Wikipedia:Peer review/New Radicals/archive2

New Radicals
Most of this article was written by me and M.C. Brown Shoes. I'd like to get some input about what could be improved in the article, and whether it is comprehensible for someone not as familiar with the band. I guess it is too short to become FA (the band only was around for 9 nine months really), but I'd still like to get this article as good as possible, so pretty much any suggestion is welcome. This article was previously peer reviewed (archived here) in September 2005. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * All articles are eligible for FA status, and this looks like a pretty good one.
 * Featured Music Project criteria
 * Lead - looks good, but consider expanding just a bit
 * Comprehensiveness - looks good, but consider adding more on musical style
 * Sales - looks good, but consider adding some chart data to the discography section, such as the peak US position
 * Pictures - 1, 2, 3, 4 (free pics would be good, if possible, and the first pic (in the box) is of very questionable utility -- what does it illustrate? all fair use pics need a fair use rationale specifically aimed at this article)
 * Audio - looks good, though I suggest adding one or two more (I know they only released one album, but it might be useful to show some variety in their style) and integrating the sample somewhere in the article, rather than a stubby little section
 * References - 4 (may not be possible, but consider trying to find one or more print sources, especially a scholarly, broad-focused work)
 * Discography - looks good, but there's no need to have subsections for such a small discography
 * Format/Style - 2, 3 (why include the fansites in external links?; as noted, remove the subsections of discography and integrate audio sample into article, remove the parenthetical "sees" (e.g. "See critical reception of Maybe You've Been Brainwashed Too for more details"))
 * Overall, I think it's very well done. With the suggested tweaks to format/style and rationales for images, I think this would be ready for FAC. Tuf-Kat 17:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your suggestions. As far as the sample goes, a link to it is also included in the article when the part is mentioned, is there another way to incorporate it better? And the fansites are included because the official homepage doesn't have much content (it's basically just a dead forum), while the fansites have lyrics, discographies, galleries, some audio, etc.
 * I hadn't any luck before trying to find any free images, or mentioning of the band in scholarly work, but I'll try to take care of the rest. Thanks again, and any other suggestions are still welcome. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 21:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I guess I didn't see that. A sample from another track or two might still be nice, however. Tuf-Kat 04:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll add that with some more about their musical style. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)