Jump to content

Talk:Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Concept

We really need to have this section expanded. As it stands, it still leaves alot to be desired. Is there an expert here who can elaborate on the concept? Or is there a website that has tried to decipher this? The single page released front his book hardly helps to give a complete idea.Red marquis 08:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. To be honest I'm skeptical the book ever existed.Yeago 18:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

try www.nachtkabarett.com - they do alot of the stuff on concepts and symbolism of just marilyn manson.165.138.141.60 15:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Curious

My boyfriend says the storyline of this album is reminiscent of that of Animal Farm. He hasn't read it himself but I've been analyzing it for English class..:Stirb Nicht Vor Mir:. 09:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I really hope you get back to us about that, or direct him here to say more.Yeago 12:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
^ Ditto there. I really can't see how how Animal Farm's story of corrupt leaders that turn on their very constituents after revolting against their former oppressors is in anyway similar to Holy Wood's story or even its 'debased, extremely twisted version of hollywood where superstars have become leaders of America' aesthetic. Red marquis 08:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Chronology?

It says, "The main character in the over-arching storyline is Adam Kadmon who would later manifest himself... in Mechanical Animals and... Antichrist Superstar," but those two albums came out after Holy Wood, so how is that possible? Or am I mistaken? I'm not a Manson expert, so I'll leave that to someone who knows better than me; it just seems impossible.

It happens the same way in which Anakin Skywalker grows up to 'manifest as' Darth Vader--via the magic of a prequel. Holy Wood's storyline occurs prior to the other two records. Drasil 22:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
But the wording seems to imply that Mechanical Animals and Antichrist Superstar came after this album, which is misleading. Perhaps the wording should be adjusted? Something more like "The main character in the over-arching storyline is Adam Kadmon who has already manifested in Marilyn Manson's work... in Mechanical Animals and... Antichrist Superstar"? and then mentioning in the article that this album is a prequel to those albums?`Warhorus 11:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Since no one has made any objections, I went ahead and shifted the wording around a little to make it more clear.Warhorus 20:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to clear things up, yes, Holy Wood was released after Antichrist Superstar and Mechanical Animals both, but the storyline is a prequel. I also wanted to bring attention to something else about the Holy Wood article that has been concerning me: Before I myself edited it, the article would read that Holy Wood's storyline could be followed by Mechanical Animals. Personally, I don't see how this is possible, because Mechanical Animals begins in space. It would make much more sense if Antichrist Superstar followed Holy Wood, and then Mechanical Animals, because Antichrist Superstar ends in space, when the Antichrist has destroyed the world and has become an entity in space and is reflecting on what he has done. Mechanical Animals begins in space, with Great Big White World, where the main character Omega is an alien in space and is falling to earth. I am bringing this to your attention because many other sites I have visited have said the same thing, that Mechanical Animals would follow Holy Wood. Personally, I don't see how this is possible and look foward to your responses.c

I dont think the Marilyn Manson trilogy necessarily follows a straight linear story line. From what i have gathered it is three individual stories that are connected only thematically to form a fourth, larger nonlinear overarching story that encompasses the triptych. Red_marquis 2:15 pm, 07 January 2007 (UTC)

I read the story as a bit non linear myself. See "Cruci-Fiction in Space". Could that be the end of the Holy Wood story-part? Holy Wood was believed to be destroyed, but Adam left himself vulnerable and the hidden power behind Holy Wood took him and transformed him into something they could use for money and control of the masses. Thus begins Mechanical Animals and his journey from Holy Wood (see the video for The Dope Show where Omega falls to Earth, is captured, and put on display) back to the Valley of Death to begin the Antichrist Superstar storyline.

