Wikipedia:Peer review/Queen (band)/archive1
- The article on Queen is mostly excellent; it has comprehensive information and a detailed history of the band. It just needs a bit more editing and cleaning up to be a legit Featured Article Candidate. Please check out the article and fix it as you see fit. TheImpossibleMan 17:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- The external links in the article need to be converted to WP:FOOTNOTEs.
- The timeline-like history should simply be converted to prose (in other words, remove the bolded years)
- I don’t see any reason why there should be two members sections.
- There is “Queen in film” and “Documentary”; per WP:MoS “Queen in film” simply should be “In film” or “Film”.
- The layout is pretty poor; history -> success -> live -> members -> film. It should be reorganized.
Thanks, AndyZ 21:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Besides what I mentioned during the FAC process [1], another recommendation would be to remove the sales data from the first paragraph and move it further into the article. Normally, I'd agree with keeping the sales data in the lead, but in this case, the first paragraph spends considerable time attempting to determine the number of sales from three sources. Since it's the first bit of information in the article, it appears that the most famous thing that Queen is known for is inaccurate sales data. --Ataricodfish 16:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Done. I moved the sales figures into the "Historical Success" section, and added some information in the opening. TheImpossibleMan 19:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand the rationale for turning the history into a massive chunk of prose. Generally on Wikipedia, lengthy sections of text without subheadings are discouraged. That's why I originally addeded the subheadings, breaking 1970s up into 1971, 1972 and so on. It's just out of control otherwise. So, I'm rather inclined to add them back again. Reply on the article talk page...Stevage 21:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)