Talk:Prior to the Fire

Singles & Music Videos

I removed this section so that it'd match more closely with a featured album article. If/when "Lady Killer" gets its own article, I suppose we can use it again, or at least put it back in this one once it's clear that's not gonna happen. LazyBastardGuy 19:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

What's missing now

Right now, there are only two things missing from this article that I can see: 1) sales figures, and 2) a citation confirming that Vince Nudo sang lead vocals on "Lunar" (which is proving much harder to find than one might expect). If/when I at least get the latter cleared-up, I might submit the article for a B-class assessment. LazyBastardGuy 01:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Screw that, it's taking too long. I worked so hard on this, I'm going straight for the throat - a GA review. LazyBastardGuy 05:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope you will be more patient with the GA-review process than you were with your album assessment request. Note that there are albums within the queue that have been nominated for GA status since April, and there is no priority to what gets reviewed - just an individual editor who is willing to take the time to perform the task. Good luck. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that, and this time I am prepared for it. It's just that while I was waiting for my B-class assessment request to go through, other pages were getting listed and removed (as assessed) within 24 hours, even if they were listed after mine; one poor guy has been sitting there for a few weeks now waiting more patiently than I did trying to get his submission assessed, and that article is nowhere near as in-depth as this one! It just didn't seem like that tall an order to me and I got fed-up with waiting for something to happen, regardless of the outcome. Whereas here, I've looked at the time stamps for the oldest GA reviews, particularly for the albums section, and I went, "I'm prepared to wait that long. If anything, it gives me time to fix the article up as necessary." There's actually a good reason for why GA assessments take so long, so I'm not angry about that at all. I also won't be upset if the nomination fails either; I just want some idea of what I'm doing, though of course I would prefer it if the article passed. I've never had anyone give me any kind of feedback from this page so I have no idea if what I'm doing with it is right or wrong, and this is a surefire way to find out. Eventually.

On a related note, the band article (Priestess) got assessed and I actually got some feedback in a rather-timely manner, which I was quite pleased with. It just annoys me when things could be moving faster and no good reason is given for why they're not, kind of like if you've seen Office Space and Peter's on his way to work in the beginning of the movie, and he keeps changing lanes but every time he does that lane grinds to a halt and every other lane, including the one he just left, is suddenly moving again. It's annoying to have to go through that.

Whew - with that out of my system, I'm going to mark this article as maintained by me. I'll be keeping a close eye on it from here on out. Can't imagine I'll ever stop. And thanks for the good luck - I'm gonna need it. LazyBastardGuy 08:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not angry or upset with anyone or over anything. I was just a little peeved at the state of affairs, but I'm over it now. LazyBastardGuy 08:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Flow issues?

"The success of the group's first album apparently had the side effect of making RCA Records, their former label outside their native Canada (which released the album in all other territories starting in 2006), expectant of the group to make another such accomplishment. While the band spent roughly two and a half years performing concerts on behalf of Hello Master, supporting such acts as Dinosaur Jr., the Sword, Mastodon and Megadeth, they concentrated mostly on the existing material and had little chance to write anything new."

There is just something so wrong with having it written this way. But I like it too much as it is, and I honestly can't think of a better way. Read this bit in context (that is, with all the text surrounding it) and please tell me I'm overreacting. LazyBastardGuy 05:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

This bit I removed

I put this in but got rid of it because I think it's quite contradictory to what all the other sources are saying:

"Similarily, the added complexity was attributed to a natural evolution in sound for the band, a natural consequence of combining their influences, not an intentional desire to be different from before."

I might restore it if/when I find a way to reconcile the apparent contradiction. LazyBastardGuy 00:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty much done now

Having gone through all the sources I found, I think this article is pretty much finished. My only concern now is that it's too long and detailed; some of it may have to get cut for GA or even FA (and the latter seems like it won't happen without a picture or two in addition to the album cover). I'm also miffed that the bit about Dan Watchorn commenting on the recent economic recession being the reason labels should only keep the surefire selling artists had to get cut; I cut it because that article I got it from went offline a long time ago, and even the Wayback Machine doesn't seem to have a copy. My own copy I downloaded onto a PDF somehow cut a bunch of stuff out, including that very bit. Pretty peeved about that, but there's not much I can do about it. I'll just keep an eye out for a suitable replacement. In the meantime, aside from some minor copyediting perhaps, I feel I've done all I can do for this article, at least until a new source or two shows-up. Cheers. LazyBastardGuy 05:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Stuff that remains unverified

Here's some stuff that would be in the article if I could find a better source than what I've found for them so far (e.g. a YouTube interview with Mikey himself) or could translate from French.

• "Murphy's Law" features lines taken directly from the movie on which it is based.
• "Castle Dracula" and "Dweller" were also the downloadable bonus tracks for any edition of the album released on Tee Pee Records, including the CD edition.
• The single accompanying the vinyl edition was the first of the planned outtake single releases. 16:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• The band actually recorded 15 songs for the album, not just fourteen.
• "Dweller" is the one based on the seminal TV drama Twin Peaks, and lines in the song are even taken directly from the show, such as part of the second verse which came from the episode "Checkmate". (A Canadian article written in French identified a song called "Dweller on a Threshold" that was written for the album about the show. Since "Dweller" contains many lyrical references to the show, even lines lifted directly from it, we can conclude that "Dweller" is the song previously identified as "Dweller on a Threshold". 16:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC))
• Any sales certifications or chart placings for the album would also look great if we can find them. 02:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That's just for future reference, some stuff that would make this article even better once we can substantiate these claims. I will keep an eye out and throw in stuff as needed, and may update this list as necessary. LazyBastardGuy 19:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Prior to the Fire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 12:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

LBG, I saw that you reviewed "Bleed Like Me", a nomination that had been waiting over four months, and I'd like to review your nominee in turn. (I have no connection to the "Bleed Like Me" article, but it's always great to see the oldest GANs finally get some quality feedback.) Unfortunately, your talk page indicates that by finally reviewing your article, I may drive you from Wikipedia! Oh, the irony! I hope, once this review is done, you either stick around or your break is short. (We need more lazy bastards like you in Wikipedia.)

