Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Butthole Surfers

Butthole Surfers

After comparing my revamp of this article to other "A" or "FA" music biography articles (including the "FA"-rated AC/DC article), I feel the Butthole Surfers bio is deserving of an "A" rating, if not "FA" status. If it isn't, I'd like any advice as to what needs to be done to get it there.

I am the primary author of this page, though I had some assistance from another user, Gruntmaster flush. Thanks for your time. Thehaikumaster 19:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MLilburne

I haven't had a chance to read the whole article yet, but for what it's worth, here are a few comments on FA style:

The lead is very long for what would be (without the lists of bad members and discography) a fairly short FA. You might want to aim for three paragraphs instead of five.

The trivia section is likely to be problematic. You should either remove it or integrate the facts into the main body of the article.

It would be helpful to have a references section that lists all the sources that are cited in the footnotes. It makes it easier to look up a source when you come to the tenth example of (say) "Azzerad" in the footnotes and can't necessarily track down the first citation.

Best of luck with the article. MLilburne 11:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; have trimmed the intro per your suggestion, and will work on cleaning up the "References" section later today. As for Trivia, will work the key facts into the article and delete the rest. Thehaikumaster 12:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I mean a references section that is separate from the citations section. There's nothing wrong with abbreviating your citations as long as there's an easy place to look for the whole source. As an example, I hope you'll forgive me for pointing you to one of my own FAs... say, Chris Kraft. MLilburne 13:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for clarifying (I was indeed thinking you meant expanding the reference notes). I'll check out your article, and should have separate sections by tonight at the latest (as well as doing away with "Trivia". As to the intro, it has been trimmed considerably. Thehaikumaster 14:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per MLilburne's suggestions, have: turned old "References" into "Notes" section, and added new "References" section; removed "Trivia," adding the two most interesting points into the main body; and shortened the intro considerably. Any additional suggestions/ratings/recommendations/etc. are appreciated. And thanks again, MLilburne, the suggestions were definite improvements. Thehaikumaster 23:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of help; it's definitely shaping up! MLilburne 23:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

Very nice. Some minor remarks:

Some reviewers do not like the red links in the lead, but this is not something very important. In general, the article has many red links; maybe you could vreate some stubs.
Try not to cite in the middle of the sentences. Do it only if it is absolutely necessary for emphasis reasons.
Second paragraph in "Legend grows (1984-1987)" has no citations.
Try to avoid to have completely uncited paragraphs.
You may face a problem with many of your images: the album covers are fair use images for the articles about the albums themselves; I am not sure the use of these images is fair in this particular article. I have some doubts, but I am not specialist in this domain. You could ask Robth.
"Perhaps fittingly, it is one of the band's most schizophrenic releases, with half the material being as extreme as their previous work and other songs sounding far more conventional." IMO this assertion needs citing.
"Pinkus, reportedly unhappy with the band's direction, left in 1994". Who reports that?--Yannismarou 12:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks for the input. Some responses:

~~Understood, and in all honesty the insane amount of red links in the article weren't my idea, but another user's; will weed out all but the most noteworthy ones, and work up some stubs for them.~~ [This is done. Thehaikumaster 01:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)][reply]
~~Will weed them down.~~ [This is done. Thehaikumaster 01:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)][reply]
~~Actually, the 2nd paragraph's citation can be found after the first sentence of the third paragraph. Is there a certain protocol for such situations? I'll see if I can figure that one out.~~ [This is done. Thehaikumaster 01:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)][reply]
Thanks, I'll see if Robth has any advice. The Surfers are extremely difficult to find free pictures of, so I may have to see if I can dig up some old promotional photos from previous record labels; not sure what the legality of that is either, but I'll look into it. As it turns out, this does appear to be allowed, as seen in other FA music bios. A picture of the three remaining "original" members has also been added, and deemed by a Wiki administrator as within the boundaries of fair use. The Haiku Master 23:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~For the last two, it looks like a source was left out or unintentionally deleted. Should have them added back in before too much longer.~~ [This is done, and as it turned out the info about Pinkus' unhappiness wasn't in the listed source, so I removed that. Thehaikumaster 01:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Thanks again for the help! Thehaikumaster 21:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]