Wikipedia:Peer review/Girlschool/archive1

Girlschool

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I greatly expanded it and I need:

advice on eventual grammar and syntax errors,
suggestions for further research and referencing,
comments on the general tone and about the lenght of the article.

Thanks, Lewismaster (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... I will be happy to review this. Give me a few days and it will be done. Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 17:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time, I'll be waiting. Lewismaster (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Review Status: Complete

Review is based on Good Article Criteria

Grammar
- Expand contractions such as to make "Don't" into " do not".
  - I checked them and the only contractions left are in citation or song titles. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove the "#" sign and make it either "No." or spell out number.
  - Done. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Syntax
MoS Formatting
- Change "Girlschool Lineups" which is a heading to something more generic or remove the sub-heading "Members".
  - Removed "Members". Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Research/Referencing
- Possible Additional Referencing in the Following Areas
  - Lead
  - 1986 - 1990: ‘back to square one’
  - 1992 - 2002: living on tour
    - Very Large section without much referencing
      - I'll work on the references, thank you for the advice. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tone
Length
- Length is fine, articles can be any length as long as they give accurate referenced information.

Comments by Jappalang

Dablinks (toolbox on the right) shows two disambiguations; these should be fixed.
- Fixed. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, the article reads to me like a year book. With only one major section (Band history) and two list sections, it does not really come across to me as an encyclopaedic article.
- I would prefer to see a structure more like Formation (how the band came together), Music (style/theme/appearance, their evolution or such), Reception (how they are perceived, their popularity, sales figures, merchandise, and such); i.e. break down the current history into thematic sections.
  - I based the structure on the Motörhead FA article, putting the bulk of information in chronological order. I agree that such a monolithic article is not easily accessible and needs work and new sections. I'll try to figure out how to do it. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not an extensive check on sources, but what makes MusicMight reliable? This is especially when their site say "Want to add information to this database? Just register - it's simple!".
- The MusicMight source is from a copyrighted article with only one contributor. I thought it could qualify as a reliable source. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I only gave a cursory glance through, but some of the prose issues Joe has pointed out above are very distinct (contrctions).
- Done. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Section titles such as "She-Devils or Strange Girls?" are more journalistic than encyclopaedic.
- I liked it, but I changed anyway. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I would say that having all information of the band lumped into Band history is the biggest issue I have with this article. Jappalang (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your insightful review. If you have more comments on the article, I'm eager to receive them. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. I gave a quick scan based on an idea running in my head—for the Music or Formation section I mentioned above (or perhaps a Band members section), if there are sources and enough information, one can write about the influence each member had on the band. I note that it seems Kim McAuliffe has been there all the time, while Enid Williams and Denise Dufort were absent for a few years. Others just come and go. Formation (how the band came about), Music and image (the music they play and the band's projected image), Members (who are the core members, who had a big influence), Reception (how they are perceived, etc), or something like that (change according to your style and what is available from the sources). Good luck! Jappalang (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]