Talk:Trivium (band)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawl (talk · contribs) 12:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article as a Good Article nominee. — Za wl 12:09, 23 January 2018 (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.	—
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead is too short.
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.	—
	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).	Unreliable sources are used.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There are many unsourced claims.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	—
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).	—
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	—
	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.	—
	7. Overall assessment.	As noted in the comments below, there are many issues.

Reviewer comments

The first citation in the lead which goes to a Facebook post is not relevant to the text. It appears to be promotional as it tells people to buy their product. It does not provide a description of the band like how it's written in the lead. "The band has sold over one million albums worldwide" is supported by a self-published primary source. This may be considered original research and is not suitable.

You misunderstand the purpose of the Facebook link. It is to prove the band was established in 1999, and by using this we have official word from the band. And the second ref is not considerable as original research, but you're right, it is in fact a self-published primary source. I replaced it with a new one.

The word latest is not appropriate as it is a variable and should be replaced with a fixed value such as eighth. The comma should be removed after the period at "entered a studio to record its debut album, Ember to Inferno.,". LetsSingIt may be a website with user-generated content and would generally be unreliable. "Trivium also played at Road Rage 2005 [15]", the space between the citation and 2005 should be removed for tidiness. "Later in 2007 the band received their first Gold Record in the UK for more than 100,000 Sales", this is only supported by the record label's website. There should be a reliable source to verify this claim.
The album was also recognized as the "Album of the Year" by Kerrang! magazine - this is unsourced. Trivium was named the best live band of 2006 at the Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards - not in source. Recording ended June 2008 (in?). "The group will forgo the complex epic compositions, tricked-out leads and seven-string guitars that characterized its past two albums. Trivium will take an approach similar to that of its second album Ascendancy (2005) by using uncluttered riffs, Drop C# tuning, and more straightforward solos" - this is taken directly from the Guitar World source, which constitutes both a copyright violation and plagiarism.
Their song 'Strife', the double quotation mark is preferred. "On July 17, 2015, the band launched a website "snow.trivium.org" teasing the new album" - it's not a new website, it's just a subdomain of their original website. "They also changed their Facebook profile to the same picture as on the website" - is this even necessary? It's not in the provided source so it may be considered OS. "Corey Beaulieu defended the band's decision regarding changing drummers in an interview", this statement is supported by a Wordpress source, which in general is unreliable.
Trivium has been described as heavy metal,[66] metalcore,[67][68][69] thrash metal,[70][71][72][73] progressive metal,[74][75][66][76] melodic death metal[74] and groove metal.[77][78] - WP:OVERKILL.

Genres are typically exceptions to overkill. Maybe like five or six is excessive, but it's not uncommon to see three or four lumped into one musical style section. See A Perfect Circle, for example. However, some of those don't even look reliable to me so I'll probably cut some anyway.

In the Influence section, there is name-dropping of tons of people, which should be trimmed to include just 2-3, for the sake of credibility. Much of the Lyrical themes section are unsourced. Only the last line is relevant to the source. The Awards and nominations section, which is a significant part of the article, is totally unsourced.
The lead is too short and does not summarize the entire article in a sufficient length. As this is an article with about 20,000 characters, there should be at least 2-3 paragraphs per MOS:LEADLENGTH.
Trivium EP - a redirect which redirects to this article is linked in the second paragraph of the Formation and Ember to Inferno (1999–2004) section. It should be delinked to remove the redirect circle.
Web sources include the following:

au.music.ign.com
blabbermouth.net
community.hottopic.com
decibelmagazine.com
distortedsoundmag.com
entertaimnet.wordpress.com
facebook.com
fourteeng.net
guitarworld.com
heavymetal.about.com
i.imgur.com
itunes.apple.com
kerrang.com
knac.com
letssingit.com
lordsofmetal.nl
loudwire.com
metalhammer.co.uk
metalinjection.net
metalinside.de
metalinsider.net
metalunderground.com
metalvoid.com
moderndrummer.com
news.spotify.com
ozzfest.com
phoenixnewtimes.com
roadrunnerrecords.com
rollingstone.com
soundwavefestival.com
spinitloud.com
sputnikmusic.com
stylusmagazine.com
teamrock.com
theprp.com
thoughtco.com
thrashhits.com
triviumworld.com
ultimate-guitar.com
wacken.com

Primary sources such as the label's and band's websites are too many. While they may be useful for verification purposes, they make an article look unconvincing. Citation 86 is exhaustively long and should be trimmed. Proper author attributions should be added to the citations and single-purpose references such as this, which is used to prove the existence of the material it supports, shouldn't even be there. — Za wl 15:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zawl, I'm stunned you're generous enough to leave this on hold. The nominator's made one edit to the article and hasn't edited since nomination. I'd try to fix it, but will shortly have my hands full with Evanescence and have already volunteered to rescue two other nominations in review should they need it. If you decide to leave this open awhile I might attempt to fix it, but I don't know. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's my first GA review and the issues look like they can be fixed but just requires some effort. I'm leaving it open but if they're not solved in 7 days, it'll be failed. — Za wl 02:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, you should probably fail this. I see much bigger problems than what you've listed, and fixing those wouldn't be enough. The lead's incredibly short, there's a maintenance template in the article that's been there for two years (a quickfail criterion - while that one is no longer valid, a refimprove template above the whole article would be appropriate in its place), and various other unsourced content is littered in the article. A rescue mission would likely take >7 days, because some of it needs expansion and/or rewriting too. I'd have never nominated the article in this condition. Around the point of In Waves, the article's history starts to fall apart, and their style section is poor. I doubt I'll be able to find references and be able to distinguish what's fact and what's not in time, but I can try since my review's still waiting. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 16:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]