Wikipedia:WikiProject Evanescence/Peer review
Is it easy to understand for non-fans? Does it have chances for being Good or Featured Article? If not, what does the article need to be GA or FA? Armando.O (talk|contribs) 02:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's more or less easy to understand. :) It seems to be formatted per Template:Biography which is good. It does have a good chance of GA but the 'dress sense' portion is both underreferenced and doesn't really prove the notability of her dress sense. Does she influence the fashion of her fans? There are a few stylistic issues, like the positioning of the references (they should be after punctuation marks) - I'd suggest you read the WP:MOS for help. In some places the grammar is out too - Amy Lee at a concert on 2006 should be in 2006 for one that I saw - there may be more. Reading other GAs should help you in your quest. Good luck - Malkinann 23:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- (Non-fan reporting for duty.) Yes, it's easy to understand. My main issue with the article is that it doesn't seem to make up its mind whether it's about Amy Lee (the person) or Evanescence (the band). For example: the (very short) "Fallen" section lists the sales figures for that album. This might be interesting for the band's article, but doesn't tell us anything useful about Amy Lee. The same goes for the latter half of the "Founding" section and the first part of "The Open Door". As there already is a good article about Evanescence, you should concentrate on things Amy Lee herself did, said, thought and accomplished, in my opinion. Cheers. --Plek 21:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The lawsuit subsection needs more cites, especially as concerns the counterlawsuit which quotes from somewhere. LuciferMorgan 21:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Could you add how critics have reacted towards her guest performance with Korn on their Unplugged CD? LuciferMorgan 21:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Could you also add how critics have reacted towards her duet with Shaun Morgan? In this make sure to name the critics or magazines in questioning that you're quoting. LuciferMorgan 21:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- "Image" section needs a vast cleanup and needs to cite all its claims. LuciferMorgan 21:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
This is an article about alternative rock band Evanescence. The Evanescence WikiProject hopes to nominate this article as a Good Article Candidate some time in the future.
Is it easy to understand for non-fans? Is it possible for this article to be a GA or FA? If not, what does the article need to improve and get to GA or FA? Wich sections need more attetion? Armando.O (talk|contribs) 02:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I found this article generally informative and well written. It could always be better, of course, and I have tagged a couple of awkward sentences near the beginning.
I think it has a good chance to pass GA, if you can fix those citation needed tags.
For FA, I personally think the prose is not good enough, but then my standards here are higher than most reviewers.
I'm not really sure you should stick all those subcategories under "History". It seems to me you really want to structure the article around the album releases, with a separate section for the Christian controversy. --Ideogram 09:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- About the Christian controversy: It's placed there because it's a recurring problem since the Evanecence early history until today. Armando.O (talk|contribs) 19:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- But it's placed last in the History section, implying that it happend at a particular point in history, namely last. --Ideogram 20:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
is there a better picture that we can use for the Evanescence article? one where you can clearly see them closer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacanescence (talk • contribs) 04:49, February 18, 2007(UTC)