Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Queen (band)/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to finally push this article through as a featured one. Me and the other frequent editors have been doing a lot of work on this article in the recent weeks and would like to know your thoughts on what could be improved before we enter it as a FA nominee.

Thanks, TheStig 16:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A couple of mainly technical things I noticed:

  • Refs 2-5, 26, 81, 82 need extra information on them, currently they're just links. Author, date etc.
  • Refs 16 and 101 have been marked as dead, these need fixing
  • dablinks brings up Amandla, Band Aid and Dave Stewart pointing to disambig pages, point these in the right direction.
  • Alt text needed for all images though all the licensing looks great.

I'll try and do a thorough read through later, bit strapped for time but I hope that helps. CrimsonFox talk 20:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we'll work on this. You advice is much appreciated. :) TheStig 22:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is heading for an FAC, the lead will probably need some expansion. Three somewhat beefed-up paragraphs seems reasonable for a major band like Queen. Also, a lead should not contain citations of its own since it's supposed to be a summary of the article. Placing one right after the the first verb seems taking it a bit too far and is quite distracting. If there are frequent disputes about changing "are" to "were", then I recommend adding a caveat as a hidden comment instead.

By just a quick scan of parts of the text, I suspect the prose might need some work. For example, there's a lot of stubby paragraphs that could probably be merged with others paragraphs or expanded. Cutting down on the list of bands and artists under "Influence" might be a good idea as well. It looks a bit like a collapsed bullet list at the moment. And you could probably lighten up the read a bit by sorting the remaining examples into (specifically stated) genres.

Peter Isotalo 00:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]