Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Ultrafox

Ultrafox

This is my first serious attempt at a Wiki article ; I want to get it right. I know it's tiny and unimportant, but still, any help with even the basics would be appreciated! Free chiru (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Javascript review

The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program.

Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), years should only be linked if they provide context for the article. I would recommend removing the links to years, as these do not add anything to the article.
The article has no images! Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.
This article does not have any categories. Please categorize it with relevant [[Category:Categories]].
As you say, the article is very short; you may wish to see if anything can be expanded upon.

Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Free chiru (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Hag2

First of all, let me remark that your prose is very good and that it shows that you will be able to continue broadening your efforts with very little difficulty. Secondly, I agree with everything written previously by the javascript. I would like to emphasize though that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style is an excellent guide.

One item that I believe you will find very helpful is the section regarding footnote citations. There is a Wikipedian around here named Wildhartlivie (User:Wildhartlivie). He has referenced a few noteworthy templates on his talkpage. If you look at any good articles (such as Rudolph Wanderone), you will see citations in action.

It is good to learn how to cite as quickly as possible; other editors will require it.

Now, on the whole, since we are in agreement that you need to broaden your article to give your reader a much more in-depth (and encyclopedic view) of Ultrafox, I think you want to concentrate on finding as many details about the band as possible: from the "creation", through their "touring" history, and into their "public lives". A good, "background approach" to this kind of thing is to follow days, to months, to years in a linear approach. Anecdotes are another vital element. A good example to be seen right now is in the Rudolph Wanderone article where Minnesota Fats first acquires his nickname from the movie/novel The Hustler.

Also, in "Style".... When you write about the uniqueness of Ultrafox's sound, go into detail using examples from their music in a similar manner as a music reviewer does. Your readers will want to know how and why their sound is "unique", and how it has been influenced by others. Try to exhaust your readers with great detail; it helps to have more than less.

Another point: refer to the band members as if you do not know them. First-person familiarity does not read well, nor sound too encyclopedic.

I'll look in the future for you sometime again. Have fun. Hag2 (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time =] I'll see what I can find. Free chiru (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by User:GrahamDo

I did not finish reading your article, but I read the lead and "skimmed through" the rest. It seems like a rather well-thought out article, with lots of footnotes. Your prose and writing style seems good. I didn't finish it, though, because I'm not really sure what qualifies it to fit into this project (I could be wrong). GrahamDo (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]