Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metallica

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:51, 21 January 2008.

Metallica

This article has been completely rewritten in the past month and previously looked like this. It has had two peer reviews, 1 & 2, which proved helpful and several users have looked at the article. I believe FA is the next step and will be here to deal with or comment on any concerns. Thankyou. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I am returning after a 1 year hiatus from Wikipedia and I have seen a vast improvement in this article since the last time I read it. Good article. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - An utterly excellent article. One minor note - I would like to see some extra audio samples, and perhaps they could all be placed together in the one box? — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added one sample to help the reader understand the change in musical direction with the 1991 album and combined the samples, looks better now. Thanks. M3tal H3ad (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, much better. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nice work. But, shouldn't all the references be listed in the "References" section instead of only referred to in the "notes" section? No big deal, though. Cla68 (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is done, AFAIK the references section usually goes under the "notes" (although I'm fine with it either way). — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Include a pic of Hetfield, all other members have their pictures. The lead is ordered weird - first para is band-members (OK). Second para starts with a mention a 1991 album then goes back to a 1986 album (weird), then talks about their releases and "big four", and ends with the Napster controversy. The third para talks about their sales, while the fourth is about style. I think a much more straightforward and clear approach would be to model it based on the Radiohead lead, i.e. 1st para members then paras 2 and 3 going strictly chronologically about their history (notable album releases and corresponding style, their response, and also Napster). Also include a fourth para with the "big four" statement, sales figures and a quote from a critic about their impact. indopug (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a picture of Hetfield from flickr, might take a few days for the user to respond. Very good point with the lead, I've done my best here. I left the first paragraph alone, i incorporated the style paragraph in chronological order with the band's releases for two paragraphs, and the fourth paragraph is sales, influence, big four etc. Better? M3tal H3ad (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um. indopug (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image has a watermark and i highly doubt the user owns copyright. I requested a better picture. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Been reading bit by bit for a few days, and see no problems. Great work as usual. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support great article, illustrated, detailed and referenced. I could mention other Metallica sound samples here in Wikipedia, but with the article being 73kb long, three seem enough. igordebraga ≠ 19:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support conditional to getting one image (the cover) for each album.Nergaal (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use one image for each album, since this is against Wikipedia's fair use policy - please read WP:FU. LuciferMorgan (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

While there's different philosophies on how much to cite (if anything at all) in the lead section, you might want to cite any numerical figures there.
Any idea when James and Lars saw Cliff Burton play for the first time? Exact date is not necessary; the month and year would be fine.

Added the Fall of 1982

Any chart placings or sales figures available for the first few albums should be included.

Don't know how i missed this, added Billboard 200 positions for Kill 'Em All and Ride the Lightning

"Metallica embraced the mainstream music world with the debut music video for the song 'One'" sounds too POV, and I'm not sure if it's backed up by a source. Just keep it factual and straightforward: simply say Metallica made its first music video.

Changed to 'Metallica released its debut music video for the song "One"'

"Metallica (also known as 'The Black Album') was remixed three times, release was stalled for almost a year, cost $1 million, and ended three marriages." is a rather awkward sentence.

Moved the mention of release being stalled to the next sentence

Instead of using the Load cover, why not scan a picture of the band from the inside of the booklet to demonstrate their new look? Also, a soundclip from either of the Load-era albums would be appropriate here.

I Don't own Load and there doesn't seem to be anything on the net

Mentioning the Black Album's diamond status in the Garage Days Revisited paragraph doesn't quite work. More appropriate in the Black Album paragraph, or simply cut and pasted to that article.

Removed

Can you give a more specific timeframe as to when Newsted left the band, or possibly instead mention when his depature was announced?

January 17, 2001

"Hetfield searched for volunteers at the last minute to replace Ulrich — Slayer drummer Dave Lombardo, and Slipknot drummer Joey Jordison volunteered". Rephrase.

Split into two sentences

As time goes by, the use of exact dates in the "Ninth studio album" section will be less necessary. Start trying to determine now if you need to write full dates in certain places.

I removed two dates and shortened two. Information about pre-production and recording i want to keep until the album is released.

I'm still not convinced there needs to be a separate section devoted to the feud with Dave Mustaine. After all, I've heard other people say crap Metallica (I know Slayer has). Compare that section to how the Napster debacle is treated in the article, which is a far more notable feud. Work what you can into the band history section, and move everything else into the Mustaine, Hetfield, Ulrich, and Some Kind of Monster articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the third paragraph to Some Kind of Monster. Removed Hetfield's opinion on Mustaine, how Mustaine didn't want to be kicked out from the band, gold and platinum record mention completely from the article. Moved a paragraph showing Mustaine's disliking to Hammett to the Early Years section, also included "The Four Horsemen" and "Mechanix", and how Mustaine believes Hammett ripped him off playing his leads. I actually thinks it's better without the section so thanks for the comments. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Legacy for now

Legacy section needs to be underlinked - korn, thrash metal, tribute album.

Done

Why link "big four" when it only goes to the thrash metal article?

Removed

one of the "big four" of thrash metal, with Slayer, Anthrax, and Megadeth. - add "along".

Done

can "old Metallica" be "earlier metallica" without the quotes?

Changed to early Metallica releases

I think the entire "best album/song ever" mentions can be removed. Album accolades are generally missing in other bands' articles.

I see no reason to remove them

Aren't there peer praise instead of from mainly not-very-popular bands? God Forbid, Adema, Ill Nino, Avenged Sevenfold--who?

Will look for Machine Head/Slayer/Megadeth/Anthrax quotes

Try Alice in Chains too. indopug (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added Godsmack, Trivium, and Machine Head. Will continue looking. M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is walk of fame (1999) after MTV icon (2003)?

Switched

Include some sweeping quotes from RS, AMG etc on their influence.

Will do so

Added

LOL, Simon & Schuster are the publishers not the writers. indopug (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i just managed to change it after almost dying of laughter myself. M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

do all those tribute albums need to be mentioned? Why is the kerrang tribute so detailed?

No, and because it shows which bands were influenced by Metallica

You misunderstand; I meant remove "Metal Militia: A Tribute to Metallica, "Say Your Prayers, Little One": The String Quartet Tribute to Metallica, A Metal Tribute to Metallica, and Tribute to the Four Horsemen." What do those names add to the article? indopug (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

indopug (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will fix the remaining things up in an hour or two. M3tal H3ad (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support -this is well written article that made sense to me (and I know nothing about the band) Jimfbleak (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.