Jump to content

Talk:Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)/GA3

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

Do you have anymore suggestions on what I need to improve? -Red marquis (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks. I'll start working on fixing the remaining problems. -Red marquis (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holy_Wood_(In_the_Shadow_of_the_Valley_of_Death)/GA3&oldid=967077193"