Wikipedia:Peer review/One Direction/archive1

{{Peer review tools|One Direction}}

:{{Peer review links|One Direction| Wikipedia:Peer review/One Direction/archive1}}

Category:February 2025 peer reviews

{{Closed peer review page}}

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to promote the article to FA by the band's 15th anniversary in July. I am open to any and all comments for improvements! p.s. the article has 11 academic sources, and if you recommend adding another one I really hope it actually says something different than "one direction is a band formed in 2010" because, well, we've already got plenty of those.

Thanks, jolielover♥talk 16:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:@Jolielover In my opinion, the lead feels more like fan-crafted content, simply listing their songs and albums. It doesn't quite engage non-fans.

:* The first paragraph before the infobox should mention that they reformed on The X Factor in 2010 under Simon Cowell and Sony. And I think you should highlight that they became "the biggest boy band in the world"

:* In the second paragraph, instead of starting with this:

:{{tq| The group signed with Simon Cowell's record label Syco Records after forming and placing third in the seventh series of the British televised singing competitionThe X Factor in 2010. Propelled to global success by social media, One Direction's five albums, Up All Night (2011), Take Me Home (2012), Midnight Memories (2013), Four (2014) and Made in the A.M. (2015), topped charts in several countries and generated hit singles including 'What Makes You Beautiful,' 'Live While We're Young,' 'Best Song Ever,' 'Story of My Life' and 'Drag Me Down.' Midnight Memories was the best-selling album worldwide of 2013. With the release of Four, One Direction became the first band to have their first four albums debut at number one on the US Billboard 200 chart}}

:** I think you should start with more notable songs and albums, mentioning why they are notable, such as chart positions and awards. Maybe try something like this: "Their debut album, Up All Night, topped the charts in several countries and broke records, with its hit single 'What Makes You Beautiful,'" and so on.

:** Also, I don't think citations are necessary in the lead; they should be relocated to the body where appropriate. MOS:LEADCITE

:*Also, "hit singles"? That is a puffery word, which is not neutral MOS:PUFFERY.

:* The third paragraph seems fine to me.

:* For the last paragraph, I don't think you should include all the awards, especially awards like the Teen Choice Awards and dates. This should be in the "History" or "Honors" section, not in the lead, so trim it down. MOS:LEADREL

:** I think you should add something brief about their philanthropy. For example: "The group has supported various charities, raising millions for causes like cancer research and autism, while also promoting global issues like poverty and climate change."

:* Regarding the history section (2010–2011): remove the X Factor results chart, as that should be on the X Factor page, not One Direction's. Also, remove the info about other contestants that aren’t part of the group.

:Lililolol (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you, noted. I will work on these comments. However, I believe the X Factor results chart is essential to the page as it shows the band's placements throughout The X Factor (they gained a substantial fanbase through the show). The X Factor page shows their results however does not mention the songs sung or the song categories. Personally I think a record of the results are useful. jolielover♥talk 02:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Lililolol}} I have implemented most of your suggestions onto the page, please check to see if the rewording works. I did not remove the X Factor results chart as I feel like it is essential to the page, and could not find information on contestants not part of the group on the page. jolielover♥talk 09:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::{{replyto|Lililolol}} "Hit single" is a valid term. The British Hit Singles & Albums books define "hit" as a record which has been listed for at least one week at any position on either the NME chart (1952 to February 1960), or for March 1960 onwards, the chart used by the BBC. For example, "Sweet Danger" by Angel Witch was listed at no. 75 on the BBC chart dated 7 June 1980, so counts as a hit single; whereas Janis Joplin's "Me and Bobby McGee" was not a UK hit, since it did not chart in the UK. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks. Btw, do you have any recommendations for the article? :) jolielover♥talk 12:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Hoping to provide some comments on referencing once my other reviews are wrapped up. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 00:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:Some scattered thoughts:

:*Unless the original link is dead, you should be using |url-status=live when using archives

:*Double quotes should be reduced to single quotes in reference titles (e.g. ref 4)

:*Hyphens as dashes in reference titles should be normalised to either spaced en dashes ( – ) or unspaced em dashes (—)

:*Reference titles should all be in either title (e.g. "Foo Bar Baz") or sentence (e.g. "Foo bar baz") case for consistency

:*ISBNs should be segmented consistently

:*Refs 22 and 51 are missing publishers

:*You variously cite "BBC" and "BBC News", use the latter when on the news site

:*Linking of authors, websites and publishers should be consistent, be that yes linking or no linking

:*Santero (2016) is a master's thesis and should have a strong rationale to show it is a "high-quality reliable source" at FAC

:*Reference titles should not contain the publisher (usually in the form of "Article name {{!}} Publisher", remove pipe and everything after)

:*Either include or do not include ISSNs for journals

:*Ditto above, but with OCLCs for books

:*Some references are missing archives, suggest running IA bot

:*Meese (2021) is an undergraduate thesis and should be removed

:UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 23:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::* Most citations has that url-status, do you mean the paywalled sources? I purposefully did not include it for those because they are paywalled and not accessible to most viewers, but I could add it.

