Wikipedia:Peer review/Project 86/archive1

Project 86
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to shoot for FAC. It is currently at GAN and will probably be there for a month. That leaves time for a peer review.

Thanks, Noj r (talk) 06:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.christianitytoday.com/
 * http://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/default.aspx
 * http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 20:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * All three websites are approved sources of information by the Christian music wikiproject.
 * But in a nut shell,
 * Christianity Today is a magazine started by Billy Graham, and also operates online.
 * Cross Rhythms is a UK based online website that also runs a radio program. They marked as a source on Google News and have appeared in CCM Magazine.
 * Jesus Freak Hideout is an online website that has conducted dozens of interviews and is a member of the Gospel Music Association -- Noj r (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A discussion of sources may be further informed with information on this page.
 * Speaking of sources, why the unusual Notes / References split? Dan, the CowMan (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was following the style of other FA articles like Stereolab. I like this format better because you can contain multiple sources in one reference link versus having one link for each reference. -- Noj r (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is broad in coverage and well-illustrated. I have suggestions mainly about prose and style issues, image licenses, alt text, and layout.

Lead
 * "The current line-up consists of bassist Steven Dail... ". - It would probably be better to say, "as of 2009" than "current" since things may change by 2010.
 * "The band was formed by Schwab and former drummer Alex Albert as a way to positively influence people." - It would be good to make "positively influence people" more specific here and in the main text. In what specific way(s)?
 * "However, communication disputes arose and Project 86 was dropped from both labels." - Ditto for "communications disputes". What does that mean?

1996–1999
 * "Their self-titled debut was produced by Brian Carlstrom, who helmed albums by multi-platinum outfits... " - I don't think "helmed" is a real word. Suggestion: "Brian Carlstrom, who had overseen albums by multi-platinum groups, produced their self-titled debut album... ".
 * Words inside direct quotations shouldn't be wikilinked. Beck is an example.

2000–2003
 * "The group worked on their sophomore record with renowned producer Garth "GGGarth" Richardson." - Delete "renowned"?
 * "Formatted as a concept album, it told the story of a character attempting to gratify himself and find fulfillment in modern society." - Tighten by deleting "gratify himself and"?
 * "The group spent over fourteen months recording demos for Atlantic, who invested half of a million dollars into the project." - Atlantic is a "which". Digits are a bit easier to comprehend than words for big numbers. Suggestion: "The group spent more than 14 months recording demos for Atlantic, which invested $500,000 in the project."
 * "The group opened for Taproot on their self-titled tour in fall 2002." - It might not be clear to all readers what "opened" means in this context.
 * "Tooth & Nail still owned part of the band's contract, but communication disputes led Atlantic to buy their share." - Shouldn't that be "its" share since a company is an "it" rather than a "they"?

2003–2006
 * "A subsequent investigation took months for the band to rectify." - I'm not sure what this sentence means. Who conducted the investigation? Does "rectify" mean "clean the mud off" or "collect damages"?

Images and sound files
 * The article lacks alt text, which describes the information in the article's images to readers who can't see them. It takes a bit of practice to write good alt text, which differs from caption writing. You can find an explanation at WP:ALT, and you can look at recent samples of alt text at WP:FAC.
 * The licensing information for Image:TheSchwab.JPG is incomplete. It does not provide a source for the original image. Was it self-made with a digital camera? If not, who was the photographer?
 * It's generally better to have subjects looking into the page rather than out. Image:TheSchwab.JPG would probably be better if positioned on the right.
 * Image checkers at FAC might not be able to accept an unverifiable claim that Jesus Freak Hideout has given permission for Image:Stephen Dail.jpg. It might be that you'll have to ask the image copyright owners to upload and license the image or to e-mail the image with permission for a free (public domain) license via OTRS.
 * On my computer screen Image:Stephen Dail.jpg overlaps two sections. Generally it's better to place images inside a single section.
 * Four fair-use OGG files in one article may be hard to justify. You'll be asked if they are all necessary for a reader's understanding of the text.

Heads and subheads
 * Date ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.
 * The word "and" should replace ampersands unless they are part of an official name.

References
 * Page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe I have addressed Finetooth's concerns. Thanks again for reviewing the article! -- Noj r (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)