Jump to content

Talk:Axe to Fall

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAxe to Fall has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 26, 2009Articles for deletionKept
October 17, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Genre

[edit]

"Dark horse"? Progressive?  There is a difference between progressive rock and math-rock (or mathcore, in converge's case).  Track is a textbook-example of band's signature-sound, not to mention illegitimate source. I'm deleting the "progressive"-tag.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.171.172 (talk • contribs)

Our opinions of genres do not matter, only what can be sourced. A source is provided for "progressive rock", so it will not be removed. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Taylor

[edit]

Can anyone with the physical album and booklet confirm whether the Chris Taylor on Axe to Fall is the Chris Taylor from Pg. 99 or the Chris Taylor Grizzly Bear or neither? Or maybe even a different source? Until this can be verified, I am going to remove mention of any band. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The credits on allmusic suggest that this is the Chris Taylor from Pg. 99. I will update the page accordingly. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It probably was a different one, my mistake and I apologize in adding and re-adding it. Well I am confident he is in Pygmy Lush (according to the back page of my album booklet). I don't know about "The Rodeo" though but the only evidence I got was from a myspace female musician named "The Rodeo" after reading the additional personnel.The Phantomnaut (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

[edit]

There is a strict limit of ten reviews per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Professional reviews. And despite the rather obvious hidden comments, new reviews continue to be added. It is perfectly okay to change one review out for a "better" one, but some sort of discussion should take place. In the future, just drop a quick comment here explaining your reasoning why one review should be removed and why a new one should replace it. Metal Injection was probably the least notable and was the only review not being linked to the reception section, so this was the best choice for exchange. Mammoth Press is one of the few websites with an ISSN, which gives it a lot more credibility than some of these other reviews. Pitchfork Media is a perfectly credible site, and the review is well written. Better than the Metal Injection review. The comparisons to Black Flag will make a great addition to the article too! Any further changes will need to be discussed, though. Thanks! Fezmar9 (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me, I think 10 is too many ;) But of course I'll concede to the guidelines. I have no planned intention to add more reviews. However, I saw the Pitchfork review (with the Black Flag comparison!), and thought it was probably more notable than most on the list. I chose to ax the Mammoth Press review perhaps partially due to personal bias. The author is some dude who posts on the Deathwish message board. But I also searched Wikipedia for the number of times certain websites were cited, and "Mammoth Press" was only sited in ~18 other Wikipedia articles, while Metal Injection was cited ~30. Of course, it was my fault to not realize that such a careless removal would break a citation further down the article (sorry again for that). Regardless, I'm glad we can agree the Pitchfork review does belong in the infobox. Otherwise, great work on improving and maintaining the article. -Andrew c [talk] 00:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that was quite directed at you. It was more directed at the situation of new reviews continuing to be added. I thought it would also be nice to have more a personalized and detailed comment addressing the issue, in contrast to (more or less) stating "you fucked up, read WP:ALBUMS for more info" in the subject line of my edits. And that I approved of exchanging Pitchfork for Metal Injection :) Fezmar9 (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collecting new sources

[edit]

You can help! :)

Starting to work with these sources in my sandbox to later be added to the article. Fezmar9 (talk)

Articles and interviews

  • California Chronical (article/interview - influence, touring) has since been deleted
  • New Times (long interview - Deathwish, thrash sound on Axe to Fall, writing/recording, vocals and autotune, guests, album art, comparisons to Jane Doe)
  • New York Press (short interview - mathcore, side projects)
  • Exclaim (interview - lyrical theme (lack there of), guests)
  • Aquarian (interview - lyrics, guests, music and guitar work)
  • Epitaph Blog (blurbs from various positive reviews)
  • Boston Herald (article/interview - creating art)
  • Houston Press (interview - slower songs)
  • PunkNews (intervew - more technical music, training, nothing good until Jane Doe, Black Flag, relationship with Epitaph)
  • Swigged (interview - album leak, guests, tour with Dethklok)
  • Westword (short interview - "Dark Horse" and Dethklok)
  • Chart Attack (#1 Metal/Punk album chart, individual weeks [1][2][3])
  • Chart Attack (#42 top albums chart)
  • Chart Attack (review - "hardcore's very own Radiohead")
  • Decibel Issue 62 (first half) (long article - pre-show rituals and whipping, Axe to Fall is the band's "fifth" album, progressing hardcore band, guest musicians, "Verge In" sessions in 2004, "Wretched World" started in 2007, Ballau is a rocket scientist, production)
  • Chronicle (article)
  • MetalSucks (interview)
  • AbsolutePunk (interview - album art and art in general, vinyl, Deathwish Inc.)
  • Paste Punk (interview - working with Cave In, arrangement of songs, Deathwish)
  • ScenePointBlank (interview - Verge In sessions, experimental songs, leak)
  • Self-titledmag.com Interview with Kurt, details on production, etc

Best of 2009 lists

It would be nice to find published sources for...

