Talk:Slander (DJs)

Requested move 6 August 2018

 * 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)

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 &#124; contribs 21:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. either DJs, or Slander (band) In ictu oculi (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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
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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) It has a defined structure:
 * 2) It is reasonably well-written:
 * 3) It contains supporting materials where appropriate:
 * 4) It presents its content in an appropriately understandable way:
 * 5) 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * I am looking forward to seeing how this is improved based on this feedback. Jalen D. Folf   (talk)  01:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)