Wikipedia:Peer review/MC Kinky/archive1

MC Kinky

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'd like to know how it compares with other arts articles.

Thanks, Laun chba ller 14:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DivaKnockouts

1 dead ref
I've fixed two disambiguated two links and tagged 2 others with Dab solver.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
Instead of saying "white", shouldn't it say English female?
Punctuation comes before references.
"Get Over It" reached #95 on which chart?
Again, what chart are these singles from? I think Billboard magazine sources should be provided for which ever chart or for whatever other country.
How about using Template:Cite web to format the references?
What makes FN4 reliable?
This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon. — Diva Knockouts 15:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1, 6 & 7: Get Over It made #95 on the UK Singles Chart, which the dead ref sources; all the songs charted on the UK Singles Chart.
2: Fixed.
3 & 10: There was considerably more there, but it got taken out after User:FERAL is KINKY complained about it.

This shouldn't matter. Obviously there's a Conflict Of Interest. As long as the information is sourced properly, it doesn't matter. (At least in my opinion)

Agreed but take it up with User talk:Bbb23. He doesn't.--Laun chba ller 17:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It still shouldn't matter. Just because people don't like what is properly sourced is their problem. I see he removed some things in the edit history with the edit summaries not sufficiently sourced. Completing the references as much as possible (Author, Work, Publisher, etc.) may help.

4: Fixed.
5: I see you've already done it, but I strongly disagree with it. Each 'sentence bit' should end with the reference; I know this sounds stupid, but the punctuation is effectively a 'stop' and having the ref after it, to my mind, is beating a dead horse.
8: Very good idea. Done.
9: What do you mean by "FN4"?--Laun chba ller 16:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By "FN4" I mean footnote #4. (Reference 4 in the Reflist) — Diva Knockouts 17:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, it doesn't look it. Removed. How is the article length looking now?--Laun chba ller 17:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you plan to do. You plan on taking this to GA then it would require some more work. — Diva Knockouts 17:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, alright then. What class would it be at the moment?--Laun chba ller 18:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably still a start class. — Diva Knockouts 19:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, what further amendments need to be made for it to become 'pass-class'?--Laun chba ller 17:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "pass-class"? — Diva Knockouts 17:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C-class. For UK GCSEs, C is the pass mark.--Laun chba ller 19:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know about that since I'm not from that side of the world. But if I had to take a guess I'd a little more information on why she is notable other than charting. Maybe a review or something similar. Generally, just a little more information on her. — Diva Knockouts 02:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]