This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for featured article status eventually, I've recently done a lot of work on it (especially regarding references), and I need feedback as to what else can be added to it in order to make it a better Wikipedia article. Here is a useful comparison of the article before I started editing and after I finished. But this wasn't just me; I had invaluable help and advice from Cannibaloki. Let us know what you think: areas for improvement, formatting problems, overlooked unsourced statements, etc.
Thanks, Huntthetroll (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I've added more information and citations: [1]. Huntthetroll (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update #2: I've continued to edit the article, so I'll just provide a link to what the article looked like before I started editing: [2] Huntthetroll (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is Myspace used as a source? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To say that I "use MySpace as a source" is a bit disingenuous. I use the band's MySpace profile—to be more specific, the blog that they maintain on their profile page—as a source because, as far as I know, the band has no official, separate website. It appears that they once had such a website at www.origin-site.com (this site is mentioned in several of the other sources I use), but that domain is now just a generic compilation of links. Judging by the article's talk page, it has been that way for at least a year. Most, if not all, official announcements by the band in the last two and a half years can be traced to their MySpace. Therefore, I have concluded that this MySpace page is, by default, the band's official website (in fact, I state this in an explanatory footnote in the reference section, which you must have read if you looked at the sources). Let me add that I have not and will never use comments on their profile as sources. However, regarding noncontroversial statements by the band about their own activities, I consider this page to be one of the best sources available, given that Origin has received no mainstream attention and is little known outside death metal fan circles. Within that narrow universe, of course, they are pretty well known and respected. Huntthetroll (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you ever bring this article near FAC, be prepared to defend Myspace. Anyway, for this time, I will not protest. I am quite busy on- and off-Wiki tomorrow, but I will see what I can do WRT reviewing. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Greetings. Some sources are not reliable. Delete metalarchives.com, metalreview.com and globaldomination.se. Those are 100% useless. I didn't look at Longview Current and Archaic Magazine.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 08:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, I removed those sources and whatever information that I could only source to them. I must say, though, I can't exactly rely on The New York Times for information about this band. They're a rather underground act, although quite popular among those who have heard them. Huntthetroll (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Hornoir
- Try and find a free image of the band to use in the infobox.
- Wikilink all words that could/should be wikilinked; e.g. arpeggios.
- A lot of the phrasing doesn't seem to conform to WP:NEUTRAL; while the facts corroborate the statements, the manner in which they presented tends towards biased wording. E.g. "high-profile Death Across America 2000 Tour" could just as easily be "Death Across America 2000 Tour".
- You may wish to change the Beginnings subsection name to Formation for clarity.
- Last paragraph of Beginnings subsection, change "April 14th" to "April 14, 1999" and change "December 16th" to "December 16, 1999".
- Change the title of the Origin subsection to Eponymous debut or something similar, this will avoid confusion (given that it is the name of the band as well as a word indicating the details of formation).
- First sentence of the Informis Infinitas Inhumanitas subsection: "Soon after, Origin embarked on yet another tour, this time alongside Candiria, Cryptopsy and Poison the Well." Soon after what? I'm assuming the release of the album Origin, in which case it should read "Soon after the release of the eponymous debut, Origin toured alongside Candiria, Cryptopsy, and Poison the Well." I've removed the flavor text as it is not necessary.
The overall feel — to me — is that this article requires more information. At the moment, I'd place it between a Start- and C-Class article, though probably closer to C-Class in my mind. I know it is not easy to get lesser-known article topics up to higher ratings, but you certainly have a good start here. Best of luck. hornoir (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]