Wikipedia:Peer review/Pink Floyd/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pink Floyd[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it meets the FA criteria but not still sure about that

Thanks, Taro James (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead comments from Cryptic C62
  • "They have sold over 200 million albums worldwide, including 74.5 million certified units in the United States." What is a "certified unit"?
The certified sale of album —Taro James (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Guitarist and vocalist David Gilmour joined Pink Floyd several months prior to Barrett's departure from the group due to the latter's deteriorating mental health in 1968." It's not clear what "in 1968" refers to. Is that when Gilmour joined? Or when Barrett left? Or when Barrett's mental health began deteriorating?
Done —Taro James (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wright left the group in 1979, and Waters in 1985, but Gilmour and Mason (joined by Wright) continued to record and tour." Confusing. How could Wright have left the group but continued to record and tour? Did he leave and then rejoin?
Wright left and then rejoined. What is confusing? —Taro James (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be watching this page, so leave a note on my talk if you need clarification. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to take a lot of pleasure in arguing the toss about this, but the article has some rather questionable use of non-free content. The number of sound files is currently quite low, but it has a tendency to creep up- I have not double checked the current files. However, the use of the lead image is unwarranted- we have free images that show Pink Floyd, even if there is one member shown on the current lead image for which we have no free image- at the end of the day, what he looked like is not so important as to warrant the use of a non-free image. Pink Floyd existed without him; we have free images of Pink Floyd. The lead image exists to show Pink Floyd, and we cannot use non-free content when we have free content. The article should not/will not pass FAC while that lead image is in use in that way. The use of File:Hapshash-UFO.jpg is also suspect- it's not really clear what it's adding- the poster is not even mentioned in the text, so why people are convinced it's so important is not clear. J Milburn (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I notieced the peer review was closed without much in the way of comments, so here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC. I think in its current state it would have a fair amount of trouble passing at FAC. I agree with the above comments, here are a few more.

  • One of the biggest potential problems (pun intended) is the article's size. The page size tool finds the article has: Prose size (text only): 67 kB (11549 words) "readable prose size". Anything with a readable prose size about 50 kB is a problem for many readers per WP:SIZE. Perhaps there could be a History of Pink Floyd article with the current version of the history, and a shorter summary could be here - see WP:Summary style.
  • The lead is not consistent in tense - the first sentence is past tense (Pink Floyd were...) and the next sentence is present (Pink Floyd are...). Pick a tense to describe the band and stick with it
  • The lead does not make it clear when the band broke up (the infobox says 1994).
  • There are several places that do not have references and need them. For example Waters issued a writ for copyright fees for the band's use of the flying pig, and Pink Floyd responded by attaching a huge set of male genitalia to its underside to distinguish it from his design. or this Pink Floyd were inducted into the Hit Parade Hall of Fame in 2010.
  • I checked one reference - Current ref 266. It needs to indicate it is from the BBC. There is also at least one ref that is just the title (Marrillon.com) - needs publisher, access date, etc.
  • The further down the article you go, the more it needs work - more and more short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that break up the narrative flow.
  • I looked at two FAs on bands - Radiohead and U2. Both would be good models for this article. I notice both have sections on Musical style, which this lacks (at least as an explicit section)
  • 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.)
  • External link checker finds one dead link (Toolbox in the upper right corner of this PR page)

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 ><>°° 22:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Pink_Floyd/archive2&oldid=1078794553"