Wikipedia:Peer review/McFly (band)/archive2

McFly (band) 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 asked for one before but it was never done (apart from a auto bot one). I'd like to nominate the article for "good article" status but it quick failed before due to lack of references but since then, this has been improved immensely so I believe it should be reassessed. A peer review would tell us what else we should do to improve it.

Thanks, Stacey _{talk to me} 19:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 01:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments:

I think it is a little weird to put the band members birth dates in the lead section. That information is not stated anywhere else in the article and the lead is supposed to be a summary.
The number of references is very good. All of the references seem to be properly formmatted, so hopefully you will not be quick failed again.
The disography section seems to be a repeat of the album subsections in the history section. I am not sure why that is duplicated.
The Awards section is just a list. Could you say the same thing in paragraph form? I've been dinged for having lists instead of prose/paragraph form before.
Maybe one of the pictures of the band playing should go in the infobox so that way people coming to the article immediately see a picture.
Per Wikipedia:Layout the See also section should come before the references.
From my experience I have always seen templates put at the end of the article. The see also section does not seem to be an appropriate place to put the McFly template. See also is meant to be a list of articles that are relevant but not wikilinked in the text.
If you have access to more pictures (properly licensed) then that could add to the article as well. It also seems from the bands website that they have a logo...maybe you could come up with a fair use rationale and use that in the article or infobox.

Good luck. Biomedeng (talk) 11:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! I just have a few comments. I agree about the dates of birth, where do you think they should (if they should) be included? I'm not sure what you mean about the discography section, isn't that what all of them are like? Also for the awards section...I looked at "Good Article" articles (e.g. Fall Out Boy, Lindsay Lohan)) and they've all had "Awards" as lists. We previously had it as prose and I was never happy with it...I believe the lists look much better and they're more informative. I removed the "See also" header and moved the template. We're unable to find more fair use McFly photos at the moment and we previously used the logo but we got told that it did not come under fair use. -- Stacey _{talk to me} 21:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the birth dates even belong in this article, especially since there are articles about the band members. I guess you are trying to emphasize the members are all young? I guess what I meant about the disography section is it duplicates the other subsections under history. Maybe you need to move those sections to disography? Biomedeng (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]