Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Pearl Jam/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review | Pearl Jam

Pearl Jam

edit

I'm looking to take this to featured status soon, and it would be nice to receive comments about the article's comprehensiveness and prose etc. CloudNine 11:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Album covers

edit

Comments by Johnnyw

edit

Hi! Since we`re both working on related topics, and both probably longing for some feedback, I'll try to point out some things that might be worth addressing. Note that this is not extensive, for example, this is not an in-depth analysis of the prose (although, when looking for claims missing citations (see below), I'll point out if s.th. catches my eye). Since I myself would love to see an analysis of the prose at the Tool article, I don't really know if I am qualified.. will do what I can :)

  • Citations
I'll go through the article after writing this and add just a few citation-needed tags. The article of course isn't under-referenced, but I figure it's appropriate since you're going towards FAC.
I believe all the unreferenced statements have been addressed with User:-5-'s help. Thanks for pointing them out. CloudNine 20:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy - In popular culture
I'd probably remove mist if the soundtrack appearances, they don't really contribute to PJ's "legacy in popular culture" in my opinion. The Big Fish / Tim Burton thing is rather interesting though, but is already in the bio, right? I know they haven't appeared on the Simpsons or the like, but isn't there some other appearance that's more worth mentioning? Maybe you could mention the tons of tribute bands that exist..
  • Campaigning and activism
Generally, I think this section should be expanded/completed. PJ have made numerous benefit appearances, most of them are not mentioned here. No need to list all, maybe name the most important ones, or the issues they raised. In particular, the introduction sentence says "from pro choice to anti GWB" — actually that's not really representing the wide range of topics they addressed. It summarizes basically what the section mentions, but as I said above, there's much more (wildlife protection, anti cancer, West Memphis 3, A Benefit for Maryville Academy, ...)
In regards to FAC, I think a good representative picture would be appropriate here, for illustration.. (if available... the inclusion of a fair use image would also be justified if nothing else is at hand..)
The second sentence says, "The band has promoted an array of causes, including awareness of Crohn's disease, which lead guitarist Mike McCready suffers from, Ticketmaster venue monopolization and the environment, among others". But I do agree, more causes could be mentioned. I found a fair use image of "pro-choice" on Vedder's arm, but I think the section would then focus on their pro-choice views a little too much. I'll keep looking. CloudNine 13:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I am sorry to have neglected the second sentence. But I still think the point is valid though, since a reader familiar with PJ would probably find the section lacking in terms of comprehensiveness (shouldn't be like Rage_Against_the_Machine#Politics, but the RATM article shows how far this could be taken.) Johnnyw talk 14:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Musical style
the sentence with the cobain quote should be part of the second paragraph, and treated as a singular comment on Ten, although it is used as a general description in the lead paragraph of that section. I'd remove the "at times, ..." part and just use it as a description on Ten.
Addressed that issue. Fits in quite nicely actually. CloudNine 20:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what about Ament and Cameron? no info there?
Haven't found a lot; FA on bands tend to summarise the band's musical style, rather than go through each member. I'm planning to add to the Musical style section though. CloudNine 19:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that helps, best wishes! Johnnyw talk 10:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • the name -> Etyomology
A short note: the bit about the pearl jam name disrupts reading the article a bit. why not move it to an etyomology section? It seems appropriate to me, since the reasons given are not really biographical in nature.. Johnnyw talk 11:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was a separate etymology section (with a huge quote: see this revision), but the actual referenced content is less than a paragraph in length, so consensus indicated that it should be moved to the biography. It's a valid point though. CloudNine 11:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the quotes were quite big. I'd probably only include a citation if it hits the nail on the head, like I did at Tool_(band)#Etymology. Nevertheless, I'd reinstate the old section, shorten it, and rename it to "Etymology". Just my opinion though, but I don`t really see how the bio benefits from the current arrangement.. Johnnyw talk 14:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now in separate section. Doesn't look as stubby as I thought it would. Thanks. CloudNine 19:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, those are my quick thoughts after reading the article twice:

  • questions unanswered
why did krusen leave the band?
Done. Apparently he entered rehab. CloudNine 20:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ten's lyrical subjects are mentioned, but not a word about musical style is written
Added "Ten's musical style, influenced by classic rock, combined an "expansive harmonic vocabulary" with an anthemic sound". I may add a more thorough description later; what do you think? CloudNine 10:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good! Just another suggestion: I'd think about moving the sentences about "Alive" and "Jeremy" right after the "produced hit singles ......" bit, since currently it reads like this: album, the 2 songs, the album's success, then the hit singles.. better: album, album's success, hit singles, details about the 2 songs.Johnnyw talk 12:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rearranged, thanks for pointing that out. CloudNine 12:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why was abbruzzese fired?
Political differences. Added to prose. CloudNine 10:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the july 17 press conference before playing in mexico is mentioned, rare, but: what did they say? if what they said isn't worth mentioning, why not remove it? if it is worth mentioning: than include what it was about
No idea personally, and I don't think it's worthy of note either; I removed the prose in question. CloudNine 20:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why did they leave epic?
Just that the band's contract had expired, and that they had no interest in re-signing. Added that information to the article. CloudNine 14:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • style
some minor style things that need checking: some things are wiki-linked twice in the same section (Saturday night live, e.g.)
  • regarding citations-needed taggs
some phrases maybe just need to be toned-down a bit, rather than completely sourced or removed, e.g.
"Many fans had complained about the difficulty in obtaining tickets and the use of non-Ticketmaster venues, which were judged to be out-of-the-way and impersonal." The following, sourced sentence make it obvious that fans were complaining, but the specific problems, e.g. the "impersonality" of non-ticketmaster venues seem a bit far fetched to me to stay without a source.

Still not an in-depth analysis of the prose though, if nobody comments on that, I'll recommend reading User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a. Best wishes! Johnnyw talk 11:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed review! CloudNine 11:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome. Beginning next Wednesday, I'll be on vacation for a week or so, but before and after that, I'll keep an eye on the developments and help if I can. Johnnyw talk 14:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Pearl_Jam/archive1&oldid=1136084823"