegoon 15:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second sentence is long and snaky, perhaps split it. What does commonly labelled mean? It implies that they are commonly labelled "among many others", which seems a bit odd. Do you mean that they are commonly labelled as "avant garde metal, post-metal, post-rock and experimental" and have also been labelled as many other things? Needs tidying.
    • I've give this a little prune - it's certainly not perfect though. It's one of things that'd work best if I completely rewrote it, and I'll add that to my to do list. Seegoon 15:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their sound has helped develop the sound of several contemporaries; namely Cult of Luna, Pelican, Tides, Rosetta, and Russian Circles - is this really lead material? I don't know the band, so it's hard to say, but the whole second paragraph seems to focus on how they've influenced others, rather than what they've done themselves. You could also get rid of "namely" and replace the semi-colon with a colon.
    • I agree, but I'm not entirely sure where it could be inserted into the main body of the article. I supposed it could follow the section on the albums which influenced said bands... I'll bear that in mind. Thanks. Seegoon 15:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Mogwai sourced, but Tool and Justin Broadrick not?
    • Further on in the article, it states how Justin Broadrick has worked with them extensively and that they have toured with Tool and borrowed a member for performance in one song - I could put that information in <ref></ref> tags if you think it'd be necessary. That's one possibility - but as you recommended, I think I'm going to try to assimilate that kind of information into the "History" section, and perhaps rename it "Biography". Seegoon 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I don't like the "see 2002 in music" (or wherever it's used later on).
    • This is rectified. Seegoon 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suddenly we're given information about their most recent album, even though nothing else about their releases has been mentioned in the lead. The lead should summarise the rest of the article (see WP:LEAD).
    • With this, I was just trying to condense important information. I guess it'd function fine without that information, and I might remove it. Seegoon 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Turner states - "as" is redundant; is there any reason "states" is used instead of "said" ("states" makes it sound very strong).
    • I've reworded this section. Seegoon 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isis gained national underground attention in the metal/hardcore scene through tours with Cave In and Neurosis. - cite?
  • It signified a further progression many had predicted since Oceanic - if you're going to say that "many" predicted something, it needs a cite.
    • The next sentence covers this I think, but I might try to find another source to cover the "many" aspect. I have one in mind. Seegoon 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bands such as Tool, The Melvins, Godflesh, and Neurosis can be cited as influences to Isis' sound, - would be better as "Isis cite Tool...as influences to their sound". "can be" sounds odd.
    • Reworded that section duly. Seegoon 17:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*The second paragraph of "Genre" needs better referencing. At the moment, it sounds like original research.

    • Good point, I'll try to find a more lucid discussion within some reputable sources. Seegoon 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read further, not all the information mentioned in the lead seems to be substantiated later on in the article, which is a real problem.
    • It's becoming more and more clear that I gotta rework some of that. Yeah. Seegoon 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Isis album is as overtly diegetic as, for example, The Wall, or The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars—two prime examples of concept albums. - cite?
    • Hmm... I think I might take out the other albums. "No Isis album contains an overt diegesis, or story arc, instead focusing on themes as opposed to stories.[cite]" etc etc, you've got my brain working now. Seegoon 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The referencing isn't consistent: they all need accessdates and the accessdates should all be phrased the same way (sometimes it's "retrieved"; sometimes "retrieved on").
    • I think this is OK now. Seegoon 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely there's more for Ref 25.
    • I've clarified this to the best of my abilities given what I have available. It's something for the long-term, definitely. Seegoon 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where available, add the dates the refs were written.
  • External links need pruning; see WP:EL

It's not too far off GA standard, but still needs a bit of work. Trebor 13:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your input, it's invaluable. I've bolded the stuff I still have to address; once that's done, I'd appreciate you giving it a once-over. Thanks again. Seegoon 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Isis_(band)/archive2&oldid=192077446"