Talk:Thirteen (Megadeth album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 12:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The lead should not contain any references, except if a claim is nowhere cited.
Fixed--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Being interviewed in July 2010 about the success of Megadeth's previous release," - beginning with noun + ing is problematical. How about starting with something like "Megadeth drummer Shawn Drover revealed ..."

"there were a "couple of ideas" ~~that~~ the band was starting to work on."

"In a later interview regarding songs ~~that~~ the band ~~was~~ record~~ing~~ed for its 13th studio effort"

"Mustaine also said ~~that~~ the band had almost finished five songs,[17] but no other information was announced." - you can omit "that" "which" if the clause reads ok without them. There are two types of relative clauses; a defining and a non-defining. In defining relative clauses you don't have to put relative pronouns, eg "The book (which) we bought is very nice", because they show relevant details. In non-defining relative clauses you have to put relative pronouns, eg "The book which costs twenty dollars is very nice", because they don't show relevant details, but only additional information. There are many cases in this article.
I actually started looking through the text and you are absolutely right. I used "that" way too much when I was writing the article, and in most cases it really doesn't need to be there. Working on clearing this up now.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
You need to proof the reliability for the following references:
braveworld.com
verified below--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

heavyhell.com
It turns out this one was redundant so I just removed it. The content it was supporting already had a cite from the original source(from which heavyhell got their story)--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sonicexcess.com
Website for a heavy metal magazine. Cited for content from an interview with Dave Ellefson. i would prefer to keep this one, as there doesn't seem to be anything in particular about it that makes it unreliable (not a blog, and not self-published)--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

away-team.com
I checked this one out (I don't remember adding it (I think another editor might have and I formatted it maybe) But it was cited only because it is an interview with Broderick. That said, upon closer inspection it does look kind of blog-ish. I'll leave the decision to you as to whether it can stay or go. If it goes, I'll just remove the single sentence it supports, not really that big of a deal.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can leave it. I just picked sites I thought they were unreliable. As it is a interview, there is no reason to remove it.

rocklineradio.com
verified below--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

about.com
removed--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dcjapan.co.jp
removed--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Dabsolver check: ok
Checklinks check: ok
Fixed dashes
On hold the prose is clumsy; apart the misuse of relative pronouns the prose is generally not marvellous. I give you 7 day until copyedited (try WP:GOCE/REQ) and references checked for reliability.

Sorry for not responding to this review. I think that this article is overall oddly formatted. While the section "Writing and recording" is ok, "Odd occurrences during recording", "Release and promotion" and "Songs" sections are too small. I am not sure if we even need the second, because it sounds like a superstition. Everyone knows the number 13th is not a lucky number, so what does it tell the reader? You can surely merge that somewhere, maybe to lead. The "songs" section is a little bit messy, as it contains sub-sections, which are very small, for every song. I don't think this is a great idea. I would merge every sub-section to one section. The same situation for "Release and promotion". It is simply too small to merit its own section. You can merge it with the "Songs" section, and then rename to "Release and promotion". If you compare this article with Endgame (Megadeth album) you will see many differences in layout. It is much more neat than this article.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 17:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I haven't been here in a while either - other stuff to worry about (and I think I really burned myself out from writing up this article, too). In any case, while I was writing, I tried to use the Endgame article as a pattern. But in the course of constructing the article, I did develop it a bit differently - most notably, the difference in format of the songs section (as you pointed out). And I would tend to agree - some of the smaller song parts could (should) be merged, although I think some of the ones with more content ("New World Order", "Millennium of the Blind", "Black Swan") should stay, but I can see your point so far as the subsection on "13" , "Deadly Nightshade" and "Neverdead" are concerned. How about just leaving 2 or 3 of the larger sections as separate and including the others in a couple of paragraphs in an "Other songs" section or something like that?

As for the "Reception" section, I thought that the "odd occurrences" part of it was distinct enough from the rest to merit a subsection. There are a couple paragraphs worth of content there now with a distinct.

I'm about as motivated as I'm gonna get right now, so I'll play around with cleaning up the "songs" section a bit.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I went through and tried to clean up the "Songs" section a bit, but I basically ended up doing as you suggested in removing all the sub-headings. I tried to condense some of the wording a bit, too (especially for "PE#1", "Sudden Death" and "NWO" since those all have their own pages - I tried to cut it down to the more basic stuff). I didn't touch the "Odd Occurrences" section though. I would like to further discuss that first.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Ok, I'll get on this over the next few days.

As for the reliable sources,

Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles (bravewords.com) is a prominent Canadian hard rock/heavy metal news site
Heavyhell.com I believe was cited only for an interview with Dave Mustaine or one of the other members
Sonicexcess.com was cited for the same reason - interview with Mustaine or one of the other members
Awayteam I guess was cited for an interview with Chris Broderick (I don't remember adding or even seeing that source though - I'll have to check it)
Rocklineradio is the website of a prominent American hard rock radio show, Rockline, that does interviews with prominent rock/metal musicians. I think I cited it for an interview with Mustaine that they did
heavymetal.about.com was only cited for a review - if you want, I'll just remove that one
cd.co.jp - I actually thought I removed that one already. Gonna remove it now.

I'll try to work on the prose a bit too, but I'm a bit busy with non-wikipedia stuff right now. Thanks for pointing the stuff out.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I got some of the immediate things changed, but I'll be back to work on other issues. Wanted to at least get some things taken care of though.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. I don't like this quote how it's standing as a mere sentence, without integrated anywhere: "They're looking at November 1st. I don't know if it's supposed to be the 1st or the 31st for the release date, cuz [sic] they're trying to get us to do a live performance some place, for this release."

I added a small intro to that sentence to lead into the quote. The quote still makes up most of the sentence though--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last two paragraphs in the first section, they are about the artwork, but the name of the section is "Writing and recording". So either split and create a new section, or rewrite the header into, eg "Writing, recording and artwork".

Done thanks for pointing that out. Would have taken me a long while to catch that one--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a good article ♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 14:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pass I think this article meets the Good Article criteria. The album was released in November 1, 2011, two months passed away. The article adequately informs the reader of anything important about this album. If there will be more information available, it can be added anytime. Good work! ♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 17:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]