Wikipedia:Peer review/Audioslave/archive1

Audioslave

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like it to achieve a Featured article status, it is a quite famous, and musically important band, and now disbanded. I spent an enormous time improving it, it was basically totally unreferenced and without enough information and no images. But I know it is no reason for a FA that I worked on it for a long time:) So I requested peer review to have other people check the article against the criterias, because I can't see more problems, but I'm sure there are many.

Thanks,

Gocsa 13:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esprit15d

I found out that Audioslave broke up through this peer review and had a mini-heart attack - I loved them. Wow. Well, moving on...The article is comprehensive and well referenced, and deserving of praise right off the bat. I also want to mention that this review is hit and miss; I didn't read everything. But I think the article (and particularly the lead section) suffers from subtle bias. This kind of bias tends to creep into articles about successful and critically acclaimed subjects, but still must be rooted out. An article can comment on success and acclaim without sounding like Wikipedia has an opinion, which is the goal. Some examples:
- "One of Audioslave's greatest achievements" - couple problems (1) greatest achievements to whom? Some might think their greatest achievement was bagging Chris Cornell, or something else (2) again, greatest to whom? This time, some might think that playing in Cuba was anti-American or pro-communist totalitarianism. Some think it might have been a stunt. I might sound picky, but word choice is everything. Words like "notable" "difficult" "covered in the press" "newsworthy" are good; words like "greatest" and "best" are generally bad.
  - Done I changed it to "notable". Gocsa 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "brought an inimitable, unique flavour into this mix" - absolute opinion. And why the British spelling?
  - Done I rewrote it to "Moreover, Morello incorporated his well-known, unconventional guitar solos into this mix." Gocsa 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "as Audioslave broke decades-long barriers" - barriers? Opinion word. "Breaking barriers" implies that they were denied something. Many might champion the embargo.
  - Done I deleted that part. Gocsa 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues:
- "receiving 3 Grammy" - three should be spelled out
  - Done Spelled out. Gocsa 22:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Morello added of the name - odd phrasing
  - Done Changed it to "Morello added he thinks the name, "adds a kind of three-dimensional depth to the rest of the package."" Gocsa 22:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "confirmed for the 7th annual" - seventh should be spelled out
  - Done Spelled out. Gocsa 22:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Under the tentative name "Civilian" (or "The Civilian Project"), thirteen rough rehearsal demo" - this statement appears to contradict what was stated earlier about the "alleged" name. This conflict should be addressed or resolved.
  - Done Well, I added that "it was, contradicting the other band members, discredited", I don't know if it is better now. But you see, the contradiction was within the band:) It is obvious, many sources and two band members confirmed the "Civilian" name, I don't understand why Morello denied it, but he definitely did, I just wanted to point out the fact that it seems they contradicted each other, and that Morello probably wanted to deem this name a rumor, but he didn't tell the otwer two (or maybe even three) to say his version:) I also changed the other part to "Under the name "Civilian" (or "The Civilian Project"), which was then erroneously believed to be the tentative band name, thirteen rough rehearsal demo". Gocsa 22:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "This was not the only time the album production was panned, Jon Monks from Stylus Magazine had the same opinion, he considered Rubin's production over-polished and wrote that "lacking individuality, distinction and imagination this album is over-produced, overlong and over-indulgent."" - This is three separate complete sentence separated by commas. I recommend using periods or a period and a semi-colon.
  - Done Added a period and a semi-colon. Gocsa 22:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "position No. 7 after selling" - number seven should be spelled out
  - Done Spelled out. Gocsa 22:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "The band didn't win in neither category, the Grammies were awarded " - semicolon instead of a comma
  - Done Changed it. Gocsa 22:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "started in 2003, on the Lollapalooza tour, during free" - remove the commas
  - Done Removed them. Gocsa 22:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "saying it is "limp"" - saying it was
  - Done Changed it. Gocsa 22:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "got an actual plot, the video only shows" - again, a new sentence introduced with a comma instead of a period or semi-colon
  - Done Added a semi-colon. Gocsa 22:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "purpose-built five years ago for mass"- ago? from when? this will get dated quickly (if it isn't already)
  - Done I changed it to the concrete date, 2000. Gocsa 22:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- " on May 18, on Hollywood Boulevard" - rm the comma
  - Done Removed it. Gocsa 22:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "While the first two albums drew influences from '70s hard rock bands" - it is better to write the full decade (1970s) and do the same elsewhere. Wikipedia covers centuries worth of info, and hopefully will be around for a while, so it is better to write the full decade
  - Done I changed all of them. Gocsa 22:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Chris Cornell is often referred to by his full name - after the first instance after the lead, he only need be referred to by his surname.
  - Done Done that. Gocsa 22:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said earlier, the article is good, and I really need to get back to RL. But these are just some things I picked up on.--Esprit15d 20:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hfarmer

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
- Done I think there's no problem like that, I watched it when I rewrote the article. Gocsa 10:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
- Done Full dates are linked. Gocsa 10:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
- Done The only repeat is the Audioslave heading, which is the name of the album. Gocsa 10:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
- Done I think there are enough subpages. Gocsa 10:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: favorite (A) (British: favourite), organize (A) (British: organise), organise (B) (American: organize), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), travelled (B) (American: traveled).
- Done I think it is now consistent, I tried to use American spelling, but as my first language is not English, it is possible I messed up some times. Gocsa 10:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Hfarmer 01:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WesleyDodds

The article looks very good so far, but it does require a thorough copyedit. In particular, the lead section needs to be rearranged for grammar and clarity. I'll put it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music's prose review section in hopes that someone can take a look at it. Also, I'm not really sure the "Solo projects" section is all that necessary; with everything these bandmembers have done such information is best reserved for the individual member pages. WesleyDodds 08:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Gocsa 09:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]