Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Slayer

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

Slayer

I've been working on this article for roughly two months. It's had three peer-reviews, GA review and is currently rated A-class. Along the way i asked for a number of users opinions and have dealt with all the issues raised. It previously looked like this and I believe it's ready for FAC. If you have any concerns i will fix them ASAP. Thanks M3tal H3ad 02:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments as I go. These are not all things that must be fixed for me to support, just my disorganized thoughts as I looked at the article.
- Might consider referencing the "the heaviest album of all time" claim in the intro sentence... or attributing it, or leaving it out if adding this extra information seems superfluous. I realize it's referenced properly further down, but just putting it there in the intro without any attribution seems a tad problematic.
- "with sales peaking over four million" is a bit awkward in the intro. "which have sold over four million copies in total" might be better? I dunno. I just think the verb "peaking" is being used incorrectly there.
- The controversy section is excellent.
- My only real problem aside from referencing is with appeal to non-metal fans. I wouldn't call myself a true Slayer fan but I do own two albums (take a wild guess which two...), yet I find the history section a bit tedious. A dedicated section on something along the lines of musical style, innovations, fan following, reputation, relationship to other bands... I can see that being interesting. I don't really expect that to happen unless it existed in a past revision and can be cobbled back together or something, but I think it would add to the article if it could be written at some point.
Reference checks: (just checked 5-10 references at random)
- Source (AMG bio) cited for the claim "[combining] the imagery of Venom and Mercyful Fate, and the speed and aggression of hardcore punk" does not mention Venom, Mercyful Fate or hardcore punk.
- "employed as a respiratory therapist" isn't backed up by the source cited
- The other references I looked at all checked out. But in general the referencing does seem a bit web-heavy... and a lot of stuff is cited second hand (e.g. the "heaviest album" is referenced to a BBC story that mentions the magazine story in question).
In summary, I don't support or oppose this at this time. It certainly has a lot of promise and a lot of work has been put into it. --W.marsh 16:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all, except the reference needed for the imagery, I'll see what i can do regarding a new section. Thanks for the comments M3tal H3ad 00:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, took about 2 hours added a "fued" and influence" section adding 7,500 bytes to it. Thanks for the comments again. M3tal H3ad 02:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm really impressed. Count me as a support if the last referencing issue is fixed. The recent additions, I think, really help this article rise up towards what featured status is for a band article. --W.marsh 15:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new sections need work. The "Influence" section reads like a bunch of labels and achievement while the latter needs should explain the period of the feud, rather than treating it like a "current" one. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the years for the fueds, re-worded some influence and added a new section "style". I also removed the imagery sentence as i could'nt find a reference, i merged that paragraph and re-worded it. M3tal H3ad 01:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The current history section sounds like it needs to be spun off into a daughter article.--Rmky87 19:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with the size. It's 51KB, 1 KB over and that's including references, so it's something like 44KB. I've never seen a band article with a separate article for history. M3tal H3ad 03:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I believe the issues raised in the Biography Review have been addressed.--Yannismarou 17:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It was a pretty good article already, and I think the additions now made bring it up to featured quality. Trebor 23:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support well written/referenced. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 13:43, 19 January 2007 (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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.