Mercury1138 04:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way we could get Mr. Warner himself to put down his thoughts and explain his magnum opus more thoroughly? 202.65.191.138 (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The story line is in no way a chronological or linear story. Adam Kadmon doesn't "become" Omega, Mechanical Animals does not "start" in space... the three albums, as Red_marquis stated, all have their own themes, not storylines but themes which are linked together over the 3 albums to form an even larger theme. Despite the earlier comparison to Star Wars, the Triptych should not be view as a sequential movie storyline. TheEmpiricalGuy (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well sure, non-sequential. MM is a borderline psychadelic musicican. But, yes, the three albums' story lines are connected. One only need to read the lyrics.Mercury1138 (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any thoughts about the concert going on through out the album's? "Irresponsible Hate Anthem" (ACS) "I want to dissapear" (MA) "Born Again" (HW) Possibly ANOTHER character? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitter Things (talk • contribs) 23:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

????

the two students who perpetrated the massacre were allegedly just out to get their 15 minutes of fame, and escape their standings as social pariahs, by perpetrating the largest school massacre in American history then turning the guns to themselves. what the hell does that mean? 15 minutes of fame? doesnt even agree with the columbine page. Dizzydark 22:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Then help clean it up. Red marquis 10:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The Nobodies

The article says that "The Nobodies" seems to deal directly with Columbine. Wasn't this song a remake? Some rewording might be in order

A remake of who's song? I've never heard about that. Provide substantial evidence so we can verify and act on whatever changes are required. Red marquis 10:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a remake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.66.52 (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Just from my own research

AntiChrist Svperstar came out first, Then Mechanical Animals, and then Holywood. This is a simple explaintion of how I believe the storyline goes, Adam begins the journey on Holywood, to become Omega on Mechanical Animals who then becomes The Antichrist/Mister Supertar on AntichristSvperstar, who then becomes the Alien on Mechanical Animals, who then becomes Mercury on Holywood. So the journey starts on holywood, works backwards, curves around in Antichrist Svperstar and comes back forward through the albums back to Holywood. AntiChrist Svperstar and Holywood both have endings that loop back to the beginning sounds of the record. Put them on repeat and they are never ending, looping back around to where they began.

76.4.36.11 00:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Deadlyrazorwings

From what I know Omega is the alien in Mechanical Animals who later formed the eponymous fictional rock band. And as i saw it ACSS, being the final album in the trilogy was merely a look back over the journey that has brought him to that point so i dont see the story line could snap back. Red marquis 10:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Marilyn Manson - Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death).jpg

Image:Marilyn Manson - Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale added, image rescaled. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Review

The Christgau review is just a bomb. It has no text. This seems like a foolish thing to stick in an article.

Anyone else have thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.58.166 (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


That is, sadly, the incredibly "original" rating system of Christgau at work. I feel it should be removed for just that reason; he never wrote a review. Any album that fails (with that bomb symbol) just fails for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Berkshire (talk • contribs) 20:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Most Successful?

