Jump to content

Talk:Slander (DJs)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:SLANDER)

Requested move 6 August 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. If a move to Slander (band) might be warranted, please feel free to introduce that suggestion in a new move request. Dekimasuよ! 06:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Slander (DJs)Slander (group) – DJs does not sound like an appropriate ambiguator for a pair of music producers. Group is more appropriate to use, regardless of each of the members' roles in such a music group. 2601:589:8000:2ED0:6D47:2D6F:5943:572F (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz talk | contribs 21:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. either DJs, or Slander (band) In ictu oculi (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the plural in DJs signifies more than one person, which works fine here. Band definitely does not work since Slander does not play actual instruments like a band, so keep it at DJs. 05:26, 7 August 2018‎ ANode
(band) does not require instruments, it is the standard en.wp dab for any musical combine. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

B-class review

[edit]

Hello. I notice this article has a lot of citiations, so I figured I'd write this review.

B-class review

The article has been written very neatly so far. However, there's some details that prevent it from reaching this class, for instance, missing information. Details below.

  1. It is suitably referenced, with in-line citation:
    The discography section needs more citations, specifically on unsourced entries. Additionally, some parts of the body suffer from WP:CITEOVERKILL.
  2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious holes:
    The 2017 section does not cover anything beyond what is already there. Consider expanding this section to include recent activity.
  3. It has a defined structure:
  4. It is reasonably well-written:
  5. It contains supporting materials where appropriate:
  6. It presents its content in an appropriately understandable way:
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am looking forward to seeing how this is improved based on this feedback. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]