Wikipedia:Peer review/Lostprophets/archive1

lostprophets

I think this article is thorough and neutral enough to be a featured article. --82.25.244.27 23:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Sam Spade 01:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Before trying for FA status, a References section needs to be added so that you may cite the sources used when compiling this article. The Featues Article criteria also require a lead section long enough to summerize the articles topic. As a result, the current one sentence lead is likely to raise objections at this time. There is also an unknown copyright status on the first image in the article (clicking on the image as a link will take you to a page with information on the image). The copyright status of all images used in article applying for FA status is routinely checked with any issues commonly preventing promotion of candidate articles. --Allen3 ^talk 01:27, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
• I second Allen's concerns. Also trivia sections are, in general, inappropriate for a featured article. Try to merge the factoids listed there into other parts of the article. - SimonP 17:57, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Done. --82.25.245.112 16:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Good article. I've made a few changes. I really like the voice in this article, however there are some issues that must be resolved:

• The claim that "they are largely credited with popularising items like studded belts, low-slung jeans, trucker caps and tight-fitting T-shirts in the United Kingdom." needs a source. Who credits them with these things?
• The claim that "the band was then courted by virtually all of America's major labels" is too sweeping, try listing some of the big labels instead. But a list of some of the labels would still be appreciated.
• Out of curiousity, who gave the band the $1000 worth of pornography?
• The fashion claims from the last paragraph of the The Fake Sound of Progress also need to be backed up as do the ones in the Boy band section.
• "most notably the apathy of their detractors" concerns me. "Our Broken Hearts" clearly is about apathy and it may allude to the cynicism of their detractors. But I question whether it talks about the "apathy of their detractors". Worse still is the use of apathy and hatred in the same sentence - these two terms typically contradict one another.
• "proving beyond all doubt the band have truly established themselves as part of rock's premier league." is probably a little too close to gushing.
• "textbook metrosexuals" is not a sound factual statement. I would accept "metrosexuals" without the textbook tag though.

Cedars 14:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I've made the changes you suggested. --82.25.250.244 20:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)