Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Peer review/TISM

TISM
I think this article can be a "good article" or even "featured article" at some stage. Personally I can see some points which need improvement, but am wondering what consensus people have on the article as to its strong/weak points and its ability to be "good" or "featured" or its rating as it stands. Gohst 13:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A few comments. In general, it needs a copyedit to make it more of an encyclopedia article and less of a whimsical music press biography - sentences like "So the reason TISM's music is simple is clear, the music they make is not challenging to listen to but, they claim, is challenging to write, and that's what makes them better musicians" have no place in an encyclopedia. It needs to shift from being an opinion sometimes based on rumor to a neutral article based in verifiable fact. I'm not sure we need such detail about the pseudonyms of the members - while it warrants mentioning, it is given about five paragraphs here. The masks section could do with some cited quotes. It needs to be careful about assuming people already have background knowledge - in "Style", it launches into an anecdote about the band being dissatisfied with Hot Dogma when this hasn't been discussed anywhere else in the article. It could also do with a history section, shifting the assorted incidents section into prose, and adding cited sources to seperate fact from fiction. The quotes section would probably be better off at Wikiquote with cited sources. Really, this is a decent article, and I'd love to see it get featured, but it'll take a bit of work to get it that far. Rebecca 14:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Took a while to ramp up the speed to get it all done but its there. Except for the wikiquote section (which I personally have no knowledge of) I beleive I've addressed all of your concerns or atleast a great many of them and have now an encyclopediac-type entry. If anything else leaps out for attention, I'll hop onto that, though if it's all well and good it should be heading over to the assessment/ratings page soon. Gohst 12:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Posting for re-review. -Gohst 10:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully the below is of use. I've fixed a couple of minor things: eg: ''After the wanker.com tour and the band's dismissal from Shock Records, TISM disappeared for nearly two years. Eventually resurfacing on the major label Festival Mushroom Records (FMR), TISM's next release was De RigueurMortis (2001)'' might be better as ''The band was inactive for two years following the wanker.com tour and break with Shock Records. They subsequently signed with Festival Mushroom Records and released De RigueurMortis in 2001.'' - Peripitus (Talk) 10:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Rather than using subsections for minor parts (eg: === Current === ) which results in a far too long index just either bold the line or (and this is better) convert the main section to prose and avoid the subsections
 * Don't wikilink individual years ( 1985 instead of 1985) unless there is some compelling reason
 * There are lots of uses of some and other vague qualifiers in the article. Sometimes, the band is criticised means the same has The band has been criticised but does not read as well.
 * The Famous TISM incidents and non sequiturs section is unreferenced and reads as a list of trivia. Unreferencable lines need to be removed and the whole should be incorporated into the text in other places. It's far better not to have a trivia list at the end of the article but tie in incidents etc. into the appropriate place in the band chronology.
 * The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD to summarise the whole article.
 * Per the style manual the discography should be in reverse chronological order.
 * I suggest you convert the web references to Template:cite web and move the interview in the external links section. This interview should be used as a reference to the text if possible.
 * The revealed names should be in the Members section to put them in context with the pseudonyms.
 * The article need a copyedit ( something I'm poor at sorry ) by fresh eyes to fix issues that will not be obvious to those looking at the article all the time.