Wikipedia:Peer review/Massive Attack/archive1
- 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 done a lot of work to rescue it from its previous sorry state. I would appreciate pointers on making further improvements.
Thanks, Jezhotwells (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear that a lot of work ahs gone into this, more work remains before it would be ready for GAN. Here are some suggestions for improvement.
- A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many FAs about musical groups, Radiohead is one, that may be good models to follow.
- The lead is overly detailed and has details not found in the body of the article itself. Since the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, nothing important should be in the lead only. Since the lead 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 - please see WP:LEAD
- As one example, the "1988-1989: Any Love" section is only two sentences now and could include several details about the formation of the band and what the members did before that is currently in the lead.
- The language is not always neutral and encyclopedic. The first sentence calls them seminal which might be seen as violating WP:NPOV and there is alll sorts of WP:PEACOCK language throughout. For example (again from the lead) With the coffee-table chill-out of Protection in 1994, a rather heavier, guitar-upgraded Mezzanine in 1998, and then the denser, more clinical soundscaping of Robert Del Naja's essentially solo 100th Window in 2003, Massive's overall sound grew persistently more experimental and melancholy, having a greater degree of gothic post-punk texture and moodily cinematic electronica integrated into it. It is OK to use this kind of language if it is a direct quote from a reviewer or one of the band members, or if it is a paraphrase.
- The article has a lot of very short (one or two sentences) paragraphs and sections - to improve the flow, these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
- Make sure to provide context for the reader - for example there could be more years / dates given in sections (the headers give the general years)
- There are some sections with good references, but others have few or no refs. The Media usage section has no refs and there seems to only be one in the rest of the article after this. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
- The whole speculation on their next album section seems iffy - see WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball)
- Avoid needless repetition (just in the lead Vowles is identified as Mushroom twice)
- For quotes within quotations, use single quotes, for example "This is a quotation where the band said 'We are a great!' in an interview."
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 ><>°° 13:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for this thorough review. I shall look to follow this in developing the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)