Wikipedia:Peer review/Devourment/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Devourment[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is an article I started rewriting after seeing it on AfD, but then got sick of it. It had been sat in my userspace for months, and I have only 'completed' it today, and would like advice on how to get it to good article. Specific things I would like advice on- how does the members' list look? Should I include cats to indicate the many formations/breakups, or just leave with the first formation date? Of course, absolutely any comments welcome. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now a good article. J Milburn (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burningclean[edit]

  • Just as a note, I am not sure on this, but I think there is an overuse on commas throughout the article.
    • Hmmm, I know I do use a lot of commas, partly because I use a lot of parenthesis- see point 2. However, I didn't properly copyedit the article, as I was keen to get it into the main space last night, and I knew I had to get up for work today... I will give it a copyedit now. J Milburn (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • “The band is currently signed to label” add “the” before label
    •  Done I think both are acceptable, but I'll trust your judgement. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you know what the “other” labels are?
    • Are you referring to the infobox, or the lead section? I thought the links with other labels were too small to bother mentioning in either, top be honest. If you look at the discography, you see they are linked with Corpsegristle, United Gutteral, Displeased, Night of the Vinyl Dead and Brutal Bands, as well as self-releasing an album. Not bad considering they only have two LPs... J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also add Unmatched Brutality to that list, I've found another cite... J Milburn (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is fine, I suppose with an obscure band like this it isn't worth mentioning all of the numerous labels anyway. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • “The third reformation years saw two rereleases of 1.3.8,” The word “years” looks kind of funny there.
    •  Done Was meant to be 'years later'. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the info box, instead of using commas for the current members, could you use line breaks? I’d say you could leave the former members alone due to there being so many.
    • Wasn't there a debate about this recently? What was the consensus? Not sure I like formatting the current and former members differently...  Done For now. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, on second thoughts, that looks better. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I didn't realize there was a debate.
  • “Henry had formed his own band- Dead Industry” Instead of the little dash, maby use a comma or —
    •  Done Fixed throughout the article, that's something I have never got into the habit of. J Milburn (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Crap, I'm sorry, I should have clarified. In the members and discography sections it should actually be – —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whoops, thanks, fixed. I assume it should be the little dashes in the discography too? J Milburn (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same goes for “band then put out their first promo, featuring two songs- "Shroud of Encryption" and "Festering Vomitous Mass",”
  • “The band had a release show for the album at Colarado.” ‘’in’’ Colorado (I lived there :P)
  • I think the Members section needs some cleanup. I think you should use the same format most band articles are like, despite how many lineups there were. Maby even make a template like Template:Opeth timeline.
    • I'll have a think about this. J Milburn (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The template was just a suggestion, it isn't nedded at all, I'm fine without it. However, the regular formating would be easier on the eyes.
  • Do they have any external links? (Official, Myspace, etc.)
  • It isn’t needed but a band template would be nice to have in related articles.
    • Something else I have never done- is it really worth it? There is the band article, and three (rather poor) album articles... J Milburn (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually didn't see the album articles up unil now, so you are correct, it isn't needed.
  • One thing I forgot, are there any images available for the band. Images are a pain in the arsenal, however it is one of the GA criteria. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may contact the band and request an image, but maybe not. Alternatively, I talk about an album cover in the article, I could stick that in? J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not the best at reviewing articles, but I think I covered the obvious points. Thank you for asking me to review by the way. Cheers, —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 00:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan[edit]

Comments;

  • "Majewski had previously worked publicizing the band and providing artwork, and had first seen them when their only song was "Shroud of Encryption", having been introduced to the band by his friend 'Hound'.[7]" - Sentence is somewhat awkward, and possibly needs splitting into two.

LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Devourment also released their second DVD in January 2007.[26]" - Does this DVD have a name, and have any outlets reviewed it? LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I am aware, no and no. The band site just calls it 'Devourment DVD 2' or 'The Second Devourment DVD' and similar, and I have not come across any reviews. J Milburn (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Criticism of the album included that it was too repetitive.[20]" - Who, writing for which publication, expressed this opinion? LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Thanks very much for the review, further comments welcome. J Milburn (talk) 19:19, 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 01:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M3tal H3ad[edit]

  • United Gutteral, Corpsegristle Records and others - "and others" is vague
  • the band released a demo - has released?
    •  Not done I think mine is correct- because I am saying "Since formation, the band released X and X before breaking up." Not just "Since formation, the band released X and X." In which case "has released" would be better. J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "got together" don't like the use of the word "got"
  • Should there be spaces after em dash? i thought it was like—this
    •  Done According to the Manual of Style, you're right. They really aren't something I'm familiar with. J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • then put out their first promo - put out-> released?
    •  Done It wasn't released as such at the time, but I have rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • having been introduced to the band by his friend "Hound", relevant?
  • The band then recorded
  • n 2006, the band a two album - signed a two
  • with bassist new Chris Andrews - new bassist
  • Despite no longer being with the Devourment - "the devourment"?
  • They have also - also is redundant
  • The band members list is confusing, can it be transferred to a seperate article and just consist of the current lineup, or would it likely be deleted?
    • That's honestly not a bad idea- the sourcing would be a bitch, though. Hmmm, actually, now I think about it, maybe it wouldn't, I could probably source the whole thing to the official site... It's relevent information about a notable band (not cruft) so, if it gets too unwieldy in the main article, it can be split away. I'll add that to my list of ideas. J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch out for overlinking Blabbermouth.net in the references.
    • I was under the impression you should link in every individual citation? J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's about all, good job. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • From the instructions: "Please do not include any images, such as done/not done templates with tick/cross graphics" Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not allowed to use the done and notdone templates? That's the fucking stupidest thing I have seen all day. J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The preceding sentence explains why: "This size of this page is limited. Please do not include any images...". This is also a guidleline at FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Devourment/archive1&oldid=1078819162"