"This is the band's most sucessful album, selling 9.000.000 copies worldwide.[1]" I call bullshit. Of course, I can't READ the source; it is in Spanish. Any more sources? Or should that line be cut out of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Berkshire (talk • contribs) 20:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I support your call of bullshit on this one, especially since it only managed to go GOLD in the US, meaning less than one million copies were sold there, I find it hard to believe sales would have topped even 2 million worldwide. I'm removing the reference and the statement. Freikorp (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I originally removed the statement because there was no opposition and the claim is dubious (According to the references in Marilyn Manson discography the album was only certified gold in America, Canada and Switzerland, meaning it sold between 500,000 and 999,999 in America, 40,000 and 79,999 in Canada, and between 15,000 and 29,999 in Switzerland (See the features article List of music recording sales certifications). It failed to achieve certification elsewhere, so I for one have no idea where the other 8 million records could have been sold.) Anyway reaching a consensus here is going to be more productive than an edit war. This reference (which I for one cannot read) appears to be the only one of its kind, googling "Holy Wood" and "9 million" only hits blogs and forums (who probably got the information off wiki) and wikipedia mirror sites. From a babelfish translation the reference does seem to say the album sold 9 million copies worldwide, but is this source reliable? The word "Blogs" appears at the top of the page, is this page an entry written by a member of the website or are MTV Spain the authors? Any other thoughts on this? Freikorp (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
As nobody else has commited to stopping the edit war and reaching a consensus, I have taken the liberty of finding what I believe is a compromise. I have added "According to MTV Spain" in front of the statement that it has sold over 9 million copies, as MTV spain are in fact the only ones making these claims, and despite that these claims are highly dubious, they have still been made, therefore removing them entirely was probably not the most objective thing to do in retrospect. Please discuss here if you are unhappy with this decision. Freikorp (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The link is dead. I'm removing it. -Red marquis (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it isnt a reliable source(MTV Spain and "eagle-rock.com")but has any of you know the actual numbers, because i have searched and there is nothing but that, so whoever wrote that should comment how he/she found it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellspriest (talk • contribs) 05:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A typical US album by a major artist would usually result in 50% sales in US and the other 50% from worldwide (not include US). The Holy Wood numbers suggests 500000 units in US and 8.5 million worldwide. 8.5 worldwide would mean holy wood was a MAJOR successful outside of US. We all know this is not true. So the 9 mil figure is a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.76.64 (talk) 09:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree, however, I was assured by the person who contributed that figure that the source is reliable. Also, Wikipedia states in their rule and reg that the threshold for inclusion of info in an article is not "truth" - or what you or I consider true - rather it is "verifiability". In other words, neither of us can do anything about it. -Red marquis (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The concept section of this article NEEDS a serious overhaul

The concept section desperately needs to be expanded and the concept itself explained in detail (Kadmon's journey, etc). Where's mention of the fact that it's divided into four song cycles (A D A M) and how that relates to the storyline, the many references to the Beatles's White Album either in the lyrics themselves (ie. You Say you wanted evolution/You say you want a revolution... from Disposable Teens which clearly reference the song Revolution 1) or in directly alluding to John Lennon himself and how both relates to Manson's criticism of the glorification of violence by mainstream American culture (as opposed to him) which both albums did. I believe Manson once also said that he intended for Holy Wood to be an industrial rock version of The White Album. What about the characters within the story? There's Adam Kadmon, but he's most likely only a collage representing humanity, and Coma Black. But what about President White (is he the one referred to as President Dead?), the King (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death & King Kill 33.. an actual king or a pop culture reference to Elvis?) and who or what is the Born Again (or was that just a symbolic turning point in the revolution uttered by Kadmon).

I also think the portion on Mechanical Animals and Antichrist Superstar shouldn't be here. I wrote it in originally because there was no dedicated article on the trilogy itself and the fourth storyline that comprises all three albums. But I think it's time to create a link.

An album from the same era/same year Smashing Pumpkins' Machina/The Machines of God is so well written and yet this has been all but neglected and allowed to rot. It's embarrassing. The tenth anniversary of this album is coming up very soon. At the very least this page should be sterling in time for that.

-202.72.121.108 (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Close to perfect. Almost finished. -Red marquis (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hard to believe it's been 10 years tomorrow since this album came out. Even harder to believe it took this long to create a proper wiki article for this. -Red marquis (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Featured Article quality is in sight. -Red marquis (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 02:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Holy_Wood_(In_the_Shadow_of_the_Valley_of_Death)#Reception is not a proper reception section. Please see Confessions_on_a_Dance_Floor#Critical_reception for proper reception sections.
  • Track listing is unsourced.
  • What makes metroactive.com a reliable reference?
  • Concept section is very fanfacty and overly detailed. Most of the information does not relate to the album and is close to being copyright infringement.
  • Massive amount of Dab links please see here.
  • There should be a chart performance section, and a critical reception section not a reception section. Also review do not go in the info box, they go under Critical reception.
  • Dead links and unformatted references here.

