Wikipedia:Peer review/R.E.M. (band)/archive1
User:LoomisSimmons wanted a peer review of the article but never started the peer review and only added the notice to the talk page. I am very interested in trying to improve this and get it Good Article status.
This shouldn't be too hard to get to GA. What it mostly needs are in-line citations (right now there are too few). However, you might also think about creating some new main sections besides History. I also encourage you to delete the Trivia section; it is normally frowned upon and viewed as useless. Some ideas for new sections could be....information about members, concerts, success and influence on later musicians, and so on. But again: main thing is in-line citations. Get more in there.UberCryxic 04:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Basically, I'll elaborate a bit on UberCryxic's review:
- I checked some other FA about bands (Genesis, Pink Floyd, The Beatles) and I saw sections like: 1)Inspiration and influences, 2)Album cover art, 3)Criticism, 4)Discography, 5)Awards (Grammy Awards and nominations, American Music Awards), 6)Band members, 7)Instrumentation. This article lacks all these things. Personally, even for a GA, I deem necessary the following necessary sections: 1)Band members, 2)Inspiration and influences. Thereby, a reorganisation of the whole material might be necesssary.
- The history section is huuuuuuuuge. If you add the sections above you'll achieve a better balance within the article.
- I also regard Trivia section as unnecessary. I donot like them in general, but this might well be a personal peculiarity. I just think that such sections look like having scattered information. I think it would be better to incorporate them within the other sections.
- Inline citations:UberCrycix was clear about that. Without them even the GA status seems obscure.
- I donot like the sections "Discography" and "Samples". The second one could be incorporated somewhere else. In Genesis a lot of samples are within the subsections of "History" section. Hence, find more samples and incorporate them in other sections.
- The "Discography" section is too short. Of course, there is a seperate article, but you could make a summary of it. Look again Genesis or Pink Floyd, where there is a nice template with the band's studio albums.
- More photos are also necessary. Just one photo for such a famous band?--Yannismarou 17:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think the article is good enough for a GA status. However, from an FA standpoint there's a lot that needs to be incorporated into the article. First, History needs to comply with Wikipedia's Summary style formatting. I would create another article titled "History of REM", add an elaborate history of the band on that page, link and summarize the contents of that page in the history section of this article. Also, there needs to be more information on the band's influences and how they influenced other singers/bands. The trivia secion is unnecessary and the Discograpy section needs to be more detailed. AreJay 18:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also, if you're looking for photos, try this link http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=R.E.M&l=5 . These photos are all cc-a-sa tagged photos and can be used freely in Wikipedia. AreJay 18:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)