Talk:Marilyn Manson (band)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 17:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

A couple of initial comments:

• There's one deadlink, footnote 342: this now leads to a recipe page.
• There's also a harv error on Baddeley in the "Further reading" section; you can see harv errors by installing this script.
• The article is very long. I'm aware that they have a long history, but per WP:SUMMARY, I think we should consider letting some of the detail be discussed in the subsidiary articles. I don't have any particular suggestions for cuts to make, but may comment as I read through if I spot anything that doesn't seem necessary at the higher level article.

I'll go through and do a detailed review, but wanted to post these notes here first. |Mike Christie contribs - library) 17:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: To address your first concern, ref 342 leads to an article about Gary Numan; you must be referring to a different ref. To address your final concern, I would encourage you to read the (featured) articles for Lady Gaga and Katy Perry. Both of these articles are considerably more detailed than the article for Marilyn Manson, and those singers became part of the music industry at least a dozen years after the formation of Marilyn Manson.--MagicatthemovieS) 17:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It's 356, not 342; I hadn't realized that the Checklinks tool doesn't always preserve numbering. Re the length, I'm not necessarily going to suggest any cuts at all, but I do think it's something that should be considered when an article gets this long. As far as text is concerned, the Lady Gaga article is 6,975 words of prose; Katy Perry is 7,268 words, and this article is 9,717 words, so it's quite a bit longer than either of those. (I use this script for page size.) Any cut material doesn't have to be lost -- it can go in a subarticle. Anyway, let's wait and see; I may not find anything I think is worth cutting when I read through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I fixed the ref 356 problem; I found an archived version of the article.--MagicatthemovieS) 17:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll copyedit as I go; please revert if I make a mess of anything.

• Everything in the lead should be in the article too, so can we mention "the name of each member was created by combining the first name of an iconic female sex symbol and the last name of an iconic serial killer" in the history section? It's referred to later in the article, but it would be sensible to include it at the point where the names are first chosen.
• That December, he met Scott Putesky, who proposed that the two form a band together after reading some lyrics and poems written by the singer: needs a bit of rewording; we haven't said Warner is the singer for the proposed band yet.
• who bestowed Manson with the title: this is an odd use of "bestowed"; one normally bestows X on Y, not Y with X.
• which would prove to be their first legitimate hit: suggest cutting "legitimate".
• and made a fairly major impact on the alternative rock charts: vague; I think you could cut the whole clause, but if not, can we be more specific?
• It was also confirmed that Antichrist Superstar would be the first installment in a concept album trilogy, and that the release of a follow-up was imminent, with both The Smashing Pumpkins frontman Billy Corgan and The Dust Brothers rumored to be involved in the production of the as-yet-untitled album: this looks cuttable to me; information about what was predicted as the next release back then is not really critical for the summary article. That would require a little rewording at the start of the next section to explain "triptych".

  You've cut this, but I think we need a bit more either in the next paragraph or somewhere in this section. If we can say when it became clear that the three albums were conceptually connected, let's do that; if it's not clear when that moment is, I'd put the information in under Antichrist Superstar, but without the "prediction" language. Perhaps "The band considered Antichrist Superstar, along with the next two albums, to form a conceptual trilogy", and if possible give a definition of the concept in their minds. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Immediately prior to this, Lowery had been a member of former Judas Priest vocalist Rob Halford's 2wo, who were themselves signed to Nothing Records: Do we need this? Just say "guitarist John Lowery of 2wo" in the previous sentence.
• I don't follow the sequence of events relating to the 2001 Ozzfest. Why did they refuse to take part? And if they weren't going to take part, why did religious groups protest?
• Not a big deal, but if you are looking for things to trim, exact details of releases aren't that critical to this level of narrative. For example, we don't really need to know that Guns, God and Government - Live in LA was released on November 17 -- the year is good enough -- nor that it was released on Blu-ray.
• Suggest cutting the deals of the fight with John 5 in 2003; again this should be in the subsidiary articles. If you keep it, I'd move it up to the start of that paragraph, so it doesn't read as a flashback.
• longtime keyboardist Madonna Wayne (Pogo) Gacy: I assume "Pogo" is a nickname, but this the only time it's mentioned. If it's relevant, explain it earlier, otherwise cut it.
• with a remix of the track by Yeah Yeah Yeahs guitarist Nick Zinner appearing on Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock: suggested cutting this.
• In March 2008, Twiggy stated through his Myspace blog that the band had begun work on their seventh studio album: as above, why do we care now what was reported as a future event then?
• Why is there a "[sic]" in the quote from Reznor? I don't see anything that looks like a grammatical error.
• At the beginning of 2010, Vrenna said that they were "talking and coming up with concepts" for their upcoming studio album: I think you could cut this.
• The CMYK coloring was also notable: I don't follow this. The colouring of the logo?
• , whilst indicating that production of their eighth studio album was "largely completed": suggest cutting this.
• Any reason why you use single quotes for quotations and double quotes for song titles? There's no need for these to be different. Not an issue for GA, just curious.
• Marilyn Manson are also confirmed to play at both the Mexican and Japanese dates of Slipknot's festival Knotfest: If this refers to 2016, as it appears to, it shouldn't read as if it's describing a future event.

