Wikipedia:Peer review/Roger Waters/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Roger Waters[edit]

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 prior to going forward with FAC, because I want the help of previously-uninvolved-copyeditors.

Thanks for you time, — GabeMc (talk) 06:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jappalang
  • There are views that a group of 5 or 6 reference tags should be clumped together in the Reference section rather than left alone; i.e. enclose the citations within a single pair of ref tags than have each enclosed within its own pair.
Can you give me a specific example of how this works?
For example, <ref>{{cite book 1}}</ref><ref>{{cite book 2}}</ref><ref>{{cite book 3}}</ref> can be replaced with <ref>{{cite book 1}}; {{cite book 2}}; {{cite book 3}}</ref> Jappalang (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do I so this with the cite method currently in use, {{Sfn|Doe|2010|pp-110-120}}?
Replace Sfn with Harvnb; i.e. {{Sfn|Doe|2010|pp=110-120}}{{Sfn|Joe|1999|p=11}} -> <ref>{{Harvnb|Doe|2010|pp=110-120}}; {{Harvnb|Joe|1999|p=11}}</ref> Jappalang (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I now have all the groups of 5 or more cites clumped together. Thanks for the great advice.
  • Dablinks (toolbox on the right of this peer review page) shows 6 disambiguation links; please fix them.
Fixed disambiguation links.
Added caption.
Removed file from article pending OTRS.
  • What makes pinkfloydz.com, roxyrama.com, pink-floyd.org (whose reprint of the interview if authentic would constitute copyright violation, which is not allowed on Wikipedia; if the interview is authentic, cite to the newspaper), nfo.net/usa/365a.htm, everyhit.com, pinkfloydfan.net (which is also a dead link and a forum), www.intifada-palestine.com, www.pulse-and-spirit.com, www.davidgilmourblog.com (which is a blog not by David Gilmour or his representatives), www.brain-damage.co.uk (again if the article is in Mojo magazine, source it to the magazine rather than linking to a copyright violation), www.chartstats.com, www.rogerwaters.org, www.rogerwatersontour.com, and the "Tributes to Rick" Facebook entry (how does a dead man collate tributes to himself) reliable sources? Please refer to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches on how sources are generally judged at FACs.
Removed cites to dubious sources.
The links (I have not checked all) were removed (including copyvio link below) but the information they previously cited for remains. This results in uncited information (the dangers of removing links); reliable sources have to be found to back these information or they have to be removed as well. Jappalang (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe everything is properly sourced now, unless I missed something.
There are some still in the article; what justifies their existence? Note that WP:EL discourages fansites unless they help futher encylopaedic content that cannot be put inside the article. Jappalang (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are not there on purpose, I just can't find any dubious sources, can you point them out in the notes? Note numbers?
Okay, I see, I kept lookiong for cites, you meant external links as well, I agree and have removed them. — GabeMc (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Roger Waters and Eric Clapton – Wish You Were Here at Tsunami Aid: A Concert of Hope" Youtube link is a copyright violation (not uploaded by the copyright owner) and should be deleted.
Deleted link.
  • Structurally it seems good, but why lump all in a Biography section?
I think I resolved the issue, correct me if I am wrong.
The issue to me is that the entire article is the biography; hence, Biography is sort of redundant and incorrect. That heading can most probably be done away with. Jappalang (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good advice, I think it is fixed now. — GabeMc (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Astoria in single quotes ("... recorded on Gilmour's studio/houseboat the 'Astoria',")? As a houseboat, I think it should be in italics. Furthermore, the vessel/home was linked earlier in the article via the word "houseboat", which was in a quote. I think this is a bit misleading, goes against the MOS (which advises against linking words of quotes), and could be avoided (clarified) by naming Astoria to the quote; i.e. "... a summit meeting on the houseboat [the Astoria] with ...". Note that the MOS also recommends that very long quotes (those with four or more sentences) should be in blockquotes. Jappalang (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good advice, I think it is fixed now. — GabeMc (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a bit doubtful over the flying pig and laser effect photographs. Do they qualify for works of art that warrant copyright protection? If so, derivative copyright issues could result? They are non-permanent installations, so freedom of panorama would not apply to photographs of them. Since they are the primary focus in these photographs, de minimis cannot be called on in defense. Not certain though... Jappalang (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I swapped them out of the article to be sure. — GabeMc (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet gone deep into the prose, but the source reliability issues are most concerning FAC-wise. Jappalang (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and valuable insights, unless I missed one, all the sources are now WP:RS. — GabeMc (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After reading a bit more, I believe the prose is quite good. Waters's personal relationships section seems a bit skimpy though. Did he get along well with his family (considering the number of divorces)? Overall, I think it can be taken to FAC. Jappalang (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per, "Waters's personal relationships section seems a bit skimpy", yes, it is skimpy, sources on Waters' personal life are scarce. I would gladly expand the section if a suitable bio were ever written, but to my knowledge, none exist of Waters outside his inclusion in books about the Floyd. — GabeMc (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Roger_Waters/archive1&oldid=388024715"