Wikipedia:Peer review/KMFDM/archive1

KMFDM
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I brought it up to good article status about a year ago, and recently nominated it as a Featured Article Candidate. The article was not promoted, and it was recommended to bring it here for additional feedback.

Thanks, —Torchiest talkedits 22:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article, but I agre that it has a ways to go before it would be ready to pass at FAC. With that goal in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several FAs on bands which may be useful models. Radiohead was just featured on the Main Page a few days ago, and more hopefully useful band FAs are listed at Category:FA-Class Alternative music articles
 * The tool box on this PR page has an external link checker which finds three dead links, all to ReGen Magazine. These will need to be fixed before the article goes back to FAC.
 * ✅ I also note that the three dead links are all apparently by the same author, but list his name two different ways (is Ilker his first name or last?). One of the things that needs to be done for an article to pass at FAC is to make sure that all the little details like this are taken care of consistently.
 * ✅ Ref 16 is missing the publisher and needs it - "Xtort Credits". http://www.kmfdm.net/discography/albums/xtort.htm. Retrieved February 28, 2010." Make sure that all refs have all the required information. Refs 47 and 82 needs more info like publisher too.
 * ✅ A broader potential issue at FAC would be the sourcing of the article. As was mentioned in the FAC, there are a few places that have no references but seem to need them. One example of something that needs references is The album Opium was re-released in 2004 to celebrate KMFDM's 20th anniversary. Tohuvabohu, featuring the first consistent band line-up in years, was released in 2007. or this needs a ref  Adios was released three months later, with the title originally intended to symbolize the band's departure from the Wax Trax! label, but later signaling the break-up of the band itself.
 * My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref, and if there are sentence(s) after a ref that do not have a ref, the they need a ref too.
 * ✅ Please also make sure that all of the sources used are reliable and meet WP:RS. I am not sure what makes blogcritic.org a RS, for example (blogs are generally not seen as reliable, but I could be wrong).
 * ✅ I also notice that the article relies pretty heavily on kmfdm.net and the band's official web site - again I am not sure what makes kmfdm.net reliable as it looks like a fan site. As far as the band's own website, it is OK to use it, but wherever possible it is better to use independent third-party reliable sources.
 * Comparing the article to some FAs on bands, there does not seem to be as much critical response to their work in this article as I expected
 * ✅ The language is OK, but one of the hardest FA criteria for most articles to meet is a professional level of English. For example is KMFDM singular (first sentence in the lead "KMFDM (originally Kein Mehrheit Für Die Mitleid) is an industrial band...") or is it plural (third paragraph in the lead starts "KMFDM are considered one of the first bands to bring industrial music to mainstream audiences...")
 * ✅ There are all sorts of WP:MOS issues. Once someone is named, the MOS says to refer to them by just the last name from then on (unless there is someone else with the same last name, or it is in a direct quote). This should use "Sascha Konietzko" the first time and then just Konietzko from then on (unless he is known better as just Sascha, then use that).
 * ✅ Article is seriously WP:OVERLINKED - Konietzko is linked 9 times in the article. Rule of thumb is once in the lead, once in the body of the article (both on first appearance) and that's it (plus infobox, perhaps the tables at the bottom)
 * ✅ Avoid words like "current" as they can become outdated. Use "As of 2011..." or even "As of March 2011" instead
 * ✅ There are five sections in the article which are single paragraphs - I would try to combine or perhaps expand some of these for better flow (as it is, the effect is to make the article a biut choppy)
 * I am not sure why fair use album covers ares used in the article - does their use meet WP:NFCC? Or are they just illustrations? The symbols seem OK as they are discussed in some detail.
 * I was surprised that there are no samples of the band's music in the article - that would be an acceptable fair use, provided there are sources discussing the song or sytyle illustrated by the song.
 * ✅ What happened to Esch's half of the album?  During this time, Konietzko and Esch began working on their halves of what would have been their sixth album, Apart, but became two separate albums.
 * After the other fixes are made, I would get a copyedit of this to polish the prose.
 * ✅ Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)