Wikipedia:Peer review/The Carpenters/archive1

The Carpenters

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to get the page The Carpenters to the featured article (FA) status. If you could please make edits on grammar and "voice," as well as help with citations, please do so. Also, leave constructive criticism that's not repetitive. For example, if someone says, "Make introduction longer," then don't say, "Make introduction longer." A simple "I agree with ..." will suffice. Also, once it is finished, please put "<s></s>" around your comment.

Thanks,

Cuyler91093 (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

My goal for this page is to become at least of A status, but I wish to shoot for FA status. Is anyone interested in helping? Cuyler91093 (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to give the article a copyedit when you're ready for that step; just drop a note on my talk page... MeegsC | Talk 11:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I did quite a bit of work on the references, but much is left for you to do (e.g. websites, This Is Your Life, Lovers and Other Strangers, and Superstars of the 70s). I removed an entire paragraph that was fannish trivia (sorry!). I removed a couple unreliable sources. I added two very reliable sources in the WP:LEDE about Karen's death and its impact on public awareness of anorexia. SO you need to do much more of what i did.. remove fannish trivia (that bit about "weee we're number one" is an example), fix the refs, add more reliable refs, add more serious discussion from a critical viewpoint, etc. I'm sure there are many WP:MOS violations but I haven't committed WP:MOS to memory yet... Oh I didn't look at the licensing of the images.. are they OK? Gotta run.. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment: I hope to get it to FA status by February or March. Then I can request it be featured on the front page on February 4 (Karen's passing) or March 2 (Karen's birthday). If not plausible, then I will go with October 15 (Richard's birthday). --Cuyler91093_{contributions} 06:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I notice that the footnotes section refers to "Coleman, 1999", but the only Coleman reference is dated 1994. Which is correct?~~ MeegsC | Talk 11:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Ling.Nut 13:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More issues:

You need to find another source for the statement that the group is one of the "best-selling acts of all time", which shouldn't be hard. In general, you shouldn't use somebody's personal website to back up a claim like this!

Fixed this. Thanks. --Cuyler91093_{contributions} 02:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I disagree, and so will the FA reviewers. These are personal fansites! Please use something like the Guinness book of records, or Billboard magazine or some other reliable source here, not a web fansite! :) MeegsC | Talk 13:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I used Billboard Magazine. More specifically, it's a review from someone from "All Music Guide". Is that better? --Cuyler91093_{contributions} 05:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! That's great. Sorry if it seems I'm being a pain here; it's just that I know this is the sort of thing the FA reviewers tend to hammer on—and now they can't! : ) MeegsC | Talk 10:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Childhood" section, it says Richard went off to college, while Karen went to high school. It then says Karen asked Richard to intervene and get her out of PE classes. Was he still at the high school then? Was it a year before he went off to college? Currently, it reads as though he started college the year they moved.

I clarified that a little bit. I'll try to do some more a little later. --Cuyler91093_{contributions} 17:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified this whole part. Thank you. --Cuyler91093_{contributions} 05:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~The "Richard Carpenter Trio" section starts with the sentence "Karen had been practicing the drums for a year by then". By when?~~ This whole first paragraph needs clarification. Why did they want to start a trio rather than a duo? What other instrument were they planning to include? Who was Wes Jacobs, and why were they so keen to meet him? You've assumed some level of knowledge on the part of your reader, which isn't appropriate.

Fixed the "by then". Thank you for that. I will work on the other stuff later. --Cuyler91093_{contributions} 01:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified Richard Carpenter and Karen trying to get out of PE a bit. --Cuyler91093_{contributions} 05:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching my video now for clarification as to why Richard wanted Wes Jacobs. --Cuyler91093_{contributions} 05:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I clarified most of the sentences. Thank you again! --Cuyler91093_{contributions} 05:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MeegsC | Talk 12:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to everything I can find (with the exception of one fan website, which is cited in the article), Flat Baroque was nominated but did not win the Grammy Award in 1972 for Best Instrumental. Do you have a reliable source that shows this is correct? MeegsC | Talk 13:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this helps, but I found something on the site [1]. Even though it's a fan site, it was taken from their official fan club newsletters, in which Karen and Richard were closely affiliated. I'll add that as a citation to the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuyler91093 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood me; sorry I wasn't clear. Before you changed it, the table said Richard won the Grammy for that song; the article itself still says that. And that was what I was questioning. That's the danger of using fan websites as sources (since that's presumably where the information came from originally). It would be far safer to check for information at the Grammy website if you're not going to source it from reliable printed material! : ) MeegsC | Talk 09:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~But I've changed it. Somebody obviously is deliberately changing it back. They were only nominated. I will change it back to nominated.~~ --Cuyler91093_{contributions} 22:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the article history, it looks like when you updated the table, you forgot to change the text just above it (which said Richard had won for Flat Baroque). Both places are correct now, so no worries! And fortunately, it doesn't look like somebody else is trying to change it back! : ) MeegsC | Talk 10:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay okay I understand now. I changed it from "Richard won a Grammy" to "Richard was nominated for a Grammy". Thanks so much for clarifying. :) --Cuyler91093_{contributions} 17:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that all the criticism you guys have to offer? I'm going to nominate it again and hope something comes out. If not, I'll just do more work to the article. --Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 04:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]