Wikipedia:Peer review/Tool (band)/archive2

Tool (band)

After a first peer review, then passing the GA process, many good changes regarding broadness, style, etc. we are aiming at FA candidacy and inclusion on the next offline release version. Any suggestions are welcome. Thanks in advance, Johnnyw talk 11:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please notice: I will be on vacation from July 4th to July 13th and probably unable to respond during that time. Johnnyw talk 15:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Very impressive article, congratulations. Two things, however: 1) You will not need to submit for inclusion in the offline version, as inclusion of FAs is automatic. Or you might submit right now to get it done during the FAC process. 2) You will probably need a few print sources to go through FAC. Some people there seem to think that the net will crash in a few days, and that the only things we will be left with are silex stones and print sources. So any print magazine is good, any book with an ISBN is great. Here are a few:

• Album Covers Anthology
• Rolling Stone Encyclopedia; too bad we can't peep into this one, bu you could probably list it in "further reading"]
• Guitar World presents Nu-Metal
• Tori Amos Biography

Anyway, you get the idea. Enjoy!--SidiLemine 11:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! For the nice words, the info about the offline version and your suggestions. My thoughts:

• Most sources currently used are print magazines — luckily there's an active Tool community transcribing and scanning these. But I'll guess I'll have to find some more of their ISBN# and use the right template to include that info. Since we only used inline citations and there is no comprehensive Tool bio (the closest thing right now is the WP article :), a reference section listing some "offline" articles seems to be useless. Following your suggestion I gathered what I could from Google books and included 3-4 new (traditional offline) sources.
• The genres mentioned in the article are thoroughly sourced. Still, due to editorial reasons, some sources are placed in the beginning of the article, some in the bio, and some in the subsection about the genre allusions, all depending on the context. At times, this invites people to change the genres mentioned in the infobox at will. Would it be wise to gather the barrage of genre citations at the very beginning of the article, in the infobox and then depending on context as they are now?
• I created a further reading section that at this point also lists a (quite unique) online source. Listing this under EL would complicate things a bit, I guess. What do you think about the "further reading" bit?

Well, all this considered, I'll go for some more ISBN'd sources and then off to FAC! Johnnyw talk 16:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries, it's deserved every bit. Now about what you write:

• • I had a look at that Tool website of yours... That's pretty impressive. I wish there was such an active community about some other subjects, too. But it raises a question. Isn't that blatant copyright violation? I'm not sure at all, but if it is, you cannot point to it from here. Still, it shouldn't bother you, as you have all the right sources and can give the links in private if asked during FAC. To cite newspapers and books, I recommend Template:cite news, and Template: cite book. Template: cite web is also good as it provides the retrieval date, etc. For the mags, be sure to give the ISSN.
  • About the genre, people generally don't put refs in the infobox, althought nothing is against it. My opinion is that you should only link in the body of the article, and keep an eye on that infobox to correct any "wild" changes. If you get in a dispute, then the references will come in handy. About these refs, you shouldn't have any in the lead (WP:LEAD). The lead is supposed to sum up the article, which is already sourced in its body. So you can't have any refs in there.
  • I'm all in favour of the Further Reading section. This is sure to impress the FAC people, althought I'm not sure what is the recommended order for FR/refs/EL. I'll have a look.

Well, the only criticism i feel you might get (apart from the eternal 1a, "excellent prose", that is a permanent bug for everyone) is that you may have too much references. The article is 80kb, and that's a bit long. Remember thought, that none of these two is an actual failing criterion, so don't let them give you any trouble.

Good luck at FAC!

Sad as it may be, you are probably right about not-linking to the transcripts. Will try to find the issn wherever possible and insert them; also will rm the direct link.

And regarding the sources about the genre and in the lead: I can't find the passage that says that Leads should be w/o their own sources. The only thing that is said is "It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate. "Which probably translates to "you don't need to source what has already been sourced in the body". Will take a closer look and probably move some of the sources to the body where appropriate.

All in all: another quick thank you and off I go to work! Johnnyw talk 10:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, there is nothing precisely against sources in the lead, and most FAs have one or two. But as you said, most of the material in the lead should be present in the article, and this is where the sources should be. --SidiLemine 11:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)