Wikipedia:Peer review/Disturbed/archive1

Disturbed

 * 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 I would like to improve this article to the featured article level. I would be very glad to become feedback

Thanks, Vb (talk) 20:12, 17 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. 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. 21:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have reviewed with FAC in mind as your future objective.


 * The lead does not conform with WP:LEAD in that it is a short introduction, rather than a "concise overview" of the whole article.


 * Structure. The overall structure is too loose. The idea of structuring the article around the four main albums doesn’t really work. Within these album subsections, general information about the band is also given, seemingly at random. Sometimes the information is at an unnecessary level of detail, for example the paragraph dealing with Disturbed pack 01 – all that stuff about prices and points and free downloads etc. That is ephemeral information, for a weekly magazine; the encyclopedia article has to be written to last. A similar criticism relates to: "It has been recently announced…" This won't make much sense in the future, nor will writing about events of July and August 2008 in the future tense.


 * Non-encyclopedic language: Although, overall, the prose is clear enough, there are many instances of informal or non-encyclopedic language. A certain degree of formality in expression is required, as against what might be acceptable in a magazine article. Some examples (not an exhaustive list):-
 * "demos" for demonstration discs (or tapes)
 * "Not long after", without a time reference
 * "still is used a great deal to this day" – imprecise, what is “this day?”
 * referring to a band member in the text as "Fuzz", his nickname
 * "skip the tour"
 * "wasn't" - OK within quote, but not in body of text – should be "was not" (first line of Indestructible section)


 * Images – only one used.


 * Referencing: see Ealdgyth comments above.

There is no reason why this article should not, in time, join the dozens of other band articles on the FA list, but my feeling is that it is still at a relatively early stage of development. I think that the present Start rating is about right. I suggest study of recent band FAs, to get an idea of what a featured article entails, then much work before a return to the review process.

I hope that this is of some help. Brianboulton (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)