Talk:Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)/GA1

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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)[reply]

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.

Massive amount of Dab links please see here.

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)[reply]

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.