Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Feeder (band)

Feeder (band)

I have recieved a peer review for the article, and cleaned up the points made. I then sent the article for a Good Article review which was unsucsessful.

I am looking for a series of peer reviews from at least ten wikipedians (more if possible), so I can get a good idea of what would be universially considered as a Good Article across the Wikipedia community :-).

Marcus Bowen 20:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JHMM13

Based on the backlog, I think you'll be lucky to get 3 reviews. Here are my suggestions for your article:

The lead doesn't need to have so many notes. It should be a summary of the rest of the article where are these claims are made in full at which time you should probably reference the information.
Try to consolidate some of the paragraphs in the lead.
"The band are..." vs. "The band is..." Is the first form a typically British English usage? I've only ever heard it in use for things like "Arsenal are running up and down the pitch" whereas in American English we'd often say "Arsenal is running..." I'm just double-checking to see if it's a grammar error or just a variation in dialects. In the second case, leave it as is, of course.
You should be able to obtain fair use images of the album covers. Check album articles for the fair use rational.
Is there any literature on the band yet? If not, don't worry about it as long as your web refs are legit.
In the last section, there seems to be a lot of listing going on caused by sudden news of the band and a fan attaching it to the end of the article. Try to smooth this out into prose and figure out if some of it isn't useful. If you can, also try to flesh out the sections on the other articles.
Check out other band articles for ideas on more sections and more information. Here's a good link for you.

That's all I have at the moment. I hope this is useful to you, JHMM13 08:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

Maybe an overall copyediting of the article could make the prose flow better. These are some problematic sentences IMO:

"Displaying a vein of Pixies and Smashing Pumpkins influenced rock in their earlier sound, they have further incorporated elements of piano driven rock ..." Who influenced rock? Feeder? Is the subject the same all the way in thi sentence?
"They both then moved to London, to become sound engineers, and recruited a bass player for their new band called 'Reel' and was later fired, and became 'Rain Dancer', in which that band didn't work out either." And recruited ... and was fired ... and became? I lost the subjects here.
"The Singles (2006) Feeder returned to the studio with this time Stephen Street working as the bands producer, to record three new tracks to appear on their then forthcoming singles collection The Singles." Is this sentence OK? Why "The Singles" are both in the beginning, and at the end of the sentence.
"The year ended with a small tour of London playing The Roundhouse and The Coronet. Two of these gigs seen guest appearances from The Sugababes and Jamelia. The gigs were in aid of War Child." Maybe a bit choppy?

When we quote, we do not quote; we just "quote".
I saw a criticism for wikilinking single years in the GA review. Well, it was not accurate. You can link per MoS single years if they are e.g. "2004 in music" or "2006 in British music" as you do.

In general, I still believe the article is entitled to be GA.--Yannismarou 07:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]