Wikipedia:Peer review/Powderfinger/archive1

Powderfinger

I'm listing Powderfinger for peer review, mainly because I think it's close to becoming a featured article, but not yet, and I'm pretty much lost as to what to do next to make it up to scratch. I'd really appreciate comments on the prose of the article, and other minor things to be fixed, no matter how minor they are. Thanks, ~ Sebi _[talk] 06:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 13:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the article's prose and implemented the suggestions in the automated results, ran the tool again, and the only suggestion I received was the "Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting [...]" message, which is given out by default. ~ Sebi 09:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 09:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hey, here are some comments to take or leave, they're provided with a FAC drive in mind.

"...entered the mainstream..." in lead, unclear what constitutes mainstream, one man's indie is another man's middle-the-road trash - i.e., it's is a bit POV.
What would you suggest to replace this? ~ Sebi 23:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Many of Powderfinger's albums reached..." - "Many of Powderfinger's albums have reached..."?
Done. ~ Sebi 23:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...which achieved highly..." - yuck.
I wasn't really sure what to do with that, so I removed that part of the sentence. ~ Sebi 23:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...predominantly rock, though ranged from soft, bluesy-rock to hard-rock...." - citation for this or is this your own opinion?
Removed, obviously an opinion (though I don't think it was mine...). ~ Sebi 23:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers nine or below should be written out. 10 or more as numbers.
Can you give instances of numbers above 10 written out in words? ~ Sebi 23:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I've dealt with them all, so Done. ~ Sebi 09:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Order citations numerically, so [29][25] would be better as [25][29].
Done. ~ Sebi 23:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...he decided to dedicate the time towards starting a family..." - citation or this is WP:OR.
I'm sure there's something somewhere, perhaps in a band newsletter or something. I'll take a look later. ~ Sebi 23:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The group has also topped the Triple J Hottest 100 chart twice with nineteen entries in the list in total." - needs citation.
Done; I specified which tracks topped twice, cited it, and then stated that 17 other tracks had appeared in the list. I used this source, which was the history of the lists from the official Triple J website, and it gives links to the separate year pages. Because the tracks didn't all appear on one list, the article isn't citing each track directly (and if I was to use the separate pages, I would end up having a dozen unneeded citations)... and I'm hoping if it is okay to use the source I'm currently using in the article. ~ Sebi 23:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As an alternative, Speb, you could use all of the links individually within the one ref. It's not done often, but with truncated facts such as these, it's sometimes required to give all the links. It's kind of more like colouring by numbers, instead of connecting the dots you can't see. --linca linca 10:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I've just Done what I said I would. Have a look now. --linca linca 10:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not many major problems, I'm no subject matter expert, but the above at the very least would need to be covered before attempting FAC, in my opinion. Hope some of it helps. The Rambling Man 21:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]