::* Done

::* Not sure what this means, I ran the Auto Ed script some time ago so it should be fixed?

::* I copypasted them exactly how they were worded/capitalized in the title, it's going to be quite a hassle to change them all. Are you sure this is recommended?

::* Done

::* Done

::* Done

::* Done (as far as I'm aware, I've looked over several times but still could have missed something so please let me know if there are any left)

::* Removed

::* Done (as far as I'm aware)

::* Done

::* Done

::* I have, and have manually added archives when the bot didn't catch it. However, some sources are unable to be archived, like Yahoo News and Campaign (not sure why).

::* Removed

::Thanks! jolielover♥talk 13:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:::*Re archives: per {{tl|cite web}}, {{tq|if "archive-url" is used, the parameter |url-status=dead is assumed}}" This is misleading as the original links are still live. Archives can still easily be accessed from the citation

:::*Re hyphens: per MOS:CONFORM, {{tq|formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment, provided that doing so will not change or obscure meaning or intent of the text.}} One of the examples explicitly given is dashes: {{tq|Normalize dashes and hyphens. Use the style chosen for the article: unspaced em dash or spaced en dash.}}

:::*Re casing: I see this as part of a consistent WP:CITESTYLE. I'll link some recent FACs where this was recommended by other editors:

:::**Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hualca Hualca/archive1

:::**Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metrosideros bartlettii/archive1

:::**Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pari Khan Khanum/archive1

:::**Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rockstar North/archive1

:::Best, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Ok, thanks! Will work on those. jolielover♥talk 02:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|UpTheOctave!}} thank you so much for the review; I have now implemented everything you suggested to the best of my knowledge. Do you think I should go to FAC now? jolielover♥talk 16:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::There's a few more issues I've discovered, listed below:

::::::*Proctor (n.d.) is not a report, it is a chapter in [https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/seeing-fans-9781501318450/ Seeing Fans: Representations of Fandom in Media and Popular Culture]

::::::*Proctor (n.d.) is also missing a page number

::::::*Further reading generally comes after references per MOS:FURTHER

::::::*How do the Forbes sources pass WP:FORBESCON?

::::::*What makes The Talon a high-quality reliable source?

::::::*What makes Us Weekly a high-quality reliable source?

::::::I could spend hours reading through this reference section, but I'll leave it here. I don't know about going to FAC now: I haven't evaluated the article fully, as I only checked the consistency and reliability in sourcing. In any case, the following questions adapted from WP:FA? should definitely be answered before a candidacy is attempted:

::::::*Is this article comprehensive? Featured articles must {{tq|neglect no major facts or details and place the subject in context}}, which is achieved through providing {{tq|a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature}}. Although mainly focussed on the band's fandom, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22one+direction%22+boy+band a very quick glance at Google Scholar] reveals several academic sources not used.

::::::*Are you using the best sources possible for information? In featured articles, we must use {{tq|high-quality reliable sources}}, which is a step up from the standards at GA.

::::::I do not know the answers to these as I'm not an expert in popular music, but editors more familiar with the subject can and will oppose if these criteria are not met. I shall bow out now, but I wish the best for wherever you take this article. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

{{tl|doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the slow going at present. Still working on spot-checks and line edits, but posting some other referencing/media stuff to start:

References:

