Wikipedia:Peer review/S Club/archive1

S Club

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that I have taken the article as far as I have on my own, and I'm looking for a little bit of help so I can nominate it for FA. I wonder if people who don't know anything about S Club can gain a very good knowledge of the band, and those who do know about them have anything to add. Greatly appriciated. :) Thanks, - ǀ Mikay ǀ 12:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jayron32

Just gonna keep a running commentary as I read it:

In the Lead section: "The group was shaken after, in 2002, Paul Cattermole announced his departure. " Omit the first clause. Say "In 2002, Paul Cattermole..." The next sentance explains and cites the groups trouble this caused, and it sounds better.

Done - ǀ Mikay ǀ 15:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking. WP:MOSLINK says that you should not link a term multiple times in the same article, unless the terms are separated by some space. The same person is linked twice in the lead. CHeck that there are not more problems with this later.

Done I think that I've sorted this out now. All possible ones that I think could be breaking that style guideline have been unwikified.. Think it's all good. - ǀ Mikay ǀ 19:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Another suggestion was that Simon Fuller had chosen the S because it was the first letter of his name." Uncited. Needs a reference

Done Removed as it is unciteable unless books are scoured, and I don't have access to my S Club books at the moment. - ǀ Mikay ǀ 15:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to remove uncited statements. The statement is not uncitable as you imply that the statement comes from a real book source, but that you do not have access to the book as yet. Just leave a "fact" tag after the statement to remind yourself to cite it when you get the chance. Wikipedia is in no rush for this one... take a few days to cite the sources... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The show was an instant success and was watched by 90 million viewers in over 100 different countries." The opening of this sounds too much like personal analysis. Why not just say "The show was watched by 90 million viewers in over 100 countries."

Done I've made suggested changes. See next bullet point for comment...

"With the group firmly in the public eye, they released their debut single, "Bring It All Back" on June 9, 1999." Again, same sort of problem. Omit the first part. The article is seeming to have a lot of this sort of analytical statements; I'm not sure it needs them.

Done I've also changed this. It's very, very difficult when reading back your own prose to see these. I've changed a couple, such as "Following the success of the first two singles," to "Following the high charting.." But like I say, when you've written it.. it's hard to spot the sorts of things. I wonder if there's any more I've missed? - ǀ Mikay ǀ 19:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links do not belong in the main body of the text. Please convert these to either plain text or wikilinks and move to the External Links section as appropriate, or just drop them.

Done - ǀ Mikay ǀ 15:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics, such as album sales and chart performance, need references.

Doing... I've referenced all UK chart performances now, for singles and albums. I just need to find album sale data. Would all international placings need to be referenced in a similar fashion to have I've done the UK performances? - ǀ Mikay ǀ 16:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. That is exactly how I would do it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've covered US/NZ/UK now.. There are a lot of references now. Is this alright? - ǀ Mikay ǀ 10:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a huge problem. If you want, you can reference the chart positions like this article Hilary Duff discography does it; with the references at the top of the table, or at the top of each column (like by the country abbreviation). However, since it appears you are referencing each song and position to a different references, keeping going as you are isn't really all that bad... I would say keep going as you are. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nearly there.. I stupidly didn't realise that the BPI and RIAA sites are searchable which made it very easy to locate Album/Single certificates, which are now all neatly referenced. Just have to do those other chart ranks. :) We've just touched over 100 references! - ǀ Mikay ǀ 20:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the references are spotty. There are places where analysis is made regarding, for example, the motives behind releasing singles, or aspects of a song's style, that seem to represent the opinion of someone, and yet aren't referenced to anything.
Don't use "MySpace" as a noun, as in "So and so has a MySpace" ... "has page on MySpace" is better. Also, even mentioning that the people have MySpace pages seems irrelevant. EVERYBODY has a myspace page. If relevent, move to external links, but no need to discuss it in the text.

Done The point isn't saying that they have MySpaces, it is more of the fact that they have unreleased tracks attached to them. - ǀ Mikay ǀ 15:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a short explanation of the connection to S Club 8 is in order, its right now a link under the See Also section, but the connection between the two groups maybe needs SOMETHING in the body of the article; like a brief paragraph or something. Maybe not, but its an idea...

