Wikipedia:Peer review/Missy Higgins/archive1

Missy Higgins

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to GA and would like other opinions of what else needs to be done to it. Ideas on prose particularly welcome.

Thanks, Beloved Freak 17:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Periptus

Too cluttered with in-text citations in places. This makes the text unnecessarily difficult to read (see the effect of eg:
- does "At weekends she performed in her brother's jazz group" need two citations ?
- Why is cite [7] repeated for three sentences (in at least two places).- just have it at the end of the material it is covering. Same issue at least with [46] [56], [64] etc...
- review each place with 2,3+citation ,marks in the same place. Is this truly necessary or could one reference cover all of the material.
  - I do have a tendency to over-cite I think. I'm in the process of trying to sort these out.--Beloved Freak 22:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really need a "Nominations" section given that lots of them are duplicates of the Awards section ? Perhaps cull the list to only those nominations that failed...or consider if it is needed at all.

Culled. --Beloved Freak 22:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In June 2008 Higgins was voted #48 in The 2008 AfterEllen.com's Hot 100" - I cannot tell what this means and it needs explanation. Was she voted the 48th most "Hot" person or was it related to the music ?

I've changed this a bit, hope it's clearer now. --Beloved Freak 22:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is overlinking eg: I can see that "The Sound of White" is wikilinked in almost every place it is used. If reader's are progressing from the top then the later links serve only to make the text difficult to read.

There is some overlinking, I agree, and have tried to deal with this, but I'm not sure about The Sound of White. It's linked once in the lead, once in the paragraph about the album and once in the awards list. Are these not appropriate? There is also a song of the same name that is linked once.--Beloved Freak 22:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fair amount written about her personal life—an appropriate thing for a biography, but the material has not made an impact on the lead. The lead needs to summarise all of the material and, for a biography, words about the person (rather than simply their profession) are needed.

Ok, fair enough, I'll expand the lead.
I've added some more personal stuff to the lead, not sure if it still needs more. I think it pretty much summarises the article now, don't know if you'd agree. --Beloved Freak 13:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All up a good enjoyable read. Rather than listing more issues I see, I'll edit a few sections that'll show the type of things I would do with this article - Peripitus (Talk) 02:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Peripitus for your helpful comments & edits. I've never seen anyone do that with references before - moving the citations down to the bottom of the page. I can see how it helps readability in the edit box though.--Beloved Freak 22:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most welcome - I've had a quick scan through and apart from some overcitation (eg: ref [6]), the things I pointed out are much better. From what I've read online, and what I know, the article appears to be adequately broad. I should have time in the next day or so to go through the prose - not my strongest suit but a second set of eyes usually is helpful - Peripitus (Talk) 11:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]