Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Genesis (band)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review | Genesis (band)
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer review/Genesis (band))

Genesis (band)

edit

Over the course of the last three weeks, I've spent a lot of time completely revamping this article, standardizing the article per WP:MOS, expanding on existing content, adding images and audio samples, where necessary and creating stubs for most (if not all) red links within the article. This is my first music related article PR and I would really appreciate some feedback on the progress so far — my goal is to try and push the Genesis article for WP:FAC in about three or four weeks. Thanks! AreJay 21:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could consider replacing that {{List of Genesis members}} template with a timeline (meta:EasyTimeline). It'd avoid having a template that is linked to by a single page. Either that or substing it back into the article if it is not actually meant to be used on more than a page. (Don't forget to get the template and redirect deleted afterward) Circeus 02:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I'm going to take your suggestion and move {{List of Genesis members}} back into the article. I tried working on the metawiki <timeline> format, but found it quite frustrating in getting a proper alignment, etc, although I like the concept and didn't know until now that such a template was available. Thanks AreJay 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I won't deny that I haven't got any slighest idea as to how Timeline syntax works. besides, I firmly believe the infoshould also beavailable intextformat for the visuall impaired's benefits (although in this case the Timeline is a truely schematized version of the info that is otherwise spread to the article, some people use it to put information that is not coveed in text.) Circeus 03:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey AreJay -- As an obvious fan of the group, I appreciate the work you've put into this. However, I do believe the article needs a good copyedit as some POV and grammar errors slip through. I have a bunch of suggestions for you, which I hope are helpful.

  • Change some of the "Peter Gabriel"'s and "Phil Collins"'s, as well as other band members, to "Gabriel" and "Collins". I think you can mention their full names in the lead once and once again in the article when they're introduced, but their last name's fine each subsequent time.
Done AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some members of the band ..." should be moved from the lead and into the article, as I think the lead works best when it closes with the band's hiatus.
Done AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you should mention all the names of members of The Spoken Word, The Garden Wall, and any lesser member of these groups with the exception of Genesis members. It's confusing reading the section, as it's a bunch of names that really have no signifance to Genesis. Perhaps a separate article for their information, such as Prior Bands of Genesis Members, or something tidier than that, for the extra information.
Done. I will perhaps work on Prior Bands of Genesis Members later AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many looooooong paragraphs which can be broken into two-four smaller paragraphs. The first two paragraphs of "The beginning", for example, are monsters.
Done! AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid calling the songs "classics" and "favourites", as well as unsourced statements about how popular a song/album/album cover is among fans, as that's POV unless a critic confirms it.
  • More should be put into why Banks (and really, the whole band) fueded with Gabriel during The Lamb sessions. It's not clear when reading that section, and it's important for why Gabriel left the group.
Done AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says it became apparent that Collins should be the lead singer, but doesn't tell why it was so apparent. Also, "Another factor that may have influenced the positive response was that Collins sounded "more like Gabriel than Gabriel did"., even though it's quoted, still feels like an opinion because of the "may have influenced" part. Just needs to be rewritten to clarify it's not the author's impression with a quote to back the author up.
Done AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take out the Bret Ellis spoof information -- it's placed in the wrong spot, not in chrono order, and Ellis spoofs several other 80s groups in his book / movie, too.
Can you clarify your objection? Rarely are Genesis songs used in the soundtracks of mainstream movies. I thought it's inclusion to be pertinent to the section that discusses how the songs from the album were used in various commercials etc. I have therefore moved the section down a few sentences. AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd move the Discography and "other releases" sections to another page, like Genesis Discography.
This section is already on another page. I'm only including the template in the main article. Did you want me to move the "other releases" section to the template as well? AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And finally, a copy edit for grammar. This includes proper commas and quotations marks, as well as elimination of redundant words, "Phil Collins joined the band on August 4, 1970 and the band played a handful of gigs as a four-piece band before playing a few shows with guitarist Mick Barnard" says "band" three times in one sentence. So that you have another pair of eyes reading over this, I'll be glad to help with a copy edit when I have another free moment this week.
Couldn't agree more! I ran spellcheck yesterday, but I could definately use some help in copyediting the article. Thanks for all the great suggestions — I'm sorry I wasn't able to get to them sooner; I was away all of last week. AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a lot I see that hasn't been covered above, but here's my thoughts, most of them minor:

