User talk:Nikolasbrady/sandbox

Lead Section: The first sentence of the lead section does a good job defining the band, as well as maintaining clarity. I would suggest maybe mentioning the genre in the first sentence, and revising the second to just give more details about the genre, etc. The lead as a whole definitely addresses the band's background and its controversies. There wasn't too much included about its overall significance, though, so that's something I might consider adding. Your lead is overall a very effective summary of your article's content so far! You also maintain an unbiased tone throughout, which is good, although again you may want to include some more information on their impact/significance to music/the world.

Table of Contents: TOC seems pretty solid now, maybe when you fill in some of the information gaps you'll find that you need more sections or subsections, but for now it looks good.

Sections and Subsections: So far, all of your content is well organized and placed in sections and subsections that make sense. In terms of reading, it was enjoyable to read, which could possibly be attributed to the narrative-esque tone that you used throughout the article. Personally, I like this, but it could be possible that wikipedia editors may not. Content wise, what you have so far is well supported, and unbiased information that is structured logically and nice to read. Obviously, the gaps will be filled in and future sections will probably be structured and written similarly, so you're good there. The only thing I saw that looked like it may need a citation was the last sentence of the Rushes subsection.

Tone: The tone of the article is appropriate overall. I feel like the parts of your article that are told in a narrative style would be difficult to include in a different way and have the information make sense. You stay neutral, objective, and mostly formal throughout. Looks good! Heidiwarde (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Edits
Lead Section: I really like the lead section, as it is written very clearly with a good flow, as well as good information being provided. The information provided in this section really gives the reader a good grasp of both the music that this band made, but also the culture around it, including its popularity, the mystery of who the members were, and its controversy. It really sets up the article to be an interesting read. It also does a good job of staying neutral, and being informative, as opposed to introducing bias.

Table of Contents: The table of contents includes really good sections, I think the order, and the placement of some of the sub-sub-sections could be changed. In the history section, it breaks off into two of the band's albums, and then there is a separate subsection for discography. Maybe those could be combined somehow? Otherwise, I think that the Table of Contents and its sections make sense.

Sections and Subsections: The content definitely fit with the header for each section, and it stayed that way through the paragraphs. I also think the information provided is good. Some more detail on the reception and music style would be interesting, and I think more information on how listeners did not know who the true members were (I didn't see where this fit in) would be super interesting, because that's not something you see very much.

Tone: I think the tone generally stays pretty neutral, but I think the writing floats in and out of formal and informal, and so that would be something to look for, so you can maintain the encyclopedia feel. Otherwise I think you're topic and information is really good!

Trawdarula (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)