Wikipedia:Peer review/Mr. Bungle/archive1

Mr. Bungle

I have been working on this article over the last while adding references and such and would like some comments, paticularly in how it reads, what parts should be improved? and is the lead section lacking a little? Thank you - Mr Bungle 02:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed you have done many good edits to the article. I am going to read it later this week and tell you what parts should be improved! :) Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 06:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't had much time to read the article. However, I have printed the article and am going to read it and write notes about how it could be improved. Expect the peer reviewing in the following days, although there may be a delay due to the fact that I do not have internet at home. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 10:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, had to blink a few times to figure out that your username is also Mr. Bungle... you must be a fan. :) Overall, an enjoyable read, but there's work to do here:

Need to mention in fair-use image and sound clip description pages where the image or sound clip is being used on Wikipedia; put this in the rationale itself (i.e. name the article, Mr. Bungle, where you're using it).

Done

Image:MrBungle99.JPG is too small; the MOS allows you to specify a larger size for a thumbnail if the image's aspect ratio is such that otherwise it would look weird, like here. I suggest 220px.

Done

Image:91SantaClaraMike.jpg could be too large; I don't like how it pokes down into the "Anthony Kiedis and Mr. Bungle feud" section following it. Once you shrink the size, you can absolutely prevent any poking with a trailing <nowiki>
in the "Stage shows" section.

Done Still hangs down a bit giving white space below it

Would be nice to have some critical commentary on the music clips in the clip boxes themselves (may even be necessary for fair use).

Done

Should list the band's primary founders and most important members in the lead somewhere.

Done

Sometimes you don't properly format album and song names correctly in the text (for example, italicize the former, double-quote the latter); I suggest going through the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/MUSTARD in detail.

Done

Issues with references:

Lots of references need publisher fields.

Done

bunglefever.com - looks like a fan site, not sure about its reliability. I'm very concerned about the large amount of information in the text cited to the Mr. Bungle FAQ - are the authors of this FAQ just fans? If so, I don't think it's reliable. I'm not confident myself about when and how fan sites can be considered reliable; the MUSTARD guidelines seem to suggest top-of-the-line fan sites can be used if they provide a unique resource and/or have a connection to the band. Can any other project members chime in here?

This website has been mentioned as “semi official”, whatever that means, I would assume it is a fan site but without it I’m unsure how this information could be properly referenced. Most the bunglefever information is reliable and of all the information on the web I would put this website as the best (and I think it does provide a unique resource).

Bungle Grind - ditto. I notice this site contains copies of articles from notable magazines like Revolver - it's OK to cite them here as long as you're sure there's no copyvio (e.g. does Bungle Grind have permission to reproduce?)

This website seems to be a less well organized fan site and probably should go. As for it hosting articles that were published in reputable magazines, I’m unsure if it has the right to reproduce (I would assume not), I could just discard the | url = | section and not actually link to site, I just figured any source where people can read the article for themselves would be useful and wasn’t sure if Wikipedia frowned on links to external sites being a copyvio.

Goblin Magazine - seems to be an archive of some magazine called Goblin... was this a notable magazine... does this site have permission to reproduce?

To tell you the truth I’d never heard of it before researching this article and looks like it is now defunct, it appears the site is the actual magazines site now just hosting old articles (so it probably can reproduce their old articles)

ram.org is certainly not reliable, it's some professor's personal page.

Gone

Reference 23 is broken (and appears of questionable reliability from the URL).

Done Found the original interview in a online magazine

A lot of other references are from web zines that are probably OK if used sparingly, but I think there's just too many. I would suggest replacing some with articles from reliable print newspapers/magazines (perhaps findarticles.com would be useful).

Some replaced, some kept

History section sub-section titles should have year ranges in them.

Done Pretty much was just following Nirvana and Pixies here but other FAs (Slayer, The Smashing Pumpkins) do put the years in so followed suit

Any non-trivial music analysis or musical value judgment should be referenced to a critic who makes that analysis or value judgment (footnote close to the sentence in question, plus you should usually name the critic/publication in the text itself for really deep analyses and for value judgments).

Listed analysis with specific critic/publications

The "Style and influence" section is too listy — do you need to list so musical styles? Remember, these all must have been mentioned by critics.

I have referenced their genres to critics opinions but still think it looks too listy, should this list just be deleted or just mention a few genres (where to draw the line)?

The "Anthony Kiedis and Mr. Bungle feud" section has a "Quotes" sub-section, which is discouraged by guidelines. Do away with the "Quotes" sub-section, and expand the parent section with more prose that contains smaller quotes worked into the text.

Done

The article overall needs a moderate copyedit (many run-on sentences, for example). I could help with this, but after the other issues are resolved and the text stabilizes.

- Merzbow 08:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the comments - Mr Bungle | talk 06:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]