Wikipedia:Peer review/List of folk metal bands/archive1

===List of folk metal bands===

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know whether other editors feel that the format I've used is appropriate for this type of list. I would also like to hear any suggestions as to how this list can be improved further. ` Thanks, Bardin (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It is still open and located at Peer review/List of folk metal bands/archive1.

Not a subject matter expert but some manual of style things... Should be enough to get started. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments from
 * Don't put bold in the opening sentence in the lead if you're linking - see WP:LEAD.
 * Expand the lead, three paras would be good.
 * Don't use small fonts in the table, they're hard to read.
 * If your notes aren't complete sentences don't end them with a full stop.
 * No point in having the Notes sortable since it's free text.
 * Consider splitting debut album into debut album year and debut album title.
 * Perhaps flagicon could be used in the table to brighten it up a bit!
 * The diacritics in some of the band names wreck the sorting. Suggest you use the sort template to make it more intuitive.
 * Any reason why "Began as Shaman before adopting a name change.[58][59][60][61]" needs four citations?
 * Hey, thanks for the feedback. I didn't use flagicons since its use seem to be a fairly controversial issue. The notes can be sorted so that one can view all the bands corresponding to a particular subgenre (oriental, medieval or celtic). I used the small fonts because I was following the precedent used in previous featured lists such as the list of ECW Champions. I thought of splitting the debut album into year and title but didn't really saw a need to have a sortable column just for the titles. There's no reason why that particular line needs four citations. I had originally just used citations in the notes column without any actual notes. When I began writing those entries in the notes column, I guess I just left all those four citations in. I'll change the article accordingly per your other suggestions. --Bardin (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're wise to stay clear of flagicon as I've just found out in the Wisden Cricketers of the Year list. Check the history - no flags, all flags, some flags, no flags.  Grr.  Anyway, glad to have been of help. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made some further changes reflecting your suggestions. I've also added some color schemes to identify bands from the three subgenres.--Bardin (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You say "the three subgenres" - are there no others? I'm no expert so it's purely a question.  One thing you need to be aware of is WP:COLOR, to understand that just using colours on their own is considered insufficient.   I like the identification but need to know more about the "other" subgenres, should they exist.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are the only three known subgenres. There might be some new stuff that have not received wide recognition in some isolated area of the world but we can always add some new subgenre into the main article or its accompanying list. As for the bands that are currently on the list, there's no other subgenre of folk metal among them. Thanks for letting me know about the color issue. I'll add the subgenres back into the notes column. Cheers. --Bardin (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are my thoughts on the article. I know nothing about folk metal, so I am not sure if that makes me an ideal reader or the worst possible one. In any case, here are some suggestions for improvement: Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the reference to Wikipedia in the first sentence (...with articles on Wikipedia) is superfluous.
 * While references are not normally included in the lead, that is because the material is given again later. Here there are several things in the lead that should be cited. Examples: the definition of folk metal, and the whole second paragraph.
 * I like the sortable table (and this is similar to what I had in mind for the other review mentioned). As for the colors, I like them but I am a bit confused as to what all the other apparent styles / genres are, i.e. "Black metal", "Viking metal", "Doom metal". I think at the least these need to be wikilinked on their first appearance, and it would probably help to briefly explain what they are somewhere. I can imagine someone wearing a horned helmet playing folk metal, but I am not sure how it would sound or what the differences would be between it and any other type.
 * to this very day - usually give the current date (are still playing it as of April 2008) so if something changes after the date, the article is still accurate without an update
 * I think there could be anoter paragraph if needed for more details


 * Thanks for the comments. I personally think that it is important to get the perspective of someone unfamiliar with the subject matter. I had originally provided the hyperlinks or wikilinks to those other genre when each of the term first appeared in the notes column. I felt that all those links got all screwed up when the table is sorted by some criteria other than names. That's why I decided to remove them but you're absolutely right that someone unfamiliar with all these other genres would want to have the wikilinks conveniently available in the notes column. I've decided to add those wikilinks throughout the entire table for each and every instance that the genre terms appear so it no longer matters how the table is sorted. Let me know if you think having all those links now is overkill.
 * I agree that the condition of bands "with articles on Wikipedia" is superfluous. It was already there before I ever worked on the article and I believe the reason is to prevent others from adding non-notable bands with no articles on wikipedia onto the list. I suppose it's not really necessary though so I've removed it per your suggestion.
 * Re: to this very day. I feel that if I use a specific date like April 2008 or something along that line, then readers might get the impression that the band in question might no longer be performing the genre come May 2008 and that would make the point of that paragraph rather moot. I strongly doubt that Skyclad would ever stop performing folk metal given that they are practically synonymous with the genre. In the unlikely event that they embark on a different direction, I'm sure that other editors or myself will be quickly aware of it and readily make the change to that paragraph to refer to some other band instead.
 * As for the citations, I had basically copied a few sentences from the lead section of the folk metal article. The information in that lead section of that article is supported by the rest of that now lengthy article. Unfortunately, folk metal is not something that has been written about extensively on its own. Certainly not by the mainstream media or the academia. I was not able to find a single reliable source online that explicitly says folk metal is so-and-so. While the genre is recognized by album reviews on mainstream sites like Allmusic and even on a New York Times article, no reliable source as far as I know has ever explicitly describes folk metal itself. It's something that people just seem to treat as a given, i.e. self-explanatory. That was a problem that I faced when I set out to expand the folk metal article that was wholly unreferenced at the time. My solution was to constantly use examples to back every point made. The result is that while there are many different references to support each statement, there's few instances where only one reference is enough. I did not provide references for some of those statements in the lead section of this list because those statements were supported through not one but numerous different references in the main folk metal article. I've provided some references now that basically links to the relevant section of the main article. Let me know if this internal referencing to another wikipedia article is alright. --Bardin (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the link to every instance in a searchable list is OK and I have done it in lists that are now Featured. For the refs in a parent article, I think you should look at WP:Summary style and their example of the Isaac Newton articles - I think this is the same case, kind of. Perhaps there needs to be some sort of Main template at the top of Folk metal?. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I took a look as you suggested but the main template states: It should not be used at the top of an article to link to its parent topic; use a wikilink in the lead instead, and add SubArticle at the top of the subarticle's talk page if desired. So instead of using the main template, I've added Details as a hatnote at the list and SubArticle at its talk page. I'm not sure now if I should remove the referencing in the lead that merely links back to the relevant section of the main article. --Bardin (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was lazy ;-) . I would still leave the link in the lead - I think it is useful for those who read articles and ignore hatnotes. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for your review. --Bardin (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)