Wikipedia:Peer review/Six Feet Under (band)/archive1

Six Feet Under (band)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…

I believe that it's about time for a death metal band of such respectability and signifigance to get up to GA status. I've rewritten the page pretty much from scrap, and already it is much more informative and detailed. Thanks, Dark Executioner (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

M3tal H3ad
It's got a long way until it reaches GA, first thing i notice; *1995−1997

Six Feet Under released their first album on - this is the first sentence of the history section. How was the band formed?, how did they meet?, who are the members of the band?, who plays what?, how did they get signed? The main thing is the article lacks detail and just covers what the band released, and original research of the style of the song. M3tal H3ad (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Add reviews from the albums, include the summary line of the review and the general reaction to the album
 * It contains POV such as "stands out as an impressive track on this release."

Done, but still working on the POV stuff. Thanks! Dark Executioner (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Skeletor2112
Good to see you focus in on an article! This one does need a bit of work, but it's a great way to become familiar with the GA/FA process.


 * The first sentence of the article should clearly assert what the article is about, so that someone unfamiliar with SFU can understand. Somthing like:


 * Six Feet Under are an American death metal band originally formed as a side project.... ect.


 * Check out some examples at BurningClean's GA examples page: User:Burningclean/article examples/heavy metal and try to emulate the form, structure, and formal tone of those articles.


 * It's gonna need quite a few more references and citations. Anytime somthing critical of the band is stated, good or bad, it needs a citation.  We can't insert our opinions, even if somthing is widely accepted in the metal community,(like Metallica sucks now, ect) without a cite.


 * Like M3tal H3ad said above, its good to use quotes from professional reviewers, like Allmusic.com, or Blabbermouth.net  For example, in the first paragraph, the line "However, the grooves and the distinctness of Chris Barnes' vocals were praised in reviews." should be accompanied by a citation that has a favorable review of Barnes' vocal style.


 * There are a few key points to try and hit with info on releases - release date(looks like most are there), critical response(a quote from a professional review is good), touring in support of that album(what bands, where, ect), chart positions(check out billboard.com), then any notable points, like controversies, band member changes, stand out tracks/hit songs, ect. Again, take a look at BurningClean's list, most of those articles include stuff like this for album release info.


 * Sentences like "Generally, this album received good reviews, though some disliked the band for it." use "weasel words", which should be avoided.


 * Even though the band has a acronym, its still best to use their full name in the article (Six Feet Under instead of SFU), but you can't say it everytime, so saying stuff like "the band" or "the group" mixed in breaks it up a bit.


 * Stuff like " The musicianship has also been improved; the guitar solo on "Waiting for Decay" is impressive, and even the drumming on "It Never Dies" is better than anything SFU had tried before." is not neutral... anything that asserts an opinion should come from a noted reviewer, with a citiation, ect.  I know it is hard at first, especially when you are a big fan of the subject. Leaving out descriptive words is imperitive -neutrality is one of the most important aspects of article elevation.


 * The 2006-2008 section includes some single-sentence paragraphs, those should be merged into one single paragraph.


 * Once the article gets moving, it might be good to add a "Musical style" section, which uses references to describe the band's sound. Again, see BurningClean's list of metal article examples.

Good luck, and let me know if you need clarification or help with anything! \m/ Skeletor2112 (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've received the most benefit from your advice, Skeletor. You're really patient with helping me with this thing and I appreciate it. \m/ I'm still working on making the article more neutral in tone, however. Dark Executioner (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Burningclean
I would have basically stated everything these guys have but there are some other things I noticed. &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 22:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The section titles, instead of years, could you list album names etc. just like most band articles. After the titles, if they aren't super long, then you could put the years in parenthese.
 * The citations should be formated. Here is what it should look like:
 * Some pictures would be nice. Make sure they are free use.
 * Some pictures would be nice. Make sure they are free use.

Done, but I would still like help on formatting some of the sources, if they have not been done already. Dark Executioner (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)