Wikipedia:Peer review/Motorcycle club/archive1

Motorcycle club edit

I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone major expansion and improvement over the last several months, and it's time to solicit feedback from a larger audience. All comments and suggestions welcome!

Thanks, Mmoyer 02:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Dahl edit

A good start, plenty of refs. I get the sense that this article is overly preoccupied with hierarchy, structure, and the relationship of the motorcycle clubs with the motorcycle riders clubs. It's ok to make the distinction and talk about hierarchy, but don't go overboard.

I see some Point of View problems, for example in the paragraph starting "Law enforcement agencies routinely view their confiscation of colors..." Try rewriting this in a more neutral tone, so that the article makes it clear that it is a specific Motorcycle club which thinks the police department use confiscated colors as trophies. "The evidence value of such items is questionable..." same as before, questionable by who?

Fixed and added citations. Mmoyer 16:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"One MC successfully sued..." this statement is fine in terms of NPOV, but make sure to cite such claims.

Removed as unsupportable. Mmoyer 16:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Sometimes clubs are forced into "support" roles for a one-percent club..." This section seems like a POV problem, or at least makes this reviewer very uncomfortable. I think this needs to be more specific, at least citing examples and take a more neutral tone. What exactly does a "support role" mean in this context?

Citation provided. Mmoyer 02:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A one-percent club does not always befriend a AMA club..." more trouble.

Removed as unsupportable. Mmoyer 02:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The save face wikilink seems really weird, it links to a concept of Chinese culture.

Changed. Mmoyer 02:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"There are a great many clubs for motorcycle riders who refer to themselves generically as motorcycle clubs. Though they are grammatically correct, these clubs are not MCs in the strictest sense of the term, and members of MCs (as defined in this article) regard these other clubs as motorcycle riding clubs." I think I know what you are trying to say, but the sentence is disconcerting. It needs to be rewritten.

Done. Mmoyer 14:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"(as defined in this article)" bad self reference. "This article" shouldn't make its own arbitrary definitions. Instead, say who does define them.

Done. Mmoyer 14:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about an image of some guys riding their motorcycles?

I'm looking for free images of MC members, but they are hard to come by. Still trying, though. Mmoyer 16:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A Motorcycle Club (MC) is an organized club of motorcycle riders who follow a series of traditional rules for participation in the club, including, but not limited to, a group of elected officers; a probationary period for new members; the wearing of a specific club patch (or patches) adorned with the term "MC"; a measure of privacy about their internal structure, bylaws, and membership; and some level of sworn allegiance to other members of the club." Try this:

A Motorcycle club (MC) is a sworn allegiance of motorcycle riders who..." and then just say what it is they do, which I assume more than just riding their motorcycles. We know that a MC rides around, but what else do they do? make trouble? do charity work? kill time? This stuff needs to be in the intro.

Addressed, but not exactly per your suggestion. Can you give it another read? I really value your input. Mmoyer 14:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence is good, but second sentence needs work. I am not sure how to put this, but perhaps an example will show what I mean:

Imagine we had the sentence "Soldiers in the military have to follow a series of traditional rules, including but not limited to, a group of commanding officers; basic training for new members; the wearing of a uniform; and some level of sworn allegiance to their country." A better wording would be:

"Soldiers in the military must swear allegiance to their country, obey their commanding officer, wear a uniform to denote their rank and branch of service, and undergo rigorous training to keep them physically and mentally fit." Although the second sentence is shorter, it actually has more information and is easier to read. Jeff Dahl 22:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Have another read and see what you think. Mmoyer 02:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved. I'd be happy to take another look at the article after you've had a chance to address some of the other suggestions. Good Luck! Jeff Dahl 22:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'one percenter' should be defined at the earliest possible opportunity (i.e. the intro), in a crisp, concise sentence. Try to avoid jargon, so the section by this name might need to be changed.

One-percenter is now defined in the opening. Unfortunately, the jargon is ingrained in the biker subculture so it would be clumsy not to use it. Or not, I guess. I am open to suggestion for alternative terms. Mmoyer 14:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Members of motorcycle clubs are often viewed in a negative light by traditional society" mention in intro, and "traditional society" might be problematic.
"...is an act of disgrace and may result in loss of membership in a club, or worse." Like what? This just begs for more information, specifics, citations.
"nicest club uniform, prettiest motorcycle" pick different adjectives...
"diamond (rhombus)" instead of using the parenthesis, just say diamond. I think people know what a diamond shape is. If you feel compelled to wikilink, use [[rhombus|diamond]] syntax.

Done. Mmoyer 14:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"99%er" avoid. In fact, I think there are too many abbreviations in this article, like AMA etc. If you only refer to a term once, (e.g. RICO), don't bother with the acronym/abbreviation. This confuses readers.

I think the coverage is pretty good, and pretty good refs. The prose needs some simplification to make it less wordy, and try to get rid of the POV problems. Make sure the lead, especially, is more concise and that it mentions all the topics covered in the article. Remember only the first word of the heading should be capitalized. Remember to avoid jargon without explanation. Jeff Dahl 04:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmoyer's response edit

Thank you for the very excellent comments! This article has been a great challenge for me because of the controversial and secretive nature of motorcycle clubs, and the members (and perhaps victims) of MCs unwillingness to openly discuss certain negative aspects of the culture, leading to few references for some topics. Thanks again and have a Wiki day! Mmoyer 14:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few things I noticed as well

Because the Hells Angels jacket has a logo, you might run into copyright problems, compare with the jacket images from the Hell's Angels MC page.

I found a new photo. Mmoyer 16:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of the list of notable MCs, you might convert it to a paragraph to talk about them and why they are famous. The history section could use a little more, esp since they must have quite a history.
I don't see any reference to Sturgis, isn't this an important MC gathering? Jeff Dahl 22:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sturgis is a biker rally, true, but has no special significance to members of MCs beyond those of non-club affiliated bikers. Mmoyer 03:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 19:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

llywrch edit

I see one big omission: not one mention of Hunter S. Thompson's Hell's Angels: The Strange and Terrible Saga of the Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs If for no other reason, I remember that the "1%er" comment appears in its pages, with attribution.

Another omission is (and I can hear the groans already) that it needs a Motorcycle gangs in popular culture section. One item would be Thompson's book, but a far more important one is the numerous movies about motorcycle gangs in the 1950s: The Wild One is perhaps the best known, but not only, example (which you have mentioned, good). No need to go oveboard, but motorcycle gangs are a prominent & undeniable feature in folklore. -- llywrch 19:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created this section in a narrative timeline style, including Thompsons book. I'd love your opinion! Mmoyer 14:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad. I made a few tweaks to the section; hopefully the link to B movies (The exploitation boom) will discourage other editors from willy-nilly adding every "biker movies" they can think of to this article. -- llywrch 21:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]