Wikipedia:Peer review/Alto saxophone/archive1

Alto saxophone[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Contrabass saxophone (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Bass saxophone (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Baritone saxophone (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Tenor saxophone (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Alto saxophone (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Soprano saxophone (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Sopranino saxophone (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We have here a series of seven articles which are all, in essence, subarticles of Saxophone. What I would like to know (because of course there's no featured-topic potential here :D) is how editors think these articles should relate to the main saxophone article. What should be included on each page? What should repeated from the main article? What shoudl not be duplicated? Comments on the parallel peer review for saxophone would also be greatly appreciated. Happy‑melon 19:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ran the semi-automated peer review script for Alto sax - if you would like it run for the other six articles, please say so and I will run it for them too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the start-class nature of all these articles, I'm not really concerned about MOS at this point. Thanks for running it on alto sax though. Happy‑melon 10:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick suggestion, especially if you're considering aiming for featured topic, is to have a similar format for each of these articles, i.e. section headings and content. I'll let you decide what's the logical format, but some ideas are already in tenor saxophone and baritone saxophone. The importance of some sections will obviously vary depending on the article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]