Talk:Brotherhood of Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Brotherhood of Man was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: April 10, 2008

Brotherhood of man wore some way cool fashions back in 1976 but did you see them at the 5oth anniversary of the Eurovision song contest?? They were awesome and if I was a man I may even wear a suit like theirs to work to spice up a dull office. Ha Ha.

[edit] Rewritten

I have completely rewritten this article as of the below date. I am now putting it forward for review, so ignore the "start-class" rating (at least I hope we can!)--Tuzapicabit (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Definately a good step in the right direction! The article is fairly comprehensive, laden with good sources and citations, and generally very informative. It does, however, have a ways to go until I feel it's ready for GA status. Definitely B class, not GA class yet. To hopefully help in the process of further improving the article, below is a few points which I think can be improved upon. That said, I think the best step in the right direction would be to consult the Good article criteria and The Manual of Style, to see what is expected of a GA article in general. Another suggestion would be to get the article peer-reviewed, which would hopefully help clean it up a bit and start to guide it down the right path. Also, I've tried to provide alot of links to the appropriate Wikipedia pages whenever possible to guide things in the right direction, so hopefully it doesn't come across like I'm a rule nazi. Anyways, here's a few suggestions to get started:

  • The lead paragraph needs to be expanded dramatically. Per WP:Lead, it should summarize the major points of the article.
  • The main image in the infobox needs a Fair-Use rationale, which basically means a rationale for the use of copyrighted material. Int this case I think the copyrighted material might be justified, but the image itself must specify why a free alternative doesn't exist.
  • In general, in-line citations should come after punctuation, and typically at the end of a sentence. So this.[1] Not this[2], this,[3] or this[4].
  • Citations should also give full attribution to the author, source, publisher, date, etc.
  • In general the text could use a thorough copyedit. Again, the peer-review might be a good start.
  • The discography goes into far too much detail. That kind of info would be good for separate Discography article (Brotherhood of Man discography for instance), but here things like charts are unnecessary. Take a look at WP:Album for some ideas on how to include a discography in an artist page.
  • The band members section also goes into a bit too much detail about each member. Their birthdays and hometowns seem somewhat irrelevant here.

Anyways, hopefully that will get things started. If you have any questions or concerns about my GA review, feel free to drop me a line. Also, if you feel my review to be in error, you can submit my review for reassessment at WP:GAR. Good luck! Drewcifer (talk) 07:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - many of which I've taken on board, although in attempting to move the discography, I've ended up with a completely different page which is probably longer that the original article! (Brotherhood of man albums), so I've put the Discogrpahy back. I'll write to you directly re other changes.

Thank you--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)