Done as per below - ǀ Mikay ǀ 10:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a start. Good luck! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! I'll get onto working those out. Only comment though, I'm pretty sure that S Club 8 is appropriately covered in the History (at the end of L.A.7 and Viva S Club sections). We've had it once before as a separate subheading, but were advised to merge when given tips for GA status. I also take it that there is excessive linking with album and single links, as well as references to their TV series... - ǀ Mikay ǀ 14:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S Club 8 is covered in the article. Sorry I missed it. In that case, eliminate it from the See Also section. You should not have things in the See Also that also have wikilinks in the main text. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Seegoon

After Jayron's blitzed the article as he just did, I'm not sure I'll be able to find too many problems, but I'll give it a go...

"at least one Number One single" - is there a reason this is capitalised?

Done I'm not sure.. I couldn't have mistaken it from a noun, surely.. - ǀ Mikay ǀ 17:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formation seems to jump incredibly fast from conception to reality. If you could provide any more information at all, it would help the flow of the paragraph.

In the interviews given in the It's An S Club Thing video, there is a bit about formation there. In fact, there may even be clips of the auditions, which I may be able to cap and provide as a fair use image. That would be interesting to include, actually. I'll check my other resources as well (although most of my magazine clippings, are clippings and issue/dates are unknown, so they aren't the best sources!!) - ǀ Mikay ǀ 17:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Albeit a bit brief, I think I've covered the appropriate points? The prose mightn't read the best though. Lemme know what you think ... - ǀ Mikay ǀ 13:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in the section headers, i.e. "1999-2000: Miami 7/S Club", TV show titles should also be italicised.

Done Sorted that.. do you think that it's best to have TV show/Album.. as they're predominantly a band, but chronologically, Miami 7 came first... - ǀ Mikay ǀ 17:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"As a result, the boys released" - the boys? Is that appropriate?

Done Tricky one.. "The men released" sounds even worse, and duplicating the names doesn't read succinctly with the previous sentence. But I definately agree that "The boys" sounds very fansite-ish.. I've stuck with "On March 20, 2001, Paul, Jon and Bradley were caught with cannabis in London's Covent Garden. The three were cautioned by police at Charing Cross Police Station and released without charge.[29] After the event, they released a public apology stating they were "very stupid" and "very sorry" admitting to having made a "stupid mistake".[30]"

OK! Magazine should also be italicised.

Done

OK, that's all I could muster. I hope it helped, nonetheless. Seegoon (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those.. I guess that if those were the only ones you could add, the article must be heading in the right direction! *extremely pleased* Thank you very much for your review.. it's much appriciated, and if there's anything else you can think of, don't hesitate in pointing out a mistake! Haha - ǀ Mikay ǀ 17:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by LaraLove