  • The whole article does need a general copyedit:
    • Much of the prose could be tightened up by eliminating redundant words, combing for passive voice, and just tightening the prose up generally.
    • I noticed a couple of full dates that aren't wikified for user preferences.
    • Many song/album titles have capitalized prepositions, articles and conjunctions, which are generally lowercase across the Wikipedia.
I have cleared most if not all of these AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article should be combed carefully for slang; one example I noticed was "sacked"
    • A singular noun that ends with "s" doesn't use the dangling apostrophe when indicating a possesive tense; in other words, multiple use of Genesis' and Collins' should be amended to Genesis's and Collins's.
Done AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The MLA style doesn't tend to be used on Wikipedia, although the MOS isn't definite on the issue. Changing underlined references to italicized is easier on the eye, avoids confusion in regards to the underlining that some web browsers do to indicate an active link, and is sure to be a complaint in an FAC.
I don't think any complaints with regards to MLA during FAC can really hold any merit. WP:MOS does not prescribe a definative format for references and citations, as you say, so as long as editors follow some format, consistantly through out the article, it shouldn't matter what format they use. In fact, WP:CITE links to MLA formats in its "Further Reading" section. I have used the MLA format for my previous (successful) FACs and did not encounter objections with respect to the style of formatting for my citations. AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discography and "other releases", with cover art, chart numbers and certifications, take up a disproportionate number of inches in the article, and the art is too small to see. They should be split into a separate article, keeping just a simple year:album list in the main article of major studio releases.
Point taken. I will work on this in a bit AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the side-box template with the lists of the band's members over the years confusing and leads to too much repetition of members such as Rutherford, who have been in every iteration. I would prefer to see a list of band members with the years they were part of the group, placed low in the article. I also agree with Ataricodfish that all the info about members of pre-Genesis bands in the early paragraphs was confusing.
I completely redid that section. Can you take a look at it and provide some feedback on whether or not this format is any better? Thanks. AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A minor mention of Mike and the Mechanics, especially in regards to why Paul Carrack was being considered for vocalist after Collins left, might be of interest to people, as many might not know that it was a Rutherford side-project which had pretty notable success on their own.
Done AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's still a few spots that could use a couple of references, most notably the bits about Genesis being the first band to do 4 consecutive shows at Wembley and pioneering the use of various concert technologies.
I've searched all over the internet for possible references. I've found zilch so far. I'm leaning towards deleting those sentences. AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rhapsody music playlist should probably be removed per WP:EL "Links to avoid" #7, since it requires an external application to use. Make sure you assess all the external links per the policy.
Done! AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These critiques are all pretty minor but are the kinds of things that will really need to be addressed to get it through an FAC. Overall, this is a very good article, and as someone who isn't a Genesis fan and knew next-to-nothing about them before reading it, it taught me a lot. Instead of just pointing them out, if I get a chance in the next week or two, I'll try to address some of the problems myself. Congratulations for all the good work so far. - dharmabum 23:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really appreciate your comments! I have made changes based on your suggestions. Can you please review the article and comment on whether or not it looks any better now? AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Dharma and Ataricodfish have raised some excellent points — I'll start working on making the necessary changes to the article sometime tomorrow. Thanks! AreJay 01:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Way better than most FACs already, the right hand side infobox is a nice alternative to the footer template on articles like Iron Maiden and Dream Theater --PopUpPirate 23:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to AreJay Hey there -- I've begun a copy edit of the article through "The Peter Gabriel Era", and will continue to edit more as I move along. I essentially tidied some of the sentences, as there were several run-ons and (in my opinion) each album lists about four-five songs on the album, so I cut this back to two for clarity as anyone unfamilar with Genesis won't know these pieces. I've also attempted to remove a lot of the passive voice (i.e., the verbs "was" and "is") into active, which involved some reorganization of the sentences.

In response to your comments above, the reason the Ellis reference should probably be deleted as its somewhat misleading. Genesis and Collins were not thrilled with how the songs were used in the movie (although they had approved the songs), and as the movie came out over a decade after the album its out of place with the article's chronological order. I've also read that Ellis did not like the group which is why he satarized them, although I have no reference for this. Finally, both the book and the movie reference many other performers, including Whitney Houston and Huey Lewis, so its inclusion isn't really unique. If the movie caused a resurgance in sales for the album or a return of their songs to the Billboard chart, ala Queen's "Bohemium Rhapsody" in Wayne's World, it might be noteworthy, but otherwise, it's no more noteworthy than mentioning that Collins was parodied on South Park, which is something I've had to edit several times while watching the Collins page. Just my opinion, of course.

Comment: I can see your point of view. I think it's best that I get rid of that section. Thanks AreJay 19:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have found some more unanswered questions as I've moved through the article, though;

I will highlight my comments in green as I finish addressing the suggestions listed below. AreJay 19:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When Anthony Philips leaves the group, the article mentions doubts that they could continue without him, but there's no reference to this. As the sentence references someone's feelings, it should probably be referenced. Done
  • Why did they fire drummer John Mayhew and why did they rally afterward? According to TB, they didn't feel Mayhew was good enough. This is from the same article that I used to reference the first bullet above.
  • How did Collins' join the band? Considering his influence on the group in later years (and how they had already kicked out a million other drummers), his entrance to the group probably shouldn't be summarized in one sentence. Done
  • Why were they aware that Barnard wasn't up to their caliber? Was he a temporary member of the group, and was he fired? I don't think I understand your first question. Can you clarify? There's nothing to suggest that Barnard was a member of the group — certainly he was not involved in the recording of Nursery Cryme, which was Genesis's next studio album. The only information I have on Barnard was that he played with Genesis on the road for about six months; they felt that he wasn't good enough and decided to replace him.
The article states, "The band felt that Barnard was not up to their caliber of musicianship, they sought a proper replacement for Phillips." I guess that Barnard was a temporary replacement for Phillips while they were still proactively looking for another performer. I might have just misread the quote while editing the article, so I believe it's fine as is.--Ataricodfish 20:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for all the questions. I like where the article is going, but there are still too many important pieces of information which are summarized in one sentence. Although *I* know how Collins joined the band, someone new to the article might wonder how he appeared out of nowhere in the group. No, I am unbelievably thankful to you for raising questions. I have been working on the article for a while and obviously, I am glad that you were able to read through the article and point out issues that I would have certainly overlooked. AreJay 19:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck! I'll continue with my copyedit as I find time. Let me know if you disagree with any of my changes.

--Ataricodfish 18:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Genesis_(band)/archive1&oldid=1138561424"