  I see you fixed the tense, but given that we're in the past tense, shouldn't we say what they did, rather than what they were expected to do? If they appeared at both dates of Knotfest, let's say so; if we can't be sure they did, I'd drop this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Until his departure in 2002,[290] Twiggy was their chief musical contributor: we've just said Berkowitz was the main musical contributor until 1996, so I assume this means "After Berkowitz's departure..."; it should be clearer.
• Manson heads the direction of the band's sound, who has been influenced by: "who" isn't right here; I think it refers to Manson, so perhaps make it a semicolon instead of a comma, and then "he has been...".
• The first paragraph of "Impact and legacy" says three videos received five nominations, and then lists the awards for two of those three. Can this be shortened to eliminate the repetition?
• Coloradoan politicians such as Governor Bill Owens and Republican Representative Tom Tancredo accused Manson of promoting "hate, violence, death, suicide, drug use and the attitudes and actions of the Columbine High School killers," despite later reports that neither Harris or Klebold were fans. "Despite" is not the right word here; you say it was only later that it was reported that Harris and Klebold were not fans, so Owens and Tancredo didn't make their accusations despite the reports.
• while steadfastly maintaining: you might cut "steadfastly"; it's something of a value judgement and as such should not be in Wikipedia's voice.
• Footnotes 9 & 304 have "p." instead of "pp." for multiple pages.

That's it for a first pass. I see you've fixed quite a few of these already; I'll go back through and strike the resolved issues, either tonight or tomorrow. I'll also do a pass through the sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie:I think that I've addressed all of your concerns in some way at this point.--MagicatthemovieS) 17:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Strikes above; I've left one more comment. You still have the harv error on Baddeley, and there is now also a harv error on footnote 9. I'll try to get to a sources review today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Here are some comments on the sources and citations.

• You have inconsistent date formats ("October 6, 2006" along with "2016-06-25". This is not an issue for GA; I mention it in case you're thinking of going to FAC.
• Two harv errors, as mentioned above.
• Footnote 39 points at an alt.music post, which is not a reliable source, and it doesn't appear to support the given statement: "A seven-month headlining tour followed, during which the band began to debut new material".
• Footnote 259 is a link to YouTube, which is OK for the information cited, but the publisher information is missing from the citation. Not required for GA, just FYI.
• What makes the following sites reliable? I'm not asserting they're not reliable, but if I'm listing it here it's because I can't see evidence that they are. See here for some helpful notes. Sorry about the long list; if I were more familiar with the genre I would probably be aware of some of these already.
  • spookykids.net -- appears to be a fan site
  • blankmaninc.com -- per the disclaimer page it accepted user submissions, for example
  • providermodule.com -- appears to be a fan site
  • blistering.com
  • metalinsider.net
  • metalsucks.net - on the list
  • metalinjection.net
  • undercover.fm
  • thefifthcolumnnews.com
  • pinkisthenewblog.com
  • basetendencies.com as the archive of Ground Control Magazine -- for the website the question is whether it can be trusted to reliably archive the text; the underlying source in question is the magazine, which I am asking about as well
  • theprp.com
  • acharts.co
  • rockmusicstar.com -- appears to be a fan site
  • reflectionsofdarkness.com -- appears to be a fan site
  • crypticrock.com
  • rockrevoltmagazine.com
  • spookhouse.net
  • stereoboard.com
  • swaves.com
  • popstache.com
  • collectivelifestyle.com
  • alternativenation.net
  • 411mania.com -- per their about page the contributions are by independent bloggers
  • collectivelifestyle.com which appears to be what nyrock.com redirects to
  • vintagevinylnews.com
  • filmthreat.com (cited via IMDB) Film Threat is reliable.--MagicatthemovieS) 17:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

    The problem is that because it's via IMDB I can't tell the date of the original article. Film Threat was reliable for a while, but was not originally and is not currently; it hasn't had an uninterrupted history of being an edited source. Do you have any way to tell when the review in question originally appeared in Film Threat? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

    I removed the link and the info derived from it

    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

  • noisey.vice.com Noisey is a subdivision of Vice (magazine)--MagicatthemovieS) 17:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

  • bloody-disgusting.com Bloody Disgusting is a site dedicated to horror fiction. I have seen it cited in multiple GAs.--MagicatthemovieS) 17:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • habermas.org
  • musicfeeds.com.au
  • thefrontrowreport.com
  • vitainmusica.com
  • underthegunreview.net
  • bust.com on the list
  • highsnobiety.com Reputable fashion publication..--MagicatthemovieS) 17:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