I don't have time to read it right now, but I did look over it and nothing really popped out other than one little issue I fixed myself, but I did notice at the end that the references don't include all the necessary information. Author (date). "(Linked) Title". Work, p. #. Retrieved on date. Omitting only what isn't available. A lot of the references are just a linked title and retrieval date. These need to be expanded. Lara❤Love 20:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if they're all websites, you cannot reference a work or a page number? Only the website, the "publisher" of the site. Unless I go through the references and credit every author of every article? - ǀ Mikay ǀ 20:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a website, it depends on the organization. If it is, say, an article on an online magazine, the "Title" is the article title, the "work" is the name of the online magazine, and the "publisher" is usually the copyright holder. Of course page numbers are moot for websites. And authors, where given, should ALWAYS be credited. You will need to fully expand bibliographic information for each of these. Also be aware that for websites, there should be two dates: publication date and retreival date. The {{cite web}} template is helpful to organize this information if you wish to use it. Its not requried, but can be helpful. For situations where something is unknown (for example, an article does not have a readily apparent author) then it is OK to omit the author. However, keep in mind that the less "accountable" a reference is with regard to this information, the less reliable it is. If an article has no author, and you have no idea who published the website, or even when it was published, then how reliable is it really??? But I will second Lara's analysis here. References really need to be as complete and professional as possible for an FA. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article takes the band at face value and does not consider them outside the context of manufactured pop. Presumably they where auditions with many hundred other blond bombshells turning up, presumably this was related to the the decline of celebrity status and the rise of the "kids from fame" that now dominate heat magazine, now magazine, etc, etc. Big brother? "I'm a celebrity get me out of here? The cynicism of their planning and engineering is probably worth mentioning at some stage, to give context to the reason they captures the public imagiantion in the first place. Ceoil (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music history is filled with such manufactured pop (the Monkees anyone?). The article does a pretty good job explaining how the band formed; I am not at all concerned that the article does not go into a long history of the controversy of such bands. There is a general distaste in some circles for such bands, however, I am not sure that this article is a place to note such general controversy. Maybe a specific cited criticism in the reviews and recepetion section, but we don't need to open this into a general screed on manufactured pop. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where I have to agree that many of today's manufactured pop groups are almost reviled these days due to singer/songwriters and less of a need for bubblegum/manufactured pop, I feel as if this isn't an issue for this article. Obviously, I'm biased because I'm very passionate about this subject, but I really cannot stand talk about celebrity culture, etc. in the context of this. I know non-NPOV hasn't got a place at Wikipedia (part of the reason it's taken me so long to learn to write neutrally), but I believe that such comments should be saved for the manufactured pop article, or even the pop music article. As for the comments about the references, you've been really helpful. It's difficult because about 99% of the references use the Cite Web template. Throughout, I've tried to use the date/date accessed parameters, and you can see that in use.. but I'll take your advice and go through the articles and hunt down the authors. I also don't think I've been distinguishing between Work and Publisher. eg. BBC News is used quite a lot.. would they be the Work or the Publisher?? This is such a learning curve, and I love it!! - ǀ Mikay ǀ 10:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, does the website have a name like BBC News Online or the Evening News Website or something like that? Or is it just called "BBC News"? Is the company called "BBC News Incorporated" Or "BBC News Ltd." Or something like that? Just some ideas. But yeah, the authors WILL Need to be dug up. That is most basic; you always credit authors of their work. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say Mikay, I'm knocking S Club in particlar if it sounded like that, or even maunfactured pop - I love early 60s girl bands, Bros, and early (ahem) kiley. I think its celebrity culture, and the arrogance of svengalies that annoy me more than anything else. Glad that you are enjoying working on the article, yep, the first article is sooo much fun. I have another look at the refs. Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Looks good, no? - ǀ Mikay ǀ 16:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by WillowW

Hi Mikay!

Here are some suggestions for the S Club; overall it seems pretty good! :)

I would put more information into the lead; the lead should be a capsule summary of the main text, right? For example, you might list the four television series that they were in by name, so that when the reader sees them in the main text, they'll say, "Oh yes, I've heard that before!" A fuller description of their musical evolution and/or unusual songs such as "Never Had a Dream Come True" might be good, too. Finally, you might say something about their charity work, both before and after they were together?

I would also organize the lead more, putting related things together. For example, you might list all their prizes in one paragraph and discuss other things elsewhere. You want to have a strong sense of flow, not jumping back and forth.

Try to sketch your subject in broad strokes before discussing the details. For example, the exact rank at which their album "Sunshine" topped out is less important for the average reader than understanding that S Club were near the top for a long time and their music evolved in interesting ways.

Go through and make sure that you clarify for the reader what everything is without having to follow the wikilinks. For example, instead of saying "Even as early on as 7, the song styles were beginning...", you might say, "Even as early as their second album, 7, their song styles were beginning..."

Short paragraphs (esp. 1-2 sentences) can make writing choppy and difficult to follow. Try to weave the thoughts together into longer paragraphs, and work on having a strong flow between paragraphs, so that even readers with short attention spans can stick with you. :)

That was happy news yesterday about Jo O'Meara, no? I'll confess, I was surprised and upset by that whole affair, but it's nice to know that people can learn and improve themselves.

You might have more discussion of the people making up S Club, what their different personas are or at least presented to be. (My favorite was Hannah, but that's irrelevant.) More individual pictures of the band members or a caption telling who's who in the S Club Party picture would probably be good. A sentence or two about their age(s) might also be appropriate for setting context, e.g., "The band members were all roughly 20 years old when they first started recording in 1997."

The connection between video and music might be worth exploring more, possibly by relating S Club to the history of other pop bands? Maybe The Monkees were the first in that line?

I like the use of sound snippets, although I'm not sure that everyone will. I'm just saying, so that you won't be surprised if it comes up.

I'm not very good at this, so you probably want to ask other people for help as well. I had a list with more notes, but I seem to have misplaced it; I'll write with more suggestions once I find it again! A little ditzy, Willow (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 04:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]