Wikipedia:Peer review/Gorgoroth name dispute/archive1

Gorgoroth name dispute

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 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have updated the background information since the last assessment, and would like to know what more could be done.

Thanks, Dark Prime (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

llywrch comments

Frankly, the lead confuses the heck outta me. What exactly is the "Gorgoroth name dispute"? Am I correct to conclude that the band broke up & the members argued over who actually owned the name? It would also help if some explanation were put in the lead why this is notable. I know little about "Black metal", & almost nothing about "Norwegian black metal", so for all I know Gorgoroth could have been a multi-platinum band -- or just another band in the genre. (Much like, say, the Pond of Grunge.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting. I had hoped that the name "Gorgoroth name dispute" in itself would imply that it was a dispute over a name, and I explained the context. I did not feel the need to explain "Norwegian black metal" as no band articles that I know of in pretty much any genre go to explain what the genre is, hence the purpose of the wikilink. I also mentioned that the people whose names were mentioned were members (and Infernus the founding member), and explained how it began in the next sentence. Dark Prime (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree that the lead is confusing, one of the most useful things to keep in mind is to provide context for the reader. Anyway, here are some suggestions for improvement.

The lead needs to follow WP:LEAD and probably should be more tan two paragraphs. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but most of the section headers are not in the lead.
My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref, but for example the second paragraph of Background has zero refs.
There are several dead link tags that need to be fixed - perhaps the Internet Archive has these links?
Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
The lists at the end of the article do not do a lot for me. The people who testified in the trial should be in that section, not sure the lineup of the successor band belongs in this article (put it in the article on God Seed if it is not already there)
The article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that impede its flow - these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded in almost all cases.
A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are three GAs in Category:GA-Class black metal articles that may be useful as model articles.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]