Wikipedia:Peer review/Feeder/archive2

Feeder

 * Previous peer review
 * 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 September 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 September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've managed to get this article up to GA status, but I now believe that a FA status is possible. Please may you list a series of points I need to cover to bring the article up to this level :) Many thanks. Marcus Bowen (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20071014071012/http://freespace.virgin.net/ali.bunny/feeder/faq.htm
 * http://www.geocities.com/feederroom/index.html
 * http://feederscrapbook.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/yorkshirepostrocksurvivorsfeedon.jpg
 * http://www.feederanorak.co.uk/FA_Home.htm
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20060530112915/www.feederweb.com/band/
 * http://www.muzieklijstjes.nl/Kerrang100British.htm
 * http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/index.htm
 * http://www.btinternet.com/~himh/feeder.html
 * http://www.bigbadworld.net/littleangels/biography/markrichardson.htm
 * http://ffsrock.com/comfortinsound
 * http://www.everyhit.com/
 * Current ref 64 (Feeder discography) sources a wikipedia page. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source.
 * http://www.gigwise.com/
 * http://www.echo.co.uk/feeder deadlinked
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 16 October 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; 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead does not follow WP:LEAD as I see it - it is too detailed and not an inviting summary and overview of the article. I also think the paragraphs are not balanced - the first is only two sentences, the second is too long - this may be seen as an issue under WP:WEIGHT too.
 * I have copied and pasted the Wilco lead, and changed it accordingly with a few other statements added. It now looks equally weighted and not lengthy.
 * OK, another good trick is just to sit down and reread the article, and then read the lead and see if anything from the article should be added to the lead. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When I saw they were from "South Wales", I originally thought they were from "New South Wales", i.e. Australia. Perhaps this should say something about the UK / Britain?
 * Thanks! :-), have now added more detail :-).
 * The article needs a serious copyedit to polish the language - a few examples
 * "These consisted of a few bands they played in including a stint as sound engineers, before forming a rock band called 'Reel' and sacked their bass player before replacing him with Taka Hirose, who placed an advert in Loot." This is a run-on sentence and should probably be split into two sentences (or three?). The languiage makes false impressions or statements in places - it sounds like they were in a band of sound engineers or that the bass player placed the ad (the band did).
 * Errors in Before the album[']s release, "We Are the People" charted at number twenty-five in the singles chart, making it their worse [worst] chart placing for a lead single since 1999's "Day in Day Out".  I think "chart placing" is also awkward - chart position perhaps?
 * Could you give me a brief analysis on the other problems you noticed please? :-), I have addressed the ones you have mentioned.
 * I do not do copyedits - sorry. I read for comprehension and still saw a lot of errors / places that could be polished. here are some things to fix in the first paragraph of the lead: Why not combine the first two sentences to get something like Feeder are a British rock band formed in Newport, South Wales in 1992 by singer/songwriter/guitarist Grant Nicholas, and drummer/guitarist Jon Lee. and why isn't Jon Lee linked here? The third sentence has problems too: Feeder's line-up was completed when bassist Taka Hirose placed an advert. First I think "advert" is too informal for an encylcopedia article. Second, it was completed when he joined the band after placing an advertisement (the act of placing the ad did not make him a member). The lead makes no mention of the member who replaced the guy who committed suicide. The sentence They have been in the past, joined for live performances by Dean Tidey ... is not correct and should read something like In the past, they have been joined for live performances by Dean Tidey ... I am not sure these all need to be in the lead, but do not write music articles. Finally Feeder have charted twenty-four UK top 75 singles, and eight UK top 75 albums.[1] violates WP:MOSNUM and should read Feeder have charted 24 UK top 75 singles, and eight UK top 75 albums.[1] I wonder if this and the last sentence could be combined to read something like Feeder have charted 24 UK top 75 singles, and eight UK top 75 albums,[1] and their music has been inspired by a wide variety of artists and styles, including The Pixies and The Smashing Pumpkins. Not all paragraphs need this much work, but the article needs a copyedit - try asking a volunteerr listed in the first section of WP:PRV. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree on the refs statements above.
 * I have been cleaning up the references, and sent a message to the other peer reviewer asking which ones flagged up should stay, giving my reasons, as a few FA status pages have used them also and the feederanorak references are reliable.
 * Per WP:MOS, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
 * There are three sound clips and at least one non-free image - how do these meet WP:NFCC?
 * A fair use rationale has been added for the non-free use picture, and have copied/pasted a rationale from a similar picture of The Smashing Pumpkins which is of FA status, and then changed the text accordingly. As for the sound clips, a fair use has been used on each one also similar to the ones used on the latter article's sound clips. I have also made the pictures smaller where it can be done without being too small (the portrait orientated pictures can be made smaller, but end up too small). Marcus Bowen (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What I understand NFCC is asking here is "What does the fair use image from 1997 add to the article that other (free) images do not add? For example, all three band members pictured in the fair use image are also shown in the next image: Image:FeederVirginMegastore2001.jpg.
 * I copied your responses from my talk page and replied to them here. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)