Wikipedia:Peer review/Fall Out Boy/archive1

Fall Out Boy

I do GAC and GA/R reviews all the time. Even the occasional FA and peer review, but I am terrible at reviewing articles I've put a great deal of work into. I can't see my own mistakes. So I'd just like a good review. GA is my goal. Lara♥Love 05:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Review by User:CaveatLector

I think this article is fantastic and a good model for how to construct and source articles on bands and musicians. I would only suggest a few things.

1. De-wikifi the dates, they crowd the article with blue, imo. Against guideline.
2. Try to find sources for the first two subsections of the 'history' section.  Done
3. I'm not sure why you split up the history section as you did. Are these periods critically recognized? The division of the History section compares to other band articles.
4. On that note, change the name of the last subsection from 'Continuing prosperity' to 'Continuing success'. 'Prosperity' sounds a little too POVy.
   

I'd say you should go ahead and put it up for a GA review after handling the more glaring of these issues. :) CaveatLector^Talk 07:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I'd like to comment on a few points:

1. Dates should always be wikified for user preferences.^[1]
2. I thought I'd found references for those sections. Either they've been removed or that was during the time that I lost internet for like 2 days and forgot where I left off. I'll get those again.
3. I acutally didn't split up the history, that's the work of another editor, but I think it's good in that it distinguishes a time line. Additionally, most band articles split up the history in such a manner (that I've seen, anyway).
4. Prosperity is a synonym for success. I forget what that section used to be titled, but I think everyone agreed that the current title was the best wording. I'm not saying you're wrong about it, I think I'd just like a second opinion to determine if it is, in fact, too POVish. Lara♥Love 17:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-automatic review by User:AndyZ

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?] Done
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]I don't think that applied to this article.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings. I don't think that applied to this article, either. mdashes and colons aren't considered inappropriate are they?
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?] Done
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 14 additive terms, a bit too much.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 07:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've began addressing issues. Lara♥Love 17:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)