Wikipedia:Peer review/Cream (band)/archive1

Cream (band)

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because in time, should it be improved, I want to nominate it for Featured Article.

Thanks, Cubs Fan (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. Also, there are barely any references at all, large sections of the article are unreferenced. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 15:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ealdgyth that the biggest problem facing this article on its path to FA is a lack of references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
 * Watch out for peacock language - try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. Generally the examples themsleves prove the point - Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK
 * Logic seems to point out a problem with this header "The future (2006-present)" - last I checked the time from 2006 to now (2008) was called the past. See WP:HEAD too