That's all of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Would you be willing to tell me where those sources are cited so I can delete them if I find that they are unreliable sources? Thanks :)--MagicatthemovieS) 17:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

All I'd do to find them is open up the article in source editing mode and do a search for the site name. If you can't find any of them, let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I've seen MetalSucks and Metal Injection before. The former is definitely reliable; I think the latter is, but I'm not 100%. It's something I've used before. Danny from IP 104.39.26.229 (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I struck one above and left a comment on another. I see Red marquis has cut quite a few citations, but I'm concerned that they did not alter the underlying text -- surely those citations were used to support something, and if they're going to be removed some text is presumably going to have to change too. For example, That April, Manson expressed interest in releasing the record in a different way from previous ones has lost its citation, and so has which would prove to be their first hit; I didn't check every edit but it can't be OK just to cut the citations. Re highsnobiety.com, it's not enough to say "reputable"; we need something that shows that. The link I left above has a good short list of ways to do that. You know, this has to have come up before; do the music WikiProjects keep a list of reliable sources with documentation on why they can be regarded as reliable? That would be a resource that reviews like this could use. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I found the list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources

Thanks; good find! I've posted a query at the WikiProject talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Red marquis' edits, I believe I've rectified the issue of removing sources but not removing the corresponding text: [1], [2]. The majority of their other edits dealt primarily with removing superfluous/excess sources: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Regarding this one, I believe the next reference (Biography.com) can still support the claim that "Sweet Dreams" was their first legitimate hit: since it goes on to say that "The song's music video was placed in heavy rotation on MTV", their first to do so, etc. Another one of their edits, this one, was merely replacing the Provider Module reference with the direct magazine reference, which I think is preferable anyway. I don't foresee there being another issue here. Regards. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS: I'm planning to go search the talk archives of the Albums WikiProject for more information about the sources; I'll post updates there and eventually back here if there is consensus. That's likely to be a slow process, I'm afraid. In the meantime, can you make sure that the cites removed by Red Marquis did not leave anything uncited? I gave a couple of examples above but please check everything they deleted; in most cases they changed no text when they removed the cite, which is worrying. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS:: Per the discussions at WT:WikiProject Albums, I'll accept MetalSucks, Metal Injection, Blistering, MusicFeeds, the PRP, Metal Insider, and Bloody Disgusting as OK. The rest I think need to be removed, along with the material they source, unless you have additional evidence of reliability. I'll also say, in case you're considering taking this article to FAC, that the ones I'm accepting here will get scrutinized again at FAC and may not be regarded as reliable. For GA I'm willing to take the consensus of the WikiProject, but that won't be regarded as definitive at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Just to be clear, I currently have no plans to make anything a featured article. Also, how do you open an article in source editing mode? I'm sorry, I've gotten ten articles to GA status and I've never been asked to do this before.

@Mike Christie: I just removed all sketchy sources. Woohoo! The Knotfest issue has also been cleared up. I'm not sure what you want with the "triptych" issue; perhaps you could edit that part of the page yourself if that's not presumptuous?--MagicatthemovieS) 17:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The whole of the second paragraph of the 'Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death) (2000–02)' section is dedicated to explaining the content of the band's triptych. I get what you're saying Mike Christie, but it'd be very difficult to explain the triptych before-the-fact (ie, in the 'Antichrist Superstar (1996–97)' section). I mean, I can't think of any way to discuss Mechanical Animals and Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death) in the Antichrist Superstar section without completely destroying the flow of the whole article. I think a better solution may be to just remove all mention of the triptych from before the second paragraph of Holy Wood. What do you think? Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The triptych sentence seems OK now. I take your point, but for now we're OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Re the sources, it looks much better now. I still see references to a couple -- can you check to see if these need to be removed too?

• nyrock.com
• musicfeeds.au.com
• vitainmusica.com
• bust.com

@MagicatthemovieS: to answer a couple of questions from above: by "edit source" I just meant to edit the page. If you don't have the visual editor turned on, you're probably editing with the usual source editor, and you can do Ctrl-F (for PCs) searches to find text strings in the article inside the editing window. As for not having to do this: I'm basing my request to remove these sources on criterion 2b of the good article criteria, which specifies that only reliable sources can be used. If you've had good articles passed that included these sources, the reviewer didn't really do a full GA review. It's one of the more tedious parts of some reviews, and I think some reviewers do skimp on it.

Once these last two or three are taken care of I think this is pretty much ready for promotion. Thanks for all the work you've done on this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: All four problematic sources have been removed & replaced with good sources, specifically Rolling Stone, The Riverfront Times, and Variety, save for one of the musicfeeds.au.com sources, which had info which was contained in the sources surrounding it and was simply removed, and the other musicfeeds.au.com source, which was removed along with the info derived from it. Thanks for all of your hard work! --MagicatthemovieS) 17:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

With the unreliable sources removed we're good to go. Passing GA; congratulations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)