Talk:Brotherhood of Man

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)

GA Review

Definitely 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. Not this, this, or this.
• 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)

References

Rating?

If not GA - please leave rating for it above. Thank you. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brotherhood of Man/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm sorry to inform the editors of this article that I am quickfailing it. There is just too much to do, and it can't reasonably be done in seven days. Here's some suggestions:

• The title of the article is "Brotherhood of Man" but the band is referred to as "Brotherhood Of Man" throughout the article. Pick one. I'm assuming the first is correct.
• There are a lot of grammar and Manual of Style problems. The article needs a very good copyedit. Maybe somebody in one of the WikiProjects this article is a part of (see tags on talk page) can help.
• There are a lot of short and choppy paragraphs. Combine smaller paragraphs dealing with the subject, or expand them.
• "Many critics argued however that this song was simply cashing in on the success of "Angelo", but although their titles are similar, there is little evidence to support this, as the two songs are very different." - can you elaborate here? how are they different? what critics said what? a quote might be nice? can a citation be provided?
• "although the group remained popular on the live circuit." - source?
• Why did they split up in 1984?
• The "Other Information" reads like a trivia section. Per WP:TRIVIA, what can't be merged into the article text should just be deleted.
• The references need to be formatted using Template:cite web.
• Per WP:EL, there should be no fansites in the external links.

As for a rating, each WikiProject is supposed to decide that for themselves, which is why some articles can be rated (simultaneously) as different classes. Each project has their own standards. Based on my experience assessing articles, I'd agree with the start rating given by WikiProject:Bio. The prose is just to poor to be much higher than that. Follow the suggestions above, and the article might be able to garner a higher rating. One more thing: I've restored the previous review and tags (which were previously deleted) back onto the talk page. Please do not delete them again, as they are the written record of the article's history. Thanks. Good luck and happy editing. Nikki311 02:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguity

This article says that "Brotherhood of Man was an umbrella term for a frequently changing line-up of session singers". This is ambiguous. Does it mean that "Brotherhood of Man" is a phrase meaning bands with a frequently changing line-up? Or does it mean that this refers specifically to the band in question?Vorbee (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)