• The sourcing looks overall solid, although there are spots where I feel like some of the sourcing isn't exactly what I'd consider high-quality and more fannish/tabloidy, from the perspective of FA standards, e.g. Teen Vogue, US Magazine, Herald Sun, NY Daily News, People, HuffPost. Ideally these would be used more minimally or not at all if better sources for the information exist.
• Ah, I understand. Most of the above sources are considered generally reliable per WP:RSP; is this a massive issue? Even if they might be written a little tabloid-y, the information is accurate. HuffPost is (to my knowledge) only used as a source for reviews, not for statements. - j
• Quick search for more long-form content didn't produce anything other than an unauthorized biography from a smaller press I don't think really is an improvement in sourcing, given the tone; while check additional databases for other sourcing that might be worth including.
• I've tried my best to scour for all the academic sources I could access - j
• What makes SNEP and W Magazine high-quality reliable sources?
• SNEP is the official national music chart for France, so definitely reliable. W Magazine is the sister magazine of Women's Wear Daily, the latter being a trade journal considered reliable. -j
• Reference formatting is mostly consistent, although I'm not sure why BBC Newsround is formatted as publisher instead of work/website, nor why reviews are noted in that field (e.g. Digital Spy (review).
• Alright, I'll work on that. The citation template has that parameter, so I guess I thought I'd use it for articles that are explicitly reviews. A bit unnecessary I guess, I can remove it. - j
• There's some MOS:TITLECASE issues that need to be harmonized (some refs are Capitalized Every Word, some are only proper nouns/names)
• Alright, thanks for that, will work - j
• Spotchecks not yet done.

Media:

• :File:One Direction 2012 Stockholm.jpg just isn't a great image, and it's being mostly used as decoration, so I'd lose it.
• Ok - j
• Likewise :File:Collage of one-direction members.svg is essentially redundant (we've seen many, many photos of all these members throughout the article.)
• Ah, I asked for that collage to be created in order to show what the members looked like after the band split up (well... except Louis since he didn't have any nice pics we could use). I could scrap that though. - j

More to come. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your review {{ping|David Fuchs}} :) I will get to work on most of the stuff soon! Left some of my own opinions and reasonings above. Thanks again! jolielover♥talk 19:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Just a quick one, refernce 360 has Billboard in normal typeface while all the others use italics. Keith D (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Keith D}} That ref used {{tlx|cite news}} (with a misused {{para|agency|Billboard}} parameter), whilst almost all of the other Billboard refs used {{tlx|cite magazine}} - one or two use {{tlx|cite web}}. {{diff|One Direction|prev|1280321857|Fixed}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey guys, I think I will close this PR soon as put it up for FA potentially. I think the article is at a good state, and I have addressed every issue. Just pinging everyone who previously participated if anyone wants to leave some final comments: {{ping|Lililolol}} {{ping|Redrose64}} {{ping|UpTheOctave!}} {{ping|David Fuchs}} {{ping|Keith D}}

I think all the sources are reliable. The only sources I can see issues with (just bringing them up in case somebody else does):

• Although CNET is considered an unreliable source now, it was considered reliable pre-October 2020, which is where the article is from (per WP:RSP)
• HuffPost is only used in reviews of their music or is directly attributed; the current featured article (All-American Bitch) uses it in the same way, so I presume this is ok. WP:HUFF also deems it a reliable source (other than politics).

Please let me know your final thoughts and comments! jolielover♥talk 15:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:Some last thoughts as of special:permalink/1281656640:

:*General prose comments:

:**We start off with a MOS:SEAOFBLUE with "pop boy band", can this be split at all?

:**You use both "number one" and "number 1" throughout, is there a reason for this?

:**Why is $ not linked, but £ is?

:**In the lead we treat the band in the past tense ("were an English-Irish pop boy band"), but "the band have won nearly 200 awards" is in present tense

:**We seem to be mixing use and disuse of false titles (compare "the British singing competition The X Factor" and "American singer Nicole Scherzinger")

:**"One Direction: Where We Are - The Concert Film" use dash, not hyphen

:**Link Jon Caramanica

:**"and one of the most successful music acts overall": quite ambiguous, successful in what way?

:**"a new "British Invasion" along with acts like Adele in the United States": ambiguous construction, makes it sound like Adele is American. Suggest moving the last four words to just after "British Invasion"

:**Do we need a link for "the letter U"?

:**Another SEAOFBLUE: "shipping conspiracy theorists"

:**Suggest looking through for compliance with MOS:THEMUSIC when discussing the Beatles

:*Some duplinking issues:

:**List of highest-grossing concert tours is duplinked in lead and {{slinkno|One Direction|2013–2014: Midnight Memories and This Is Us}}

:**The Beatles is duplinked in {{slinkno|One Direction|Significance}}

:**Billboard Hot 100 is duplinked in {{slinkno|One Direction|Sales and tour records}}

:**Twitter duplinked in {{slinkno|One Direction|Social media influence}}

:*Misc:

:**Missing page ranges for book chapter in refs 3, 320

:**List of highest-grossing concert tours and List of best-selling boy groups are linked in prose so should be removed from {{slinkno|One Direction|See also}}

:That's all for now. Best, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 23:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you!! Done, done, done all that :) jolielover♥talk 10:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)