Wikipedia:Peer review/My Chemical Romance/archive1

My Chemical Romance
This article I feel has gotten too much information in some places and not enough information in others. It would be great for an outside person to come in and review it and tell things that can possibly be improved to help this article reach Good Article status. I feel that the main body and the criticism section could use the most work but I feel the article as a whole could use a nice edit. Any comments on ways to improve this article are appreciated.  Orfen   User Talk | Contribs 21:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

JHMM13
Well, here's what I've got so far: That's all I can think of right now. This article needs a pretty big reworking that will take a lot of time. There are lots of other FAs out there for bands from whose layouts you can steal ideas. Check them out here. Cheers  JHMM13  06:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead is way too short. Check out WP:LEAD.
 * What's the copyright status for the second reference? Is that website licensed to reproduce those pages of that magazine? Remember, it's also acceptable to cite the magazine itself without linking to that website.
 * Don't link single years like this: In 2001 something happened. Take off the wikilink for those.
 * Cite web references properly per Citation templates.
 * If there is any literature out there about the band, you should find it and use that as a source. It's generally not the most advisable thing to have a wealth of internet links with no reputable books backing it up. I know this is difficult for a band that has really only been in the public eye for 3 years, but try your best.
 * The Black Parade section is way too listy. Try to turn this into better prose.
 * In general, the prose doesn't flow extraordinarily well. This might be a result of the band's popularity and different sections, even different sentences within a section, being written by different people. This is one of the more difficult aspects of turning an oft-visited and oft-edited article into something worthy of GA or FA. It's why I tend to choose more obscure subjects to work on.
 * There are far too many large swaths of text that make claims with no references to verify them. This is evident in most sections, but especially in the Black Parade section. Not every last word needs to be referenced, but particular claims like: "In Rolling Stone magazine's ranking of the top 50 albums of 2006, The Black Parade was voted the 20th best album of the year." There is no easy way of finding out if this is true or false.
 * Think about reworking the "Criticism" section without separate subsections for each source of criticism. There doesn't seem to be enough text here to validate separate sections for each criticism.