Wikipedia:Peer review/Petra (band)/archive1

Petra (band)

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've just finished a comprehensive rewrite of the page and wanted to see what else needs to be fixed before submitting it for GA status, etc. Thanks!

Thanks, Paa00a (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jappalang

I see several concerning issues with this article.

Several uncited (and hence unsourced) information. Per the policy WP:Verifiability, all material (particularly anything challenged or likely to be challenged) in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research.

Can you provide specifics? Much of the intro is uncited because the information is expanded upon and cited later in the article. I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to... Paa00a (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Musical style section is almost uncited. 1980–1985: The Greg X. Volz era has an uncited second paragraph. Likewise, Never Say Die (1981) subsection has an uncited second paragraph. The last sentences of the last two paragraphs are also uncited. These are just examples. Jappalang (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The musical style section, like the intro, contains an overview of items discussed in detail and cited in the body of the article. I've added citations for the specific points you mentioned; most of them were in previous or subsequent sentences, just not clearly attached to the paragraphs in question. I think that's the only section that had this problem. Paa00a (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, even if it is a summary of other items later in the article, it should be cited per WP:V and WP:CITE (the lede is an exception). This helps to keep information in the main body text well-cited, preventing insertion of unsourced elements. As I had already pointed out, the above are examples, there are several more uncited information in other sections. Jappalang (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As currently presented, all the images of the band and their albums do not comply with WP:NFCC. They fail the contextual significance (nothing is presented in the article on the significance of the images) and could possibly have free replacements (reunions, fan photos, etc).

Hmm. I'll see what I can come up with. The images predate my time here. Paa00a (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still working on this one. Hoping to get some concert photos from other Petra fans to replace the photos currently on the page. Paa00a (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for the audio samples. File:01 God Gave Rock And Roll To You.ogg might comply with NFCC (provided the rationale is made clearer) because of the commentary that surround it, but there is nothing in the article that asks for us to listen to the music to gain further understanding.

I'm not sure I understand this, as the captions for the songs themselves provide commentary underlining their significance. Paa00a (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationales should be written on the image/media page as well (they are mostly written there actually). The rationales should mostly be saying why these media are needed to help readers further understand something that is written in the article and why pure words would not have the same effect as seeing or listening to these media aids. Jappalang (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added and expanded the fair use rationales for three songs and deleted a fourth song that wasn't all that noteworthy from a musical or historical perspective. Paa00a (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference section should have consistent formatting in compliance with the MOS. I see publications are not italicised and such.

Good point. I'll go back and check the MOS. Thanks! Paa00a (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italicized magazine titles and fixed the block quotes per MOS. Paa00a (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations should not be used as sources (the youtube video in particular). If the event is notable, a reliable source would have covered it.

I'll fix the citation. Thanks. Paa00a (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added a pair of newspaper articles as citations in place of the YouTube video. Paa00a (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 120: "<copyvio link removed from here> YouTube video] of performance" is still there. Jappalang (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above are serious issues and should be resolved before attempting higher level assessments. Jappalang (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you think I've resolved these issues adequately. Thanks! Paa00a (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]