Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Soul Punk/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of the considerable amount of work Noreplyhaha (talk · contribs) has put into the article, with both how well sourced and well written it is. It seems to miss a review section but this is because it is a Future class album page and has not relased yet. I also believe the background should to be assessed and to see how it can be split into different sections, as it is too long to navigate. Thanks, Jonjonjohny (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The peer review closed without anyone helping, but thanks Jonjonjohny for noticing and making an effort to help. There's tons and tons that could be done to the article with a structure reflecting other Good/Featured Articles. So much information is on the internet, Soul Punk and Patrick Stump have had so much coverage in the past few months that I've fallen behind. This page could go FA with a lot of work, there's more than enough information for it. I've been extensively writing Fall Out Boy and their song and album articles, as well as Patrick Stump and his works, over the past year. My last year of high school is starting in 2 weeks so I won't be around to work on these Wikipedia pages, either someone else take over or likely no one will. Noreplyhaha (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this album article. One problem I see with the article is that the album has not yet been released - once it has there will be more material to use in the article and more concrete information (not speculation). Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • As noted above, there are many FAs on albums which would serve as model articles for this one. A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow.
  • There is no way this would pass at FAC until after the album has been released and there has been some time for it to garner critical feedback and sales information. One of the FA Criteria is comprehensiveness and the article cannot be comprehensive until the album has been released.
  • My guess is that in six months time this article will look very different, as there will be mush more material available on the actual album and its singles and tour and whatever else. Right now there is an understandable WP:WEIGHT issue focusing on what is known before the release.
  • one dab link
  • Another major concern I have is the use of two very similar WP:FAIR USE images - I am not sure how the reader's understanding of the album is enhanced by the same image twice, once with the words "Deluxe Edition" added at the bottom. This fails WP:NFCC in my view (minimal use).
  • I would put the expected release date in the first sentence of the lead - upcoming is too vague.
  • In general avoid vague time terms like "so far" as they become dated quickly - use things like "as of October 2011" instead. The album has so far received extremely positive reviews from music critics.
  • Make sure to provide context to the reader - the average reader will not know when Fall Out Boy's hiatus began, for example. See WP:PCR
  • Watch POV language like "ultimate" in The album features no guest artists and is the ultimate solo effort as Stump is doing everything entirely by himself: performing, composing the music, writing the lyrics, playing over ten instruments and producing the album.
  • MOS Says once a person is introduced the first time using their full name only to use the last name afterwards (unless there are more than one persons with the same last name, or it is in a direct quote). So avoid things like Patrick Stump has been often compared to Michael Jackson, whom Stump has cited as a major influence.[6]
  • The last sentence is a bit awkward with passive voice and two uses of Stump - how about something like Stump cites Michael Jackson as a major influence and critics have often compared the two artists' work. Not great, but maybe gives you an idea.
  • The lead seems overly concerned with minutiae to me - again I think part of this may be becasue the album has bot been released yet, but the album should be a nice overview and summary, not bogged down in details like With preorders from Stump's online store, a package with a lithograph by Roland Tamayo is available. I think this is probably OK to put in the article, but the lead??
  • One way to organize this might be to have a background section that briefly describes Fall Out Boy and their hiatus, and Truant Wave. Then perhaps a section on composition and recording, then release and any support. Again a model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow.
  • There are quite a few places without refs that need them - any sentence(s) that come(s) after a ref but has no refs of its own needs at least one ref. A few examples Previously announced songs "Love, Selfish Love" and "As Long As I Know I'm Getting Paid" were released on his debut EP, Truant Wave, instead. A remix of "This City" was later released for streaming on the internet and sent to iTunes and radio in the lead up to the album's release. or this A music video has been made for it and it premiered on Vevo on September 20. or this Stump announced the release date of October 18, 2011 for Soul Punk. or almost all of the last section of History.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Musicianship looks like it could be in the recording section of History
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]