Wikipedia:Peer review/The W's/archive1

The W's
I have been working on improving this article since it was a three-line stub, making great strides toward GA status (I hope). No edit has had any controversy or trouble. Please review the article and copyright status of the included resources and make some suggestions for me. Thanks much! Dan, the CowMan 19:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Notes left on talk page. -- Pepsi2786 21:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 23:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I plan on coming back to review the entire article for content, but I have to go right now. –  Heav  e  n's Wrath    Talk  21:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here are just some technical things I see:
 * City, State links should be written like this: City, State
 * Fixed instances in intro and infobox.
 * "References" section should be above "External links" section.
 * Fixed.
 * Citations should be directly next to punctuation, there is no need for a space. (See WP:FOOT)


 * Fixed point #3. Thanks. Dan, the CowMan 01:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am back again. –   Heav  e  n's Wrath    Talk  06:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Since The Who's was an American band, it should be refered to using American english, which uses singular verbs for collective nouns. (i.e. "was" instead of "were")
 * Discography section should be changed to reflect common format. (No linked dates)
 * Fixed
 * The lead section needs to be expanded. Consider adding information like number of released albums and the years that they were active.
 * Consider changing the section titled "Music & lyrics" to "Style."


 * Just my opinions: Increase introductory section. EG what awards?  How high did they go on the charts?  Intro section should be 2-4 paragraphs.  Get rid of sentence stating who was in the band, you have a infobox for that.  The article feels somewhat choppy... eg transitions between sentences don't always work.Balloonman 09:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I (personally) have trouble with point #1 because my education was split between England and the US. It's all just English to me, I don't even see errors of the sort... lucky me.


 * Question - How to state who played what insturment if I ditch the paragraph restating the members? it looks really bad in the infobox. Secondly, I was under the impression that information should be restated; in "WP:ALBUM" it states "The basics should be in the first paragraph: title, artist, release date, record label, and a word or two about genre and critical reception." despite the fact that the information is in the infobox.

Dan, the CowMan 21:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My thoughts: I don't like the sentence "The song relies much more heavily on the bass than their previous material, and may indicate a swing toward a rockabilly sound." Judging from the context, the sentence could be reworded from ", and may indicate a swing toward a rockabilly sound" to ". This may suggest that the band would have evolved into a rockabilly sound" or something of the sort. Just my personal opinion. Also, most of the paragraphs are too short; maybe put some of the smaller paragraphs together. &mdash;  Ed Gl  04:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Compacted some paragraphs today. Dan, the CowMan 21:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's good that the article shows some positive and some negative aspects of the band, conforming to NPOV (section "Style" in particular). &mdash;  Ed Gl  03:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)