Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Sparks (band)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sparks (band)

[edit]

Past review(s): Archive1

Resubmitting the Sparks article as it has been very stable for a long time and requires fresh eyes for its development. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KaptKos (talk • contribs) 09:27, October 21, 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

To do (based on comments below - please correct/add to)

  • Cleanup external links
  • Update infobox
  • Use listen box for samples
  • Complete/expand discography
  • Expand album pages
  • Fair use justifications/free use images, imporve image descriptions
  • Improve Inline citatations for Style section
  • Legacy/influence section
  • Improve lead section to conform to Wikipedia:MOS
  • Cp-ed to cleanup POV
  • Switch to a single ref style
  • Add appropriate witty quotes
  • Cp-ed to remove duplicate detail from different sections
  • Expand history/background detail

--KaptKos 09:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • The external links needed some cleanup (I just finished organizing them). Although the fansites might need to go.
  • I also updated the infobox to {{Infobox musical artist}}.
  • Could organize the samples in an appropriate section near the bottom. See Nirvana (band)#Samples or The Beatles#Song samples. (see Wickethewok's comment below)
  • The singles needs to be completed (obviously).
  • The album article pages need to be expanded (not directly related to this article, but would help improve this article's information).

– Heaven's Wrath   Talk  18:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some suggestions for ya, nice work so far.

  • Actually, per Wikipedia:Music samples, samples should typically be in listen-boxes next to the paragraphs that mention them.
  • One thing I noticed about the language was that you use the phrase "[year] saw the release of..." a bunch of times in the article. You should probably switch up the sentence structure a little bit.
  • If you wanna get this to an FA, you're going to need to probably have some better fair use justifications or get some free-use pics.
  • The first several sentences of the style section should probably have some inlines somewhere, as the article makes some pretty specific claims/comparisons.
  • I don't know how much more info is available on this band, but it seems like there could be more detail. Did they have recurring themes in their music? Any particular legacy/influence on other bands?

Hope my suggestions are useful. Cheers! Wickethewok 17:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article, enjoyed reading it. Just a few suggestions:

  • The lead should ideally comprise 3 paragraphs. Maybe the current lead could be split in two at the 'Despite the many genres' section, followed by a para on the current revival. Also Sparks have been hugely influential, and it'd be worthwhile in mentioning a few specific bands in the 2nd paragraph.
  • Words such as 'lush' and 'dramatically' could be seen as POV.
  • Add more descriptive captions to the images.
  • Change the references style to "div class="references-small" (looks tidy). Also consider using a standard <ref name="X">{{cite web | author= X| year= X | title="X" | work=X| url=X | accessdate= October 21 | accessyear=2006}}</ref> format for all refs.
  • Perhalps the "style" section should come after "History". This is no big deal, and there's no 'rule' as such, its just more usual.
  • Both Ron and Russell are quite witty in interviews, try incorporating quotes into article, where appropriate.
  • Just a comment: If your going for FA, and you should, the preference for sound files seems to be towards the 'Sound sample box' format. That said inline is sometimes used as well.
  • Disog. section is disproportionally large compared to rest of article. If you want to expand the History section, maybe subscribe to Questia or Rocks back pages for a month and see what you can dig out.

Other than that, great work! - Coil00 21:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My impressions:

  • In the lead, what kind of 1960s music does "60s homage" refer to? I've also added links to the other genres you mention — you might want to check if I've interpreted them all correctly. Also, "uniquely crafted artistic pop songs" could mean a lot of different things, in my experience; the description of lyrics and arrangements work better to convey what you might be describing, but I think this part could be more descriptive.
  • Claiming uniqueness twice in the opening seems a bit overreaching, no matter who you're talking about.
  • The "Style" section seems to duplicate a bit from the "History" section (sometimes verbatim, eg. "a major influence on artists such as Depeche Mode, New Order and The Pet Shop Boys"). Also, it introduces some aspects of their history in vague details before the history section discusses them more specifically; maybe you could put it after the history section, and thereby be able to refer back to details of their history more concisely.

The rest of the article looks much better formed in comparison, so I mostly focused on these sections. –Unint 22:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wow! Thanks everyone for the great response, all very contructive and helpfull, much appreciated.
  • First off, the POV problem has to be addressed, I could try but I think at this stage it would be better for someone else to cp-ed the suckers out
  • Fair use images is a big issue, any suggestions gladly accepted
  • I'll try to address the layout, duplicate detail, MOS, ref format and sample issues raised as ongoing tasks
Thanks again for the fantastic response--KaptKos 11:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Sparks_(band)/archive2&oldid=1145623887"