Talk:The W's

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

	This article is supported by the Contemporary Christian music WikiProject, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Contemporary Christian music. Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. View or leave comments.

The W's has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

[edit] Comments

First, you need a lead! The lead should summarize the article. One sentence certainly will not do. See WP:LEAD for details.

There were spelling errors scattered throughout the article. I believe I fixed them all, but could have missed a few. You may want to copy and paste the whole article into a word processor and run a spell check through it, then fix any mistakes.

I added some fact tags throughout the article. The most concerning section is the section where you are reviewing some songs. Wikipedia has a policy concerning no original research. You'll need to cite, via inline citation, a reviewer who has said these things. Reviews like this really don't belong in the artist's article any way. You should include this information in the albums articles, not here. I like the section until you start talk about particular songs.

Also, toward the end of the article, with the discography and further credits, the article gets very... listy. It isn't pretty down there. I would try to arrange it better so it's more pleasant to the eyes. -- Pepsi2786 21:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the response. I have edited again. Perhaps I have a lead now....

• my goal in the "Music & lyrics" section is not so much to review their songs, but to illustrate their lyrical content that the band produced, as a whole. It is their lyrics which classify them as a Christian band, after all. The citations would be the lyrics themselves, but those are copyrighted.
• Citations of the WOW compilations sales are not directly available, as per the way that the RIAA Gold and Platinum Database is set up. The information that is available to be cited is out of date.

Dan, the CowMan 21:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

While better, this lead still is not sufficient. The following paragraph, quoted from WP:LEAD, mentions what I'm seeing as the main problem. The bold is my doing.

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article.

Your lead is not capable of standing alone. It does summarize the article, but far too briefly. The lead should include some info from every section within the article. And, frankly, reading your lead does not at all encourage me to read the rest of the article.

Despite your explanation for the lyrics section, it still seems like original research to me. Maybe I'm the only one. I think a more concise paragraph, referencing a published review would be more ideal. -- Pepsi2786 21:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, you mentioned they were signed after a CD release party. You reference it. Very good. But it doesn't make as much sense as it should. I'd think After playing the opening set at a CD release party for Five Iron Frenzy in 19??, they were signed to 5 Minute Walk. or something along those lines. You really should have the year in there, it doesn't feel right to not have it. -- Pepsi2786 22:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)