Wikipedia:Peer review/Brand New/archive1

Brand New edit

Have been working on this, and I'm trying to turn it into a decent complete article on this band, but I'm running short of ideas. It still seems 'scruffy' to me, but I'm ensure of what exactly to do to improve it further. Comments please :) -Halo 20:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions:

Album titles should be in italics, song titles (and singles) in quotation marks.

Done Halo 19:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make Singles section a subsection of Discography, add Albums and EP subsections and remove unnoteworthy demos.

Put demos into another section, split up. Halo 19:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove instruments from member listing in infobox, as they jam it up and are given in the article's member section anyway.

Done Halo 19:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Years should only be linked if they're part of a full date with day & month. See date formatting.

I'll fix this next. Halo 19:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove album covers. They don't add to the article and are unnecessary use of fair use images.

Something similar is in Nirvana, a featured article, and I felt the article needded more images. I particuarly think the Jude Law single one adds something. Halo 19:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia sections are discouraged on Wikipedia. Notable parts of it should be merged into History, others omitted.

I'll have a ponder of what to do with them then. Halo 19:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sentences like "received acclaim for being more complex than many of their peers" and "consisted of many catchy pop-punk hooks yet while still offering something fresh and new compared to many other albums avaliable at the time." sound very POV and should be rewritten or sourced.

I'll find references and quotes tomorrow. Halo 19:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid contractions (use do not instead of don't, etc.). See WP:MOS

All contractions have been removed.

--Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the comments. :) Halo 19:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the further contributions to the page, fixing things I missed. Greatly appreciated. Halo 13:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article, I really enjoyed it. It might be worthwhile citing a source for the hundred dollar Holiday EP claim. Also you should probably talk briefly about emo in the article - especially since the term is mentioned in the infobox and rightly or wrongly the band is often labelled as such (its songs form part of the iTunes Emo Essentials). That said, there doesn't need much more than a sentence on that. Quotes of lyrics might also improve the article. Really though none of what I have said is major problem and, as it is now, this is a good article with a very clear writing style. Cedars 07:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a sentence about Emo, but I was trying to avoid it as it may cause edit wars as lots of people are very funny about the term. Added a citation and slightly changed the wording about the Holiday EP even though I'm sure I've seen it go for more. I'll have a ponder about adding song lyrics quotes, but I'm not sure how exactly it could be done. Thanks for adding it as a good article, glad you enjoyed reading it and thanks for the recommendations Halo 11:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]