Anyway, I will begin this review in the next couple of days. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This article is a strong candidate. It seems reasonably complete, it answers all my questions about the album, and it's admirably neutral. I have identified a few MoS issues and some places where the prose could be improved, but I don't think it needs a major restructuring or introduction of new material. It's good to see a GAN so well prepared.

Sourcing

• You rely heavily on the waytooloud source (ref #5), but it's a dead link, and doesn't seem to have been accessed since 2011. Do you know how to access an archived version of the page? (Reference #25 is also a dead link, though it's only used once.)

That one's on-again, off-again. I'll make use of an archived version regardless of whether it comes back. LazyBastardGuy 19:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• It would be great if you had a source for the last sentence of "Background", since it could be seen as a contentious statement.

The idea behind that sentence is that it's verified in the later sections about the album's release and what not. Should I perhaps put "See "Continuing dispute with RCA" for more details" or something like that? LazyBastardGuy 19:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Further, no one source says it; every source cited for the continuing dispute section says it. Should I just take all those footnotes and place them at the end of that sentence? Would that look good? LazyBastardGuy 22:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't look good. If you source the statement in its details later, that's good enough. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• The "Release and reception" section is missing citations for some important statements. All of the direct quotes especially need sources (e.g. "retro hard rock's answer to Muse" by Freeman), but the reviews without direct quotes (e.g. Pitchfork's) should also be sourced, since their statements could easily be viewed as "contentious". I see that the sources are in the chart, but they should be duplicated in the body.

 Fixed LazyBastardGuy 17:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

MoS issues

• MOS:SECTIONS: Don't put a footnote in a section heading. You can either have an introductory sentence (e.g. "The following people...") and footnote it, or just footnote the last list item.

 Fixed LazyBastardGuy 19:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• MOS:LEAD: The lead spends too much space (around half) discussing label issues. This should be shortened somewhat, with more information added to the lead regarding other sections of the body.

 Fixed with regard to the time devoted to the label issues. What else would you recommend I add? I can't think of anything I didn't cover up there but should have. Interestingly, leaving the article for a long time instead of poring over it for hours has allowed me to return with a fresh pair of eyes so I can look at it more objectively. This review is really helpful. LazyBastardGuy 19:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure yet. I'll make a suggestion when I've re-read the entire article. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking it over, I think the lead is now fine the way it is. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• WP:OVERLINK: Don't link "everyday words understood by most readers in context" or "the names of major geographic features and locations". Terms like Canada, Los Angeles, UK, USA, New York City, resume, Europe, and Montreal should probably not be linked. Also you should only link the following terms once in the body: High on Fire, Pitchfork Media, and progressive rock.

 Fixed I didn't realize I linked so much! I find that pretty funny. LazyBastardGuy 19:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and how about the publications' names? I've linked each one at least twice, in the review table and in the prose for the review section. LazyBastardGuy 05:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, if it's once in a table and once in prose. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Prose issues

I often find it easier to make simple prose and grammar changes myself, rather than explaining them here. These are mostly rewordings for smoothness and clarity, rather than fixing actual errors, so they may be a matter of opinion. Here are some examples:

• I reworded the first few sentences of the lead. I think it flows better now.
• I changed "was largely mixed, but positive" to "was mixed, but largely positive", since I think it better conveys the sense.
• Etc.

That makes sense, nobody that I saw when looking-up reviews outright hated the album; if anything their most negative reactions were that they were bored by it. I didn't see anything like you might find for a Brokencyde album ;) LazyBastardGuy 19:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

If you disagree with any of my changes, feel free to revert and discuss here. There were also some more complicated concerns that I did not feel comfortable doing myself:

• The lead says that the band "wrote about more obscure themes, such as film and television characters, for this album", but I don't think Robocop, Dragonball, and Twin Peaks count as "obscure". Would "unusual" or "nontraditional" work instead?

I suppose that would work. I used "obscure" as in this makes it a less-accessible album overall for some people, plus these are themes that are almost never usually written about in rock. So I guess not obscure in the sense that they're only known to a select cult following so much as they're obscure themes in rock. I'll change it anyway. LazyBastardGuy 19:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• The article says "the band made their first attempt at recording the album, but the recording process still did not begin for six more months". I'm not sure what that means to say they made an attempt, if the process didn't even begin for 6 months. (Also, that sentence could use to be broken up.)

 Fixed LazyBastardGuy 17:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've made a lot more minor rewordings. Again, if any are problematic, let me know.

 Fixed I did change a couple, either for typos or because I had something even better than what I had before. LazyBastardGuy 17:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

All your recent changes are excellent. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The article just has a few open issues left. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done LazyBastardGuy 17:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This article passes all our GA criteria. It's a great read, well sourced, and MoS-compliant. I'm happy to promote it. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Fan-tastic. I'm going on wikibreak. I'm wikiexhausted from having worked on this article, and I need some time to recharge the ol' batteries. Thanks again for taking the review! LazyBastardGuy 18:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)