Wikipedia:Peer review/Underoath/archive1

Underoath

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…

I want to see what other contributors think of the article. It has recently achieved GA status and I would like more input to improve the page if possible. I would also like to know if the article is FA ready.

Thanks, – Jerry  teps  10:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - this article is quite a difficult read. Wordy, convoluted phrases like Featuring only one original band member in the form of Gillespie (could just be "As Gillespie was the only remaining original band member...") seem to be the problem. Also, the article fails to mention what happens to Taylor after he left. Didn't he join Maylene and the Sons of Disaster? (actually, I see it says so further down, but I still feel it is worthy of inclusion in the body) I think I remember reading that there is some acrimony between him and the band. The Musical Style and Influences section tells you very little about what the band actually sounds like. Some music samples might be good here also.  A utomatic W riting  21:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional micro-comment also, wasn't there something about Underoath being accused of homophobia, surely that is relevant.  A utomatic W riting  21:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, i'll try to rewrite alot of the article soon. Also I've never heard of them being called Homophobic, i'll google it though. – Jerry  teps  05:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Agree it needs language cleanup. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The captions say "respectively" which is unclear - how about left and right?
 * Avoid "currently" such as They are currently signed to Solid State Records and ..., use the year instead (perhaps something like As of 2008, they are the top-selling artist for their label, ...) In a year would "currently" still be tru?
 * I found the red X's in the members table confusing - perhaps omit them? What is the rationale for the order of the members of the band? Does not seem to be chronlogical or alphabetical.
 * FA requires the use of reliable sources, but Myspace is not a RS and I am not sure about a lot of the others - this would be a problem aqt FAC.