Wikipedia:Peer review/"Weird Al" Yankovic/archive1

"Weird Al" Yankovic
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that the content is excellent, but the structure isn't particularly clear. There are many small sections, with a lot of facts that don't seem to "gel" very well. I think that this article needs changing somewhat.

Thanks,

Ta bu shi da yu 06:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * NOTE: Article is already at FA status and has been for over 10 months. --Michael Greiner 13:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. But I don't want to take it to FARC just yet. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 03:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this FA needs work, and Ta bu shi da yu did the article a favor in requesting a peer review rather than just listing it at WP:FAR, since that provides time for the editors to correct the deficiencies. The TOC is rambling and the article needs better organization. There are WP:MSH, WP:MOS and WP:DASH problems. References are not fully and consistently formatted (for example, there are many missing publishers, see WP:CITE/ES). A section heading of "Biography" on a Biography is redundant. There are a few throw-away sentences that don't belong in an encylopedic entry (example: An exhaustive list of television shows on which Yankovic has appeared is available on his official website.) I hope the regular editors will take some time (say a month) to clean this article up to FA standard so it can avoid WP:FAR. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The current version is nicely comprehensive. The mention of UHF should refer to its (admittedly thin) plot of a struggling TV station as the justification for the variety of styles, skits and parodies in the movie. Is Donny Osmond the only music star to appear as himself in a Weird Al video? VisitorTalk 18:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It is organized well. It also reads well. My only question is whether the "Misattribution and Imitators" and "Weird Al Star Fund" sections really belong there. They seemed a bit trivial to me. I also thought that the intro was not quite uptight enough in tone for an encyclopedia article. It is as though Weird Al himself wrote the intro! Other than that it looks good. 138.67.44.69 01:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Weird Al Star Fund, I was considering expanding that to include the "Make the Rock Hall Weird" fan campaign as well. I guess the "Misattribution" section could be reduced and placed under the "Music" section.  I can't really devote much time to the article at the moment thanks to a heap of uni work.  But in mid-November, if nobody else has worked on the article, I can do all that.  Thanks to everybody for their input so far!  I was worried it was going to be a much more critical peer review.    Gromreaper  (Talk) / (Cont)  12:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The intro is pretty good. The first paragraph of "Early Life" is out of order; it starts with Al being born, and then goes back to his father's earlier life, and then on to what is father taught his son, and then ends with Al being born. I'd lead in the "early fame" section with playing the accordion at coffeeshops, since that seems less impressive than the Dr. Demento bit, and they're presented as occurring at the same time. Either that, or I'd clarify that the coffeeshops element came later. The part about him not being Jewish feels rather out of place; it doesn't follow from the paragraph that it is found in. Two sentences on the "Wikipedia/YOU SUCK" issue seems like a bit much; one seems more appropriate. I agree that "Misattribution and Imitators" doesn't seem worthy of being in the article, at least in as big of a form as it is -- same with the star fund. I wouldn't mind shorter mentions of them worked in. -- Rei 22:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said above, thanks for the good suggestions and if nobody else works them into the article, I shall in November.   Gromreaper  (Talk) / (Cont)  12:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)