Wikipedia:Peer review/R U Professional/archive1

R U Professional edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

R U Professional passed through multiple stages of review including AFD, DYK, and successful promotion to WP:GA quality. Looking for some helpful input on ways to further improve the article. Thanks for your time, — Cirt (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notices left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Los Angeles task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, User talk:Cirt. — Cirt (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

While the lead should reflect a brief synopsis of the entire article, this one seems a bit detailed and overly long based on the length of the overall length of the article.
I'd break the lead into 3 paragraphs , mirroring the 3 main sections of the article: Background; Inspiration and composition; and Release and reception. I'd drop the sentence about "In a statement, The Mae Shi...". You cover it in the body quite well.
The current second lead paragraph has way too much detailed information, I'd simply cut it to three sentences, with no quotes, summarizing the response and mentioning a couple of the sources you use in the detail section.
In the background section the 2nd and 3rd sentences are a weird transition, going from the actual event to the recording. Then the second paragraph begins a discussion about the already introduced recording.
The Inspiration section is fine. The only issue was that you referenced 4 films, then use 5 quotes, I'd lose the quote which doesn't tie back into one of his films. Other than that, I like the section.
In the Release section, the first paragraph: I'm not a Youtube aficionado, so I have no clue how impressive 145k hits in about 6 weeks is. I think this needs to be contextualized. The rest of the section is okay, but was the song universally praised, as this section makes it appear? Or were there folks who didn't like it? If so, those dissenting views should be included, if not, than give it the props it is due and say that it had no detractors. Also, there are terms used which should be explained (e.g. "poppy" dance song).
Finally, if you could come up with 2 more images, it would balance the article out well. The two existing pics are good licensing wise. Onel5969 (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments from Onel5969

After responding to your other suggestion, lower in your above points, I added to the lede intro sect to summarize the 3 main sections of the article: Background; Inspiration and composition; and Release and reception. Actually the semi-automated review had previously said I needed to expand the WP:LEAD sect, so now I think it's better.
Done. I've broken the lead into 3 paragraphs , mirroring the 3 main sections of the article: Background; Inspiration and composition; and Release and reception.
Done. I've dropped the sentence about "In a statement, The Mae Shi...".
Done. I've cut out a bit from that paragraph, and went back over it to make sure there are no quotes.
Done. I've re-arranged those sentences so there is a better transition there.
Done. I've made it clearer why that other quote is in there, it shows that it ties back into one of his statements in his audio outburst.
Done. I've trimmed the bit from the Release sect about the YouTube hits. I've also added some info from Irish Independent which is the closest I could find in all the sources to sort of relatively more negative critical. I've copy edited out the word cited above.
Done. I've added 2 more images to the article to balance it out better.

Thanks very much to Onel5969 for these helpful suggestions, I think the article looks much better for them. :) — Cirt (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to automated tips

This pertains to my responses to the semi-automated peer review recommendations.
Done. The automated tips previously recommended to expand the lede intro sect per WP:LEAD, because previously it wasn't adequate to function as a full standalone summary of the entire article's contents. After I expanded the lede, the automated tips no longer suggest this, so it must've been an appropriate change.
"If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one." -- I've added 2 free-use images to the article, itself, also echoed by comments from Onel5969, but I'm not sure an unrelated image would be appropriate for the infobox. Although if others feel differently we could for sure add an image of the various band members performing, into the infobox.
"Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a." -- I've gone through and done a lot more copy editing. I've also nominated the article to be copy edited by the friendly people at WP:GOCE. I'll think about asking a few other specific editors, separate from the GOCE process, for additional copy editing help.
"You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas." -- I'll take a look through there for other ideas.
Checklinks: "Checklinks found 0 dead links out of a total of 28 links on 21 October 2014 at 00:24." -- Done.
Dablinks: "No disambiguation links on R U Professional." -- Done.

That seems to be all for now from the automated tips department. — Cirt (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.