Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virtual band/archive1

Virtual band

Self-nom This has gone through two peer reviews (you can read them here and here), and I think I have it up to a level that is suitable for featured article. --JB Adder | Talk 12:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: "The popularity of the group opened the door for many other cartoon bands, especially Josie and the Pussycats, The Banana Splits and Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem." Does Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem work in this sentence? For one thing, they're puppets, a "cartoon band". If Virtual Bands can include puppets at all, the intro should say so. Secondly, I find it hard to believe that the popularity of the Archies had much if anything to so with opening the door to The Muppet Show and the creation of this virtual band. --Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object—Prose needs editing. Here are examples of what I mean, drawn from the top.
  • '(like in The Archies and Gorillaz)'—ungrammatical.
  • Overuse of parentheses, which makes it harder to read—try commas, m dashes, and rewording to vary your usage in this respect.
  • 'This' occurs twice in a relatively short sentence.
  • 'A virtual band (or virtual group), in music, is any group whose members are not flesh-and-blood musicians, but animated characters.' Try: 'A virtual band (or virtual group), is a group of animated characters that represent musical performers.'
  • Get rid of 'etc'.
  • 'Stage appearances are complex, because they not only require pre-animated sequences, ready to play, but also need the actual musicians behind the screen, performing in perfect sync.' What about: 'The mechanics of stage appearances are complex, requiring the preparation of ready-to-play animated sequences and the presence of human musicians behind a screen, performing in perfect sync.'
  • One-sentence paragraph is not a good look.

It has potential, but you'll have to find some language-nerds to help out. Tony 05:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the indication; why they weren't brought up in Peer Review, I'll never know. --JB Adder | Talk 08:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• You know what: most reviewers barely have time to cope with this list, and don't often attend to the PR list thoroughly. There's a good case for recommending that contributors who put up articles for PR directly ask (nicely) five or six contributors to related articles to have a look. It's no good just posting it there and hoping the right 'peers' will come along. Tony 16:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• An article that concerns such a visual phenomenon needs a lot more than just one image. Still mistakes in the prose (e.g., 1980's). The first few sentences are not well written (please remove 'etc' for a start). It's rather stubby for a FA. Tony 04:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)