Wikipedia:Peer review/The Human League/archive1

The Human League[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the whole article requires review by experienced Wikipedians who have not previously been involved in editing it. This is a measure of transparency after action to end an edit war. But more importantly a good PR is required before the article goes into the GA nomination process later this month. Because of recent edit problems only comments by established Wikipedians with a verifiable record will be acted on in the 'to do list' Good faith comments by new editors are more than welcome but may not be acted on.

Thanks, andi064 ^{T . C} 23:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say that I'd like to see a bit more history about the members. I'd like to know where they came from and what their past acomplishments are etc... Also, it seems like a small amount of sources for all the information already there. Are there any more, good sources out there for this band? Undeath (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look and post some ideas..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting photo I must say...

Need to highlight in the lead the years of their peak popularity (after the release of dare)

You need to watch frequent repetition of people's names. Use pronouns if there is no chance of ambiguity.

because it was so unique and at odds with everything else on the market - I'd try and rephrase to sound more encyclopedic. Maybe 'unusual' for 'unique' (which is a little hyperbolic). The second bit of the phrase - 'at odds with..', i'd probably dump - what does it add? Maybe instead write, their sound differed so markedly from other popular songs...I'm not sure.

This is essential reading for anyone aiming for GA or FA. have a look how much you can make redundant and remove while maintaining information.

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) You need to work on having more source citations as well as improving the sources you do have. Right now, you don't give publisher and last access date information for most of the websites, and the references are formatted in all different formats. Wikiquote isn't a good source for a quotation, go to the source that is given in WikiQuote. The Youtube interview probably needs to be switched to another source. But the biggest issue is that large sections of article that don't have any sort of source information. That will be a big issue for GA. As the article stands, I'd fail it at GAN for lack of citations, without even looking at the prose, which I haven't. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]