Wikipedia:Peer review/Tapir!/archive1

Tapir!

Now that this article has achieved GA, I'd like to aim for FA, but I need some disinterested eyes to help me see if there's anything that needs to be improved and if it stands any chance of getting FA anytime soon - since I'm a fan of the band and the main contributor to the article, I don't think I can be as neutral about the article's quality as I'd like to be, and I don't know enough about the FAC process to know if it's anywhere close to FA.

Thanks in advance! Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 16:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this article should list some important awards and nominations the band has received, highlighting their status and recognition in the music industry. Additionally, it should provide the band's official website and social media links to make it easier for the public to learn about them through performance videos. I hope this helps. Kikolipu (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the late reply - I saw this then completely forgot about it :P The official website is provided in the infobox, and due to being a very new band they haven't received any awards that I can find.

What about the question I asked in my original comment - is the article anywhere close to FA? Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 22:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Suntooooth: I am surprised at how little information there is in the article. Here are some things I would expect in this article:

• How the band was formed
• Much more critical commentary about the group (probably should get its own section describing what critics think about their work.)
• Touring information for 2024.

WP:A/S has a list of sources that are considered reliable that might have additional information about the band that could be included in this article. Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! A lot of lack of information is genuinely because at the time of writing the article this was most of the info available. I'll keep this in mind when I have time to update the article in the future! Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 17:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Skyshifter

• In a FAC, reviewers will likely challenge the reliability or quality of some of the article's sources, especially those not listed as reliable in WP:RSP or WP:A/S. These sources include Circuit Sweet, So Young Magazine, Brighton and Hove News, God Is In The TV, Hideous Mink Records, Hard of Hearing, Wax Music, and Clunk Magazine. The excessive usage of some primary or non-independent sources, such as the PIAS one, might also be questioned.
• As Z1720 said above, there is a lot of relevant information that appears to be missing. However, I understand that that information could just be not available at the moment.
• The band's members are never mentioned outside the "Members" section. They could be added to "History".
• "six-piece" in the lead should be removed, as that's not very common in band article lead sentences
• "The band consists of musicians from South London and formed in 2019, releasing their first single, 'My God', in 2022." seems a little confusing. Here's a suggestion:
  • The band was formed in 2019 by South London musicians. They released their first single, 'My God', in 2022."
• "Their musical style" → "Tapir!'s musical style" to avoid pronoun repetition
• "intricate and thorough" in the lead needs attribution and inline citation
• "History" → "Career" fits better
• "The band began releasing music in 2022, although they formed three years prior in 2019." → "The band formed in 2019 and began releasing music three years later," merging with the following sentences so you don't need to repeat 2022
• "in May 2022. In August 2022" → "in May. In August" as you don't need to repeat the year which was just mentioned
• "part of the October 2023 Left of the Dial festival" → part of the Left of the Dial festival in October" for the same reason
• "On 8 November 2023" → "On 8 November" for the same reason
• Link Tapir!'s first album in that section
• "as the first two acts" is probably unnecessary considering the name of the EPs?
• Could "Musical style and reception" be expanded with other reviews of their first album? In fact, the Metacritic assessment could be added to the article.
• "The band often wears red papier-mâché heads" — when exactly? When playing live?

Skyshiftertalk 16:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• I don't have anything concrete to say about the sources you listed (I feel like most are probably reliable otherwise I wouldn't've used them, but that's not based on much actual evidence), other than the "excessive usage of some [...] sources, such as the PIAS one" - primary and non-independent sources haven't actually been used a huge amount; the large amount of usages of the PIAS source is mostly because it's used as a source for every member, and most info from primary and non-independent sources is backed up with other sources too (and when they're not, the sources are used for minor or uncontroversial info).
• I've removed the "intricate and thorough" quote from the lead, since I try to not include citations in the lead at all if I can help it.
• All the year-related issues fixed + other wording issues like changing History to Career. I'm not sure if the "The band formed in 2019 and began releasing music three years later," part is worded correctly how I've done it though, so another set on eyes just on that would be great.

Any other issues will be fixed another time, since my brain's not working enough to write very well today. Thank you so much for the detailed feedback! Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 10:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Dxneo

Hello Suntooooth, I'm just gonna comment on the review itself for now, and maybe later I will review the article later. dxneo (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

---

• I'm only interested in the reliability of the sources. Based on the reviewers' comments and your replies above, it kind of looks like they are being hard on you, but FAC won't go any easy. You said, "I feel like most are probably reliable otherwise I wouldn't've used them," which I would say it's not a good way to about the review. Keep in mind that we are trying to put the article in "featured" shape. I see this PR has been open since May 2024 with minimal progress. FAC works in a timely manner, meaning you won't have months to address issues. Therefore, if there's a lot to address, quick fail is highly possible. dxneo (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
  • After addressing issues, please state what you've fixed in the reply box, so that when us new reviewers tag along, we know what not to touch and what's already been handled. dxneo (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Reliability of sources is the most important thing in my opinion. So if they seek any explanation on any source, please try your best to provide it. Use {{duses|www.example.com}} for some help, and if you can't verify the reliability of a source, find a replacement. Best of luck. dxneo (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks for the comments! I've never done a PR before this one, so I actually have no idea what the process is for closing/responding to these (I feel like this one should be closed by now, but I don't know how to do that, even after reading a couple of pages). The article won't be going for FAC for a while anyway since I've got a lot going on outside of WP. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 01:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)