Wikipedia:Peer review/List of The Smashing Pumpkins band members/archive1

List of The Smashing Pumpkins band members edit

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 recently rewrote the entire lead, added the tables, and cited all of the sources. I eventually want to nominate this article for as featured list, and I want to get feedback to make sure it meets all of the criteria.

Thanks, WereWolf (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: The lists look basically OK. Here are a few points requiring attention:-

Prose issues in lead
- "Since its inception, The Smashing Pumpkins have..." You can't have "its" and "have" together. Either "their" and "have", or "its" and "has".

Done. WereWolf (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- with the only consistent member being Billy Corgan" → "with Billy Corgan the only consistent member."

Done. WereWolf (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- "The band played their final concert on December 2, 2000 at the Cabaret Metro." Needs rewording, as this obviously wasn't the band's "final" concert.

Done. WereWolf (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The band's website need only be described as "official" once.

Done. WereWolf (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Members list
- Current: the note introducing this list begins "As of 2010, the current lineup..." You don't need to say "current".

Done. WereWolf (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Former live members: this is a somewhat awkward heading. Why not change it to "Touring musicians"? With the accompanying note, that should be clear.

Done. WereWolf (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Former additional supporting live musicians: again, an unnecessarily awkward heading. Call them "Temporary musicians", and use the note to say what they were.

Done. WereWolf (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General point: I notice some inconsistency in the formatting of retrieval dates in the references.

Done. WereWolf (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. It will help us in turn if you can find time to review one or more articles from the peer review backlog - there is a shortage of reviewers, and your assistance would be much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]