GA articles must be broad in their coverage, this article is hardly C class. Needs much expansion and fleshing out. Concerned editors please see The Fame, Confessions on a Dance Floor or Goodies (album) to name a few to see how to write a proper Good article. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 02:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Objections on the Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death) assessment

While I agree with a few of your points, I have reservations about several.

  • Track listing is unsourced.

-Who sources track listings? Not one album article on Wikipedia do. Not The Fame, Confessions on a Dance Floor or Goodies (album).

  • What makes metroactive.com a reliable reference?

-What makes it not? According to Metroactive's 'pedia page it has won several accolades including the National Newspaper Association's 1995 contest and the California Newspaper Publishers Association Better Newspapers Awards - unless it has received criticism or controversy about the fairness or reliability of its reporting. But I wouldn't know about that since I live in the Philippines. Please, correct me if I am mistaken.

  • Concept section is very fanfacty and overly detailed. Most of the information does not relate to the album and is close to being copyright infringement.

-I'll give you the first half. It IS overly detailed but it is necessary to give a proper assessment of the album's cultural importance. And it IS culturally important since it constituted the counterargument and observations of the person nearly everyone blamed the Columbine massacre on. Again, how, and particularly which, information do not relate to the album. Where am I close to infringing copyright? By linking his interviews and essays? That's not copyright infringement. Not unless Marilyn Manson copyrights every word he utters.

addressed

  • There should be a chart performance section, and a critical reception section not a reception section. Also review do not go in the info box, they go under Critical reception.

Agreed. Will address asap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.72.121.154 (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seegoon (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. It still needs some tweaking for flow and clarity. I will edit where I see issues, but some problems go beyond a copyedit:
  • "a stillborn film" – clarify.
    • This statement still exists in the lead.
  • The first sentence of 'Background and development' snakes on and on and on. It is also a little bit sensationalist ("a majority").
    • Good changes.
  • "The frontman spent this time vacillating on "what I was going to do and how I was going to react"." – pronouns should be changed here to [he], for readability. 'Vacillating' may be a little over-the-top.
  • "It was after he determined that it was less prudent to allow his detractors to use entertainment as a scapegoat, including his, for a controversial artist such as himself, that he decided to continue making music." – this is a very long, snakey sentence. Split it up if you can.
  • "Of the songwriting process, Manson has stated "We must have..." – there should be a colon before the quote here.
  • "Bon Harris, of seminal EBM group, Nitzer Ebb was also brought in" – the comma should come after Nitzer Ebb, not before.
Themes
  • As I'm not an American, I was a little misled by the wikilink to the "Littleton tragedy".
  • "Parents" does not really need wikilinking.
Release
  • "a torn off jaw" – should either be hyphenated or reworded.
  • " Manson explained the choice for the cover further, "Throughout the years" – that comma should really be a colon.
Reception
  • "that's the essence of rock & roll.... On Holy Wood," – I know you're quoting here, but nobody's going to mind if you clean up for readability's sake. As such, you should cut one full stop (an ellipsis is three points, not four), replace the ampersand with 'and' and italicise. Looking at it, this applies throughout the entire section in multiple instances; italicise every album title mention, even within quotes.
  • Allmusic and Amazon shouldn't be italicised (throughout the entire article, including refs). Also, be consistent – I'd always opt for allmusic over Allmusic.com, for instance, and the same for Amazon over Amazon.com.
Credits and personnel
  • It looks like you're using spaced em dashes. Em dashes (if used) should be unspaced; if you're using spaces dashes, you should use en dashes (–).
Overall
  • I think Marilyn Manson is overlinked throughout; his name is linked in every quote box that I can see, which is unnecessary.
  • There are quite a few instances knocking around where you have elided quotes using an ellipsis. WP:MOS dictates that you should either put them in square brackets [...] or at least ensure there is a space on both sides of the ellipsis. I only just realised this myself.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • The 'Composition' section is one paragraph long; as such, it could surely be folded into somewhere else within the article (i.e. 'Background and development')
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • "As of 2010, the album has sold over 9 million copies worldwide..." – can this be updated?
  • "The disc contains a data track which leads to a video no longer hosted by Interscope's website." – have you checked any Internet archives to see whether they still have this online?
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Pending
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Promotion
  • The time of the music videos' premieres is unnecessary detail.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • A tough one to stay on the fence over; while I'd argue that it's obvious that the article was written by a fan, a decent shout is given to the opposition. I'd remove the 'predictably' from "Predictably, the band met heavy resistance", though.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • The one and only caption in the article describes the image, but fails to assert any sort of importance behind it.
7. Overall assessment.

