Wikipedia:Peer review/Big Bang (band)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Big Bang (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 love Big Bang and it would be great to see it as a featured article. I want to know some suggestion about the article from a netural viewpoint because, as of right now, it seems perfect to me :) Thanks, Taeyang (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Big Bang Fighting![reply]

  • The article has a good amount of content. As far as improvements, the lead section should be expanded so the "Members" and "Awards" sections are represented. The "2009: Branching out" section needs cleaning up to combine all the one-sentence paragraphs into a nice, single (or two) flowing paragraph. The "Members" section has already been tagged, but I'll reinforce the point that virtually the entire section is unreferenced.Gongshow ⊕ 04:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This reads well and is interesting. However, it does not yet meet the minimum criteria for a Good Article, not to mention FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • All the tags need to be addressed. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every direct quote, every set of statistics, every claim that might reasonably be questioned, and every paragraph.
  • MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." My rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections.
  • I see quite a lot of bolding in the lower sections. Generally, bolding is used for heads, subheads, the repetition of the article title in the first line of the lead, and for a few other special cases. I'd recommend reducing the use of bolding except where it's absolutely necessary.
  • It's often helpful to look at featured articles to see how other editors have handled similar material. You can find a list of featured biographies of musicians in the list at WP:FA#Music.
  • Several of the citations are incomplete. My rule of thumb for web citations is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of those can be found.
  • The section heads take a capital letter at the beginning of the first word but not the other words unless they are proper nouns such as someone's name. Thus "Korean Albums" should be "Korean albums".
  • B I G B A N G 0 3 jumped out at me partly because of the spaces. It appears to me that BIGBANG 03 is the actual title.
  • In the "Branching out" section, most of the paragraphs are quite short. Generally, it's a good idea to expand or merge such short paragraphs.
  • Blogs and personal web sites such as YG Bounce are probably not reliable sources per WP:RS.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks a lot!! I'll get right on it! You are very helpful--Taeyang (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Big_Bang_(band)/archive1&oldid=1141909041"