Audio-samples

[edit]

I was thinking of throwing in some audio samples to the article, and wanted to open some discussion for which songs should be included. The album closer "Wretched World" seems to be mentioned in a ton of sources, so I was thinking a clip from that, and then maybe one or two others. The fair use guideline for music samples states that the clip must be either 30 seconds or 10% of the song, which ever is shorter. Ten percent of 1:40 (lengths of "Axe to Fall," "Effigy," "Losing Battle" and "Cutter") is only ten seconds. Is that long enough? Should audio clips of those songs be avoided in favor of longer tracks? I was also considering working on a new section in the article about the album's sound, including the variety of songs, musical influences, vocals, lyrics, genres and what not. So maybe some samples that demonstrate Bannon's harsh vocals or one that includes a ton of guests? I don't know. Comments and discussion requested and encouraged! Fezmar9 (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hats off to yous

[edit]

I'm very impressed with the state of this article; having just got the (damn fine) album, I thought I'd swing by to glean some background information. What I was faced with was this beautifully balanced and surprisingly in-depth colossus of an article on something I thought would be too obscure for this level of coverage. Long may it continue, and I look forward to seeing the page garnished with a little bronze star. Seegoon (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly good sir :) A little bronze award is the eventual goal, but I would not expect that for a few months. As you can see above I am still collecting sources and expanding the article, but finding very little time to do so. The stars kind of aligned for this page to become where it is today. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metacritic

[edit]

Axe to Fall was bouncing around on Metacritic's best of 2009 list (here) between positions 14 through 17, possibly due to how albums of the same score are ranked among the list. The album was listed with a score of 85 based on 7 reviews. However, Metacritic recently added an eighth review to the mix lowering the album's aggregate score to 81, forcing the album off of the best of 2009 list altogether. But, I just found an article by Metacritic which seems to be unaffected by the recently added review, and ranks Axe to Fall at #13 for 2009 (here). The first link I provided seems to update immediately after a change on the website takes place, whereas the second link I provided seems to be published and set in stone. Would anyone see a problem with posting the second link, which currently displays Axe to Fall's ranking? Even though the website no longer lists the album? Fezmar9 (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the official list and should be used here.--Cannibaloki 01:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Axe to Fall/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will review over the weekend and report back when ready. J04n(talk page) 13:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: J04n(talk page) 13:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC) I am passing this article and commending all that worked on it. It meets all of the criteria of a Good Article. The only minor issue that remains is that some of the references are dead links, I was able to replace two but two still exist (Parks, Andrew (Nov, 2009). "Fire Up the Blade". Decibel. Retrieved September 30, 2009. and Parks, Andrew (January 2010). "Top 40 Extreme Albums of 2009". Decibel (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Red Flag Media Inc.) (63): pp. 55–69. ISSN 1557-2137). These aren't fatal issues, the first one is a review and it is not required that reviews be available on line and the second one is a redundancy of the following reference. J04n(talk page) 01:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decibel updated their website just last week and created dead links all throughout Wikipedia. I have not yet searched the new site, but I will keep my eyes peeled for updated URLs or archived links! Fezmar9 (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnikmusic-review

[edit]

Reception sections on Wikipedia need to be fair and unbiased, and they need to include both positive and negative reviews. Axe to Fall was critically acclaimed, however it did receive a few negative reviews. One of those negative reviews was written by Jared W. Dillon of Sputnikmusic who gave the album a two-and-a-half out of five. Since this article was promoted to GA status, several unregistered IPs have been changing this review to Kyle Ward's review, also of Sputnikmusic, who gave the album a four out of five. This is a problem for several reasons. One, the actual body of the reception section is about Dillion's negative review, thus this should be reflected in the template that presents the various publications and their respective review scores. And two, replacing the negative review for the positive review does not adhere to a neutral point of view. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This time Ward's review was added to the reception section in addition to Dillion's review, instead of replacing the review as had been done with the previous edits. This action was done so with an edit summary of: updated reception section so it's fair and unbiased. Kyle Ward's review is the default review on the Sputnikmusic website so it should be represented. I disagree with both arguments. What Sputnikmusic chooses as their default review is completely irrelevant to which review Wikipeida should chose to include in a reception section. It also seems like there's a bias toward casting either Axe to Fall or Sputnikmusic or both in a brighter light by including this significantly more positive review. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cover-Image

[edit]

Should it be square? A quick Google check showed about equal for square images and the present configuration. More importantly..does it even matter? Jasper420 18:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CD version has a rectangular cardboard case. Any square image is either a reformatted and squished down version of the rectangular image, in which case it's actually a deformed version of the cover art, or it's a cropped image, in which case you're getting less of the cover art. I believe either case to be a misrepresentation of the true cover art for Axe to Fall. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair 'nuff. Jasper420 00:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Axe to Fall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Axe_to_Fall&oldid=1205543715"