Wikipedia:Featured article review/Marilyn Manson (band)/archive1

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

The article was removed 09:37, 19 February 2007.

Marilyn Manson (band)

Review commentary

Messages left at Rock music, Biography, Keepsleeping (the last after having to wade through a redirect to Goatse.cx). Jeffpw 21:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this article is it needs inline citations, especially concerning Manson's influences on each album etc. LuciferMorgan 20:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Problematic references: Reported on November 7, 1997 is not a reference, and Usenet is not a reliable source. Last access dates are missing, all biblio info is not provided for all sources, links are not expanded, references need attention throughout. Extensive copyedit issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The November 7 reference is definitely not a reliable source, as it's just an archived fan discussion. There were formally published reports into the Senator hearings, so these could be used. To be honest I think there's too much work that needs doing for it to escape FARC. If anyone wants to work on it though I'll chip in - I own Manson's autobiography so could find specific page numbers, and a book concerning Manson's influences which could help as concerns the comments made about each album. LuciferMorgan 03:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Curiously the heading on the archived FAC nom was pointing to Marilyn Manson the singer, rather than the band. There is obvously a citation issue, in paticular in the "Composition and songwriting" section, which makes a series of bold unsupported statments, eg "sharp, and occasionally inventive wordplay" (the insertion of 'occasionally' here is nicely wry). That said, most are (imo) correct, and there are a tonne of web sources out there if someone was willing to put in the work. There are some structural issues, the "Celebritarian rising" section is comprised mainly of one and two sentence paragraphs. Holding the samples in a dedicated section undermines the stated fair use rationall that the article "specifically discusses the song from which this sample was taken". The prose aren't bad, I think the article could be saved with a little effort. + Ceoil 20:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Issues in prose from the start:
"Marilyn Manson is a shock rock band based in Los Angeles, California, in the United States.Frequently termed "shock rock", the group's sound... - shock rock twice in two sentences (and both wikilinked).
The name of each band member was originally created - "originally" is redundant.
He has been careless enough to behave in such a fashion that his wife (see Dita Von Teese) has divorced him - careless enough, really? Trebor 23:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, 'careless' is indeed a very stange way of putting it. From what I know, probably 'stoned' would be a better word. But I take your point, tidying up needed here on prose. + Ceoil 23:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it was added somewhat tongue-in-cheek; it made me smile when I first saw it. Trebor 23:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manson himself is a very amusing and dry character; I'd have no problem retaining this kind of subtle humour. + Ceoil 00:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally prefer sticking to whatever facts are available. Also, I don't see what relevance Manson's divorce has in the article - this article is on the band Marilyn Manson. The person Marilyn Manson, aka. Brian Warner, has an article of his own. LuciferMorgan 20:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, issues unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b), and citations (1c). Marskell 12:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Fails 1c. LuciferMorgan 23:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove 1c + Ceoil 20:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, fails 1c, 1a. Trebor 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per 1c and 1a. — Deckill er 04:25, 18 February 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.