- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.
- I have acted upon all points raised in the automated peer review. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review previously (see Wikipedia:Peer review/White Lies (band)/archive1, based on this revision), and it was recommended that I "...hold off nominating this for FA until the first album is fully released and toured". It was stated also that "this is not a criticism of the article in anyway", with there being few criticisms of the article in the last review itself. Now that this milestone has passed, i have put further work into the article and that it is as good as it can be. This is the most effort I have put into any article on Wikipedia, and would love to see it featured.
Thanks, SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 22:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Far, far too many red links. These should either be turned blue or removed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've removed all red links in the article, as i can see no current scope for new articles. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Review by Jafeluv
editLead:
- "The band are complemented by Tommy Bowen..." are → is
- Question: Is this not correct, under American and British English differences? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're right. I guess I need to read that page a couple more times just to be sure... Jafeluv (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Question: Is this not correct, under American and British English differences? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- "White Lies' musical style has been described as dark yet uplifting by the media,[3] with the former drawing comparisons to Joy Division, Editors and Interpol." The "with -ing" structure is ungrammatical. Should probably be "White Lies' musical style has been described as dark yet uplifting by the media,[3] and the former has drawn comparisons to..."
Fixed - Have changed to "White Lies' musical style has been described as dark yet uplifting by the media,[3] with the formerdrawing comparisons to Joy Division, Editors and Interpol." Does this suit? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)- Good wording. Jafeluv (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
History:
- The subsection headings are confusingly named. "Formation (2005-2007)" already talks about the name change, and To Lose My Life... is already discussed under "Name change and debut singles (2007-2008)". Either move the text to the corresponding section or rename the sections.
- Fixed - Sections renamed to "Formation (2005–2007)", "Early releases (2007–2008)", "To Lose My Life... and future (2009-present)" - is this better? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- "Early releases" is definitely a better name for the second subsection. However, I somewhat disagree with your dividing the text into subsections by year rather than by event. In my opinion, the second and third paragraph of "Early releases" should be under "To Lose My Life...", since they already talk about the debut album. The last subsection could then be "To Lose My Life... (2008–present)". The current "2009–present" is kind of confusing anyway since 2009 is the present :) For an example on how to divide information into subsections logically, see Metallica (a featured article). If you think the last subsection will become too long you can make "Future" a new subsection (just a suggestion, of course). Jafeluv (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have renamed the sections "Formation", "Early releases", "To Lose My Life" and "Future", with the removal of dates. Should the dates be kept out? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 15:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- If by dates you mean the years in the subsection headings, I have no problem with including them. If you looked at Metallica, they do include the years. Same with AC/DC, Genesis (band) and Slayer – all featured articles. What I was concerned about was putting the information under the right heading. So, if a subsection is titled "To Lose My Life", it's supposed to contain all the information on the album in question. I see you've moved the text I suggested. Jafeluv (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have renamed the sections "Formation", "Early releases", "To Lose My Life" and "Future", with the removal of dates. Should the dates be kept out? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 15:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- "Early releases" is definitely a better name for the second subsection. However, I somewhat disagree with your dividing the text into subsections by year rather than by event. In my opinion, the second and third paragraph of "Early releases" should be under "To Lose My Life...", since they already talk about the debut album. The last subsection could then be "To Lose My Life... (2008–present)". The current "2009–present" is kind of confusing anyway since 2009 is the present :) For an example on how to divide information into subsections logically, see Metallica (a featured article). If you think the last subsection will become too long you can make "Future" a new subsection (just a suggestion, of course). Jafeluv (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Name change and debut singles (2007–2008):
- "As well as this, the band signed with..." → "The band also signed with..."
Done - "The band also signed publishing rights to Chrysalis Music Publishing." --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- "When asked about their name, the band said they chose the name because..." → "The band said they chose the name because..." – The first part is redundant.
- Fixed - "The band said they chose the name because..." --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- "playing single "Unfinished Business" and "Death"" → "playing the singles..."
- I hadn't included a reference to "Death" being a single as of yet as this is not mentioned until later in the article. Have changed to "playing singles "Unfinished Business" and "Death"" in the meantime. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- "The tour included an appearance at the CMJ Music Festival in New York" – "New York" should probably point to New York City instead of New York
To Lose My Life... and future (2009-present):
- "The cover was included as a b-side to..." – Capitalize B-side.
- "Upon the release of To Lose My Life, White Lies became the first British act in 2009 to achieve a number one album." – The source doesn't seem to support the claim. It talks about the first number one debut album.
- Fixed - not going to get into the details of the debut album statement so have replaced with this source. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- "the latter being the band's first performance on US television.[47]" – Facebook is not a reliable source.
- Fixed - replaced with this source --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- "Whilst in North America, the band co-headlined..." – Replace "whilst" with "while". See here.
- "Whilst still in the UK, the band made..." – "Whilst" again.
- "due to the nature of the band's song writing techniques.." – Songwriting is one word.
Dead references:
- number 19 ("BBC - Music Profiles - White Lies")
- Fixed - replaced with this source --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- number 39 ("BRITs 2009 - Nominations")
- Fixed - repaired link to original link. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- number 69 ("White Lies - Lies that don't need perfecting")
- Fixed - replaced with Citation 20 and Citation 46 --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Jafeluv (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- All Comments replied to by SteelersFan_UK06. SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)