Wikipedia:Peer review/Project 86/archive1

Project 86[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 would like to shoot for FAC. It is currently at GAN and will probably be there for a month. That leaves time for a peer review.

Thanks, Noj r (talk) 06:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
What makes the following reliable sources?

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 20:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

All three websites are approved sources of information by the Christian music wikiproject.

But in a nut shell,
- Christianity Today is a magazine started by Billy Graham, and also operates online.
- Cross Rhythms is a UK based online website that also runs a radio program. They marked as a source on Google News and have appeared in CCM Magazine.
- Jesus Freak Hideout is an online website that has conducted dozens of interviews and is a member of the Gospel Music Association -- Noj r (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion of sources may be further informed with information on this page.

Speaking of sources, why the unusual Notes / References split? Dan, the CowMan (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was following the style of other FA articles like Stereolab. I like this format better because you can contain multiple sources in one reference link versus having one link for each reference. -- Noj r (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is broad in coverage and well-illustrated. I have suggestions mainly about prose and style issues, image licenses, alt text, and layout.

Lead

"The current line-up consists of bassist Steven Dail... ". - It would probably be better to say, "as of 2009" than "current" since things may change by 2010.
"The band was formed by Schwab and former drummer Alex Albert as a way to positively influence people." - It would be good to make "positively influence people" more specific here and in the main text. In what specific way(s)?
"However, communication disputes arose and Project 86 was dropped from both labels." - Ditto for "communications disputes". What does that mean?

1996–1999

"Their self-titled debut was produced by Brian Carlstrom, who helmed albums by multi-platinum outfits... " - I don't think "helmed" is a real word. Suggestion: "Brian Carlstrom, who had overseen albums by multi-platinum groups, produced their self-titled debut album... ".
Words inside direct quotations shouldn't be wikilinked. Beck is an example.

2000–2003

"The group worked on their sophomore record with renowned producer Garth "GGGarth" Richardson." - Delete "renowned"?
"Formatted as a concept album, it told the story of a character attempting to gratify himself and find fulfillment in modern society." - Tighten by deleting "gratify himself and"?
"The group spent over fourteen months recording demos for Atlantic, who invested half of a million dollars into the project." - Atlantic is a "which". Digits are a bit easier to comprehend than words for big numbers. Suggestion: "The group spent more than 14 months recording demos for Atlantic, which invested $500,000 in the project."
"The group opened for Taproot on their self-titled tour in fall 2002." - It might not be clear to all readers what "opened" means in this context.
"Tooth & Nail still owned part of the band's contract, but communication disputes led Atlantic to buy their share." - Shouldn't that be "its" share since a company is an "it" rather than a "they"?

2003–2006

"A subsequent investigation took months for the band to rectify." - I'm not sure what this sentence means. Who conducted the investigation? Does "rectify" mean "clean the mud off" or "collect damages"?

Images and sound files

The article lacks alt text, which describes the information in the article's images to readers who can't see them. It takes a bit of practice to write good alt text, which differs from caption writing. You can find an explanation at WP:ALT, and you can look at recent samples of alt text at WP:FAC.
The licensing information for Image:TheSchwab.JPG is incomplete. It does not provide a source for the original image. Was it self-made with a digital camera? If not, who was the photographer?
It's generally better to have subjects looking into the page rather than out. Image:TheSchwab.JPG would probably be better if positioned on the right.
Image checkers at FAC might not be able to accept an unverifiable claim that Jesus Freak Hideout has given permission for Image:Stephen Dail.jpg. It might be that you'll have to ask the image copyright owners to upload and license the image or to e-mail the image with permission for a free (public domain) license via Commons:OTRS.
On my computer screen Image:Stephen Dail.jpg overlaps two sections. Generally it's better to place images inside a single section.
Four fair-use OGG files in one article may be hard to justify. You'll be asked if they are all necessary for a reader's understanding of the text.

Heads and subheads

Date ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.
The word "and" should replace ampersands unless they are part of an official name.

References

Page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed Finetooth's concerns. Thanks again for reviewing the article! -- Noj r (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]