Wikipedia:Peer review/ABBA/archive1

ABBA

I think this is good candidate for a featured article. Its length is more than enough, it meets most of the criteria, and I think if it's named as a Featured Article people might realize there were other supergroups out there besides the Beatles. -- Supertrouperdc 04:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object, no references. Length alone does not a featured article make. Fieari 04:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Per Fieari. Also, trivia sections (or in this case, lists) should be turned into prose if they contain pertinent information. RyanG e rbil10 04:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to WP:PR - sorry, but meeting "most" of the criteria is not enough: it needs to meet all of them, and references are a fundamental criterion (see WP:WIAFA). This is going the right way, but not quite there yet: (i) the sectioning is a bit odd - why is "Before ABBA" in "History, but "After ABBA" is not? (ii) There is very little on the distinctive musical style of ABBA, rather than the bare facts of which singles where released when, and what chart positions they reached. (iii) Videos could do with their own section, I think, and the non-music impact (currently only fashion) could do with extending to the wider cultural impact - has ABBA been an influence on later music? Who? How? When? Why? (iv) Trivia is a bit overwhelming, and most of the items should be incorporated into other sections. Good luck. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object per Fieari. -AKMask 19:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, for lack of inline citations and references, and per ALoan. The list would be best off in prose. AndyZ 01:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Just like the last featured article candidate you brought up, "Waterloo," it's a nice read but it isn't Wikipedia's 150% BEST work. Mike H. That's hot 05:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, no ciatation of sources and references at all. No peer review has been done and needs more content. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object This thing really needs some refs. Staxringold 16:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was referred to peer review from FAC, because it clearly has a snowball's chance of being promoted. Johnleemk | Talk 17:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be an inappropriate peer review request. The submitter (User:Johnleemk) has not indicated what the desired goal of the peer review is, but based upon the discussion it would appear that this request would be better served if it was submitted to Pages needing attention, Requests for expansion or Cleanup instead. --Allen3 ^talk 15:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Refer to Wikipedia talk:Peer review and Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. This has been accepted practice for quite some time, and just because someone removed it from the FAC procedure page to cut down on verbiage doesn't mean it's prohibited. Pages needing attention, requests for expansion and cleanup are all totally inappropriate for this article, as they are (ahem) either for pages needing expansion or really really screwed up articles. Johnleemk | Talk 15:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, this is the right place, but until the original nominator or another interested party impliments the suggestions from the FAC, there isn't much more to peer review here. I suggest bringing it back to PR after some substantial research has been done with Wikipedia:Reliable sources - Taxman ^Talk 00:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Despite Johnleemk's comments, moving other people's FAC nominations to peer review verbatim is not accepted practice. Please see the talk page link I posted below. Cedars 00:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The decision to move FAC nominations to peer review verbatim is a source of controversy, to further discuss the issue or review existing discussion, please see the talk page topic here.

added by: -- TechsMechs 06:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
- it has been
- allege
- is considered
- might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please ~~strike~~ this comment).
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 22 additive terms, a bit too much.
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
- Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am ~~now~~ using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas. Thanks, Andy _t 06:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

add by: -- TechsMechs 06:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]