Wikipedia:Peer review/Diamond Rio/archive1

Diamond Rio
I've listed this article for peer review because…

For the past couple months now, I've been constantly tweaking this article; the previous version was a wreck, consisting of barely more than an incomplete discography. I've added as many references as I could find, and have constantly reworking pieces of it. My eventual goal is to get it to at least WP:GA status. There're some parts I'm still uncertain on the quality of, however. Basically, I'm looking for the following:


 * Are more references needed? Better references?
 * How can I make it flow better?
 * How can I expand the "musical stylings" section?
 * Are any other improvements needed?

Personally, I'd also like to get a better picture of the band (the only pic shows only half the band), but I don't have the resources. I would appreciate if someone could help there, too.

Thanks,

Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 20:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 15 additive terms, a bit too much.
 * The script has spotted the following contractions: Can't, Can't, Can't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]