Wikipedia:Peer review/Bloc Party/archive1

Bloc Party

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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 May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I would really like some constructive feedback on this article, with the aim of FA status. I know there's more to add, but I don't know exactly what to include in the article. Any WP:ALTM members interested?

Thanks, weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 21:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sillyfolkboy Comments: This is an informative and generally well referenced article worthy of its GA status. However I feel that it could be more in-depth and the article does not cover all the aspects of the band. Also needs some copyediting and proofreading:

In the lead it should state "BBC" radio one DJ Steve Lamacq to clarify.
- done

In mid-sentence full dates such as "February 5, 2007," need a comma following the year. I fixed the first instance of this but can see a few more in the article.
- done, I think

Try to avoid referring to seasons: e.g. "In Spring 2006 they finished their tour". This can cause confusion: seasons are inverted from northern to southern hemispheres while equatorial locations climates generally have wet and dry seasons. Replace "spring" with "early" (or "winter" with "late" etc.) for clarity.
- done

In the "Silent alarm" section this statement should be sourced "The band became one of the most popular new bands of 2005".
- Removed

Following their first full mention "United Kingdom" and "United States" should thereafter be abbreviated to "UK" and "US".

In "A Weekend in the City" the word "leaked" should be wikilinked to internet leak for clarity.
- done

"In the build up to the release of the album, BBC Radio 1 DJ Zane Lowe aired a live set from the Maida Vale studio featuring a mix of old songs and new ones on his evening radio show on BBC Radio 1". There is no need to state that he's a "BBC Radio 1" DJ considering the later statement.

In the same section: the third paragraph needlessly restates the year (2007) with the dates many times. The large amount of links here reduces readability already. Whilst the other links are useful/neccesary these redundant ones can be dropped.

"The first UK performance of their single "Flux"" should read "live performance".

In musical styles it would be better to split the list of bands in to: citable influences from band statements, comparisons made by reviewers/critics. Otherwise any number of acts could be listed here with little benefit to the article.

In the quote "some truly R'n'B styled beats, a song where [Tong] and [Moakes] play drums simultaneously [and] both eggshell-thin fragility and trouser-flapping hugeness" the quote should either be split after "beats" or the previous part of the sentence rephrased. It's ambiguous whether the first part refers to the album or a certain song. Also instead of [and] use [with].

All song titles should be in inverted commas e.g. Flux should be "Flux". Scan through to ensure all songs have been listed this way.

I would recommend splitting away parts about the future of the band from both "history" and "musical style" sections to form it's own section. It would make more sense to mention future plans there, especially in respect of the former section. (ps Have they done absolutely nothing so far this year?)

Lyrical styles/themes should be noted in addition to musical ones. Some information from Kele Okereke may be useful, i personally remember comparisons with Sylvia Plath's work being made in the press.

Comment should be made relating to differences between the sounds of their live performances and album works, if any.

A section describing the band's concert tours could be helpful, but just more extensive reference to their tours following "Silent Alarm" may suffice.

A short section should be made listing the band members and the instruments they've played for the band.

Apart from the template and infobox no reference is made to the former band members in the article.

A couple of web references do not have their access dates.

A full copyedit should be done. You might find a copyeditor at WP:LoCE or WP:PRV. However there is a backlog so general proofreading etc by any user is more than welcome.

Although a relatively new band one book, by Zoran Lalvani, has been written and this may contain further information to improve the article.

This is my first peer review so if anything seems unusual and you want to check policy feel free to do so. Once changes are made or if you disagree with any recommendations please comment beneath the specific point: starting a new line with two asterisks (**), then your comment. ~~Strikeout~~ recommendations with <s> and </s> once fixed.

Any additional comments or questions should be directed to my talk page.

If you found this review useful, please consider reviewing a request, especially one with no feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. That is where I found this request. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

indopug

Greetings from WP:ALM

The references need formatted. Specifically, where is the author's name and publication date? Publications should be in italics. NME → NME. As of now, only ref #3 look complete.
Try to not use tertiary sources, such online biographies. These source their information from primary and secondary sources so their info is subject to inaccuracies and their own POV. As a tertiary source ourselves try to get info only from interviews, pieces written on the band, album reviews etc from reliable sources.
Are these reliable sources: blocparty.co.uk, tiscali...
The article tends to be a dump for every small release the band has ever done. The songs on video games, soundtracks are really uninteresting, trivial and more suited for the discog article.
Overall, try to make the article not just be a "band released this album, it charted so much, so many singles came out, it was acclaimed, they went on tour with XYZ". That is hideously boring. Try to make it interesting by pointing out the stuff about the band that makes them unique and different. Reduce the information about the touring, its trivial information for the lay reader. Every band tours, we don't have to mention every concert they ever held. See The Smashing Pumpkins for a really interesting and comprehensive band article.
What is the idea behind the music? What is the band's philosophy? How do critics rate the band and what do they think of them? On the whole, try to make a qualitative analysis of the band rather a quantitative one about they toured here, then played there in front of 20,000 people. Its more interesting that way. indopug (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]