I've made some modifications to comply with your review comments, what do you think? -Red marquis (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have anymore suggestions on what I need to improve? -Red marquis (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I've provided a load more feedback for you here. Criterion 2b is displaying as Pending for reasons beyond my ken, but I've entered some thoughts there. I look forward to seeing future development here. Seegoon (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've made new changes to comply. However, I can't do anything about the issues in 2a. Regarding the first issue, I didn't put the current sales figure quote in there. The person who did assured me the source is reliable although it is ultimately up for you as the reviewer to decide. It's also impossible to locate the current sales figures since the RIAA and Interscope seem to have forgotten that this album exist. Regarding the second issue, I believe that video is lost and now only exist in the band's Lest We Forget album.

Regarding the 6a and 6b issues, I admit I only scanned that poster. If I violated any copyright law, I'll voluntarily removed it. The article also cannot use any of the mercury icons on Commons, Marilyn Manson's version is a highly stylized variation inside a roundel. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any other imagery relating to this album in Commons besides the album cover. -Red marquis (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Btw, do you have any suggestions what I need to modify in order to pass Featured Article status? -Red marquis (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a handful of things left, but nothing major.

      • Ref #27: Revolver needs piping and italicising.
      • Ref #30: Kerrang! needs italicising.
      • Ref #37: need to use first = and last = and to fix the broken date formatting.
      • Refs #42 and #49: don't need an access date.
        • Sorry, I was wrong about #49 – I'm not sure what I was getting at there.
      • Refs #92, #94 and #99 need combining and {{cite web}}-ing
      • Ref #97: DiS shouldn't be italicised.
      • Are refs #100 and #101 the same thing?
      • Ref #111 is a bit ambiguous – what am I looking at here?
      • Ref #113 is still odd.
      • Refs #126 and #136 shouldn't have italicised allmusics.
      • Refs #75, #77 and #121 have square bracket issues which could be solved by using <nowiki></nowiki> tags.
      • Ref #56 wikilinks specific terms inside the article title, which is a bit counter-intuitive.
      • You've replaced the em dashes in personnel with hyphens, not en dashes; you want – instead of - or —. Stupid as it sounds.
      • The 'Singles' table appears to be broken, albeit to a very minor extent.
      • The Billboard review might actually be available on their website (instead of linking to Metacritic) – they've had a redesign and broken an assload of links.

Now, regarding content and what might need improving to get that gold star. There are a few sources which you use which may not stand up to scrutiny; Amazon and Rate Your Music are probably not of high enough quality. Perhaps the releases themselves, cited with {{cite album-notes}}, would be better. They may also want page numbers at every given turn; i.e. refs #55, #56, #23, #30, #35, and so on. Content-wise, you're in very good shape. It's well-written, balanced and neutral. They may well be unimpressed with the rationale for the poster, mind you. Personally, I think it's fine to use, and as I'm reviewing this by myself, I'll complain no further about it. But as a pre-warning, they may take issue.

