Wikipedia:Peer review/Cat Stevens/archive1

Cat Stevens

I’d like to see this article get featured status. I personally did a bit of work late last year cleaning it up. If there's still a ways to go, I'd like to create a to-do list for the talk page (although I don't think it's that far off.) A few more pictures would be great, but I haven’t been able to find any that could be rationalized for fair use. "Good article" status so far. Thanks in advance for any comments. Mrtea (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His 1970's work, Tea for the Tillerman and Teaser and the Firecat (which are more or less the albums that made him famous to many), are given far too little coverage relative to other topics. The article is biased towards later events which would largely be ignored by the public if not for his successful 70's albums. More discussion on topics relating to the albums such as their success, themes, musical sound and reasons for success is needed. Other parts of the article might use a trim to restore balance. Cedars 00:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty good, but I agree with Cedars that the early career section needs more expansion. Some minor things it doesn't cover:

It never explains why he took the name "Cat Stevens".
Describe his major tours.
What about his collaboration with Alun Davies?
Mention his brief interest in Buddhism.
Who did he marry?

Thanks. :) — RJH 00:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot guys, I really needed some different perspectives. The article does seem a little slanted towards his later life and "controversy." I'm definitely going to add the important info that's missing about his earlier music career and life. Glad style and format seems to be in check. Mrtea (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem if you wanted to take this to FAC is the overall low quality of the sources. You'd probably need to get at least a few books and do some other wider research. Also there's too many short paragraphs that make the flow choppy. See User:Taxman/Featured article advice for more expanded reasoning and some other things to work on before taking this to FAC. - Taxman ^Talk 21:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice and link. I definitely understand it still has a ways to go before it goes to FAC. I'd like to see it get there one day, but we've still got work. Thanks again for the advice. Mrtea (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]