Wikipedia:Peer review/Arctic Monkeys/archive1
Like band articles about bands, this used to be one of Wikipedia's more POV articles. However, with all the references to feed a large mammal, I think it's now pretty much all NPOV and NOR. Obviously this band is still in it's youth and information is constantly updated, but it would be nice to know that the article is heading in the right direction in terms of NPOV and relevant information. I have put quite a lot of work into referencing every statement possible, and it seems to be pretty comprehensive. However, as I have written most of it, it is impossible to guage how good it actually is. Any constructive criticism would be gratefully received! DJR (Talk) 11:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- People may wish to use a 'Dates' tab and a 'Units' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 15:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- er... I'm confused... what is it and how does it help the article? DJR (Talk) 20:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps I did not explain it well. The article contains unnecessary date links that could be trimmed. The dates tab will help. bobblewik 11:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- According to the WP:DATE link that is provided with the tool, there are no unnecessary date links - the only years, for which there is no consensus and I believe relevant in modern articles, and month/year combinations, which are definitely relevant as they specify a direct time period. COME ON ENGLAND! DJR
(Talk) 13:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- According to the WP:DATE link that is provided with the tool, there are no unnecessary date links - the only years, for which there is no consensus and I believe relevant in modern articles, and month/year combinations, which are definitely relevant as they specify a direct time period. COME ON ENGLAND! DJR
Some comments:
- Information about individual band members should either be contained either in the history section or in an article about that member.
- The lead is rather short. See WP:LEAD.
- The Tours section is disrupted by being split into short subsections. Also, much of this information could easily fit in the history section. Most bands tour, listing all the tours a band has done is excessive.
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 23:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks - I'd been thinking similar things and I have made a proposal at Talk:Arctic Monkeys to remove the two sections you mention - the members and the tours - into their own seperate articles.
Such a move will be implemented tomorrow if unopposed. Once that is done, I will re-jig the lead accordingly.Thanks for the feedback - COME ON ENGLAND! DJR (Talk) 09:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks - I'd been thinking similar things and I have made a proposal at Talk:Arctic Monkeys to remove the two sections you mention - the members and the tours - into their own seperate articles.
- Okay the page has been updated as suggested - I think it reads a lot better now as the two areas removed were probably the weakest areas of the article. Comments/feedback is always appreciated. COME ON ENGLAND! DJR (Talk) 10:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Okay the page has been updated as suggested - I think it reads a lot better now as the two areas removed were probably the weakest areas of the article. Comments/feedback is always appreciated. COME ON ENGLAND! DJR
- The article has changed for the better with more info and pictures. And it was a good idea to get rid of the two line info about the band members.Victoria Eleanor 11:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)