As an aside, although this article did need some extra spit and shine, L-l-CLK-l-l (talk · contribs)'s fail of the previous GA was brutal. He's just subjected me to an equally brusque summary execution, so don't take it to heart. He doesn't seem interested in helping articles reach GA; more interested in showing off his trophy cabinet of very good GAs of very shitty pop albums. I'll get off my soapbox now. Seegoon (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll start working on fixing the remaining problems. -Red marquis (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I've finished fixing the ref errors. Check to see if I missed any. Btw, I don't get what you meant by the Singles table being broken. It looks perfectly fine to me. Please clarify. Thanks again for reviewing this page. -Red marquis (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
It's missing a bottom border for the second column. Probably just a Firefox quirk. No biggie. I've struck the things you've addressed, for clarity's sake. I've gone ahead and passed the article – it's in great shape. As I said, one or two things may stymie this at FAC, but at least you've been forewarned. Congratulations! It'd be prudent of you to go out and review someone else's GAN, but you're under no obligation to do so. Seegoon (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Alas, I'll be too busy getting this article up to FAC snuff and then doing the same for other albums. Also, I think I'll need more experience writing GA and FAC articles before I can qualify to review someone else's work. Thanks, however. -Red marquis (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Acknowledgements

To anyone who would read this article, it's taken me around 9 months of dedicated work to take this article from the pitiful stub-quality article I found it in into what you see now. Frankly, I couldn't have accomplished this self-imposed task without the help of Nick Kushner whose site, the NACHTKABARETT, provided enough esoteric Sphinx-like clues to steer me into a better understanding of the intricacies and complexities of this album. Alas, if only Wikipedia acknowledged the site as an authoritative source on all things Marilyn Manson (because even Marilyn Manson does), there are so much information that could be crammed in here. I would also like to thank the fansite Provider Module—particularly their admin S.D.—without whose patience and back-and-forth help, I would not have had access to the innumerable magazine interviews Manson and co. conducted more than a decade ago. Finally, I would like to acknowledge all the helpful Wikipedia peer reviewers (as well as those who weren't much help). One way or another, you have helped me craft a better article and, ultimately, become a stronger, better Wikipedia contributor. Thank you all. -Red marquis (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Non free tag

How could it have been removed when it was never there in the first place? -Red marquis (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit May 2011

Hi

During the copyedit a few things came to light that may need attention:

Background and development
  • "but considered them "a joke"." - This is not supported by any of the three refs given.
  • The phrase came from the first ref, the Kerrang article "Screaming for Vengeance". The other refs simply support it indirectly.
Hmmm, sorry bout that, I did download the pages as scans but must've missed it - pg1
Recording and production
  • Record? Changed to "album" and "release" as records are really a thing of the past and I am sure CD and internet sales were probably greater than any vinyl pressings sales.
    • Thanks.
Novel and film
  • "where the band was slated to perform" - changed to "was to perform" as slated is unnecessary and also has connotations of "slagged off for performing" in UK English.
    • Thanks.
Concept
  • "Beyond the macroscopic," (para5) - the macroscopic what?
  • I'll change it.
Singles

(PARA1)

"The first single"..."The first, titled"..."The second, titled" (that's two so far) "12" ...LP" (thats 3)
"two standalone single albums" and "also released as a 12" picture disc vinyl LP" - ? How can a single also be an album and an LP?

(PARA2) The same is repeated for the "second" single:

"The second single,"..."The first, titled"..."a 12"..LP"..."The second, titled" (thats 3)
"two standalone single albums" - again
That also gives a total of six singles released altogether?

I believe the term should be EP (extended play) rather than album or LP and have edited it as such. I have also included the word "version" in the text to differentiate between the three versions of each single and the three singles themselves.

