Wikipedia:Peer review/John Mellencamp/archive1

John Mellencamp

 * 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 April 2009.
 * 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 April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has the potential to be a great article, maybe even one of the best on Wikipedia. However, I feel that it needs just a little more work. Thanks, BillyJack193 (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked through some of the article and here are some suggestions to begin improving its quality:


 * The lead is a decent size, but I think it could stand to have some links to certain concepts (such as themes in his music, i.e. politics, morality) to give it some context. I feel as though the article is written from an American perspective (which is understandable), but if the themes in his music typically deal with say, American politics, then an appropriate link would point the reader to the American politics page or a page on topical moral issues being discussed in the US today.


 * Some more factual citations in areas, such as his early life would be helpful to support the statements being made (ex. "...he later got a job in Seymour installing telephones, which he eventually lost for using foul language.")


 * The sections contain many small paragraphs and one-sentence statements and step-by-step explanations of his exploits. Condensing those into larger paragraphs that can summarize his exploits without providing unnecessary detail will improve the writing style of the article.  There are ways to condense these items without removing important details in his development as an artist/individual.  These sections are quite long, so trimming may be necessary.


 * I would consider integrating his non-music "early life" into his "personal life" section.


 * For quotes from his webpage/blog, cite the actual page or entry if possible. If not, consider removing them or attempting to find an archive of the entry online.  You can find out more at Citing_sources.


 * The induction speech from the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame seems a bit excessive. Try to edit it down to its most notable or important aspects or try integrating segments of the content into a rewrite.

Hope these suggestions are helpful!Luminum (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments The article is fairly comprehensive, but if your plans are to move towards featured status it is going to need a fair bit of work still.


 * The lead is a good size, but it does not summarize the entire area well. I would suggest adding an additional paragraph to include more information his entire lifetime.


 * There are many short paragraphs throughout the article, they should be merged to flow together better and combined.


 * Inline citation are lacking throughout most of the article. There should at minimum be one at the end of every paragraph.


 * Some more images would a be very nice addition.


 * Although the article is well wrote enough to probably pass a GA review, the prose is going to need more work to pass a FA review. There are several of choppy areas in the text.

Hope this helps. :) Happy editing. Charles Edward (Talk) 13:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)