    • Thanks.
Reception
  • Critical reception -> Press reception - the section title implied that it would only be negative reviews.
    • Changing it back. "Critical reception" is the accepted form for album articles. All of them use it. I know, to the layman, it sounds like there is an implication all the reviews are going to be negative but all the phrase really connotes is that the section contains reviews by "music critics" (fancy pants way of saying "music journalist").
Not quite true, I have taken 5 random articles and all have slightly different ways of writing the reception sections. I am also not that naive to not know what the meaning of critique is, nor what a critic is - layman? that is downright insulting. How do you work out that there are in someway experts in albums/music/the press to the extent that there would be laymen who do not know what a music critic is? Just about everyone knows what a critic is lol. Nevertheless the word criticism, unlike the popular belief, is derived from Greek/Latin meaning "to discern"/"to judge".
1 2 3 4 5
As the section was split into 4 sub-sections it seemed pointless to repeat the word reception, I meant to change it to "Press reviews" but got distracted when I had a visitor.
Sorry about that. I didn't mean to insult. That said, all of the GA and FAC articles I used as a guide when writing this all use the term "Critical reception".
No offence taken at all, I figured it wasn't directed at me personally :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Accolades
  • Italics and quotes fixes for awards and translations, also moved 2000 to the end of many of them as it could have been mistaken as "out of 2000 albums" rather than "the award for the year 2000".
    • Thanks.
General
  • Punctuation at the end of quotes - A lot of quotes seems to have "ending word." at the end, please note that this should only happen if the original quote was punctuated with the period after the word. If not, the text should read "ending word". instead.
  • The album is not dead or unavailable, many instances of "drew...were...focused" etc. I have changed to present tense, as the album still does those things "draws...are...focuses" etc.
    • Thanks again. BTW, did I use any of the ellipses incorrectly? I've been looking it over and think I used the [] brackets correctly.

Finished, a bloody good read! Lots of info, good for and against points, remarkable amount of detail in the first five sections, as well as in the reception section. Overall a fine article.

I understand that there were comments about the amount of quotes but, as this album generated such a lot of press and many of the comments span a ten or more year period, I do not think that there are that many to cut out (if any at all). Many points raised by the opponents of the themes and the timing of the album, as well as the Columbine topic, are better answered by Manson himself - perhaps this is why there was a view about over-quoting.

I'd like to believe the FAC reviewers were completely objective with their appraisal of this article. That said, could you advise me on which particular quotes may be seen as superfluous so I could drop them into notes [N 1]?
Not really, my personal opinion is that they should all stay. I am just giving you a possible way to keep them but move them out of the body of text if that FAC reviewer still sees it as a problem. It may be that other reviewers do not consider it a problem as it is.

Good luck with the FAC! Chaosdruid (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Too many quotes - too many notes

One way that the article can be shortened is to take direct quotes and paraphrase them. What Manson says in twenty words, we can say in eight. It also makes the text crisper and easier to understand. An example: '... described as "very much like Disney World ... I thought of how interesting it would be if we created an entire city that was an amusement park, and the thing we were being amused by was violence and sex and everything that people really want to see."' becomes '... described as a Disneyesque amusement park the size of a city, where the main attraction is violence and sex.' Please revert any you disagree with.

Some of the information has way too many citations. This was pointed out at FAC and still has not been rectified. Some points have as many as ten cites; this is over-kill; you should select the best two or three cites for each point (or even one, if it is authorative and mega-reliable), unless the material presented therein is truly unique. --Dianna (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Article size: Copy editing has shaved a thousand words off the size of the article, but it is still double the size of the articles for the White Album and Sgt Peppers, and 2000 words longer than The Dark Side of the Moon (a featured article). Copy editing will not fix this. If you are not prepared to eliminate material, it might be better to leave it as a super good article rather than attempt another FA bid. Sincerely, --Dianna (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2017

Under the artwork section, the font on the album cover is mentioned as being the same as the Disney World logo from the 1960s. This is incorrect as the font is the same as the early Disneyland logos. Disney World did not open until 1971 and never used that font in their logo. Alkoenig08 (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I just checked the source, which Manson identifies as Disneyworld. Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

AOTY Rating

Hello folks, I noticed that the AOTY aggregate rating wasn't updated, so I just did. Hopefully I didn't do anything wrong haha! But in case I did, let me know, cheers --Sickboy3883 (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holy_Wood_(In_the_Shadow_of_the_Valley_of_Death)/Archive_1&oldid=1159140191"