Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cavalera Conspiracy/archive1

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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:43, 5 December 2009 [1].

---

Cavalera Conspiracy

Nominator(s): Cannibaloki 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Cavalera Conspiracy/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because... After follow the rituals presented at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, I decided to nominate this article. To reach here, this article passed for a GA review (conducted by user:Maclean25), and then a peer review, where it received a copy-edit, done by user:Finetooth. I am willing to fix [any?] possible problems that the reviewers find.--Cannibaloki 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

• No dab links or dead external links.
• All images have alt text. Make sure that the text would be obvious from seeing the image alone—I think "four members of a musical ensemble", for example, should be changed (they could be from different groups or even all solo, unless we read the article!). How about "Photomontage of four male musicians. Each man appears in a separate column." for the first alt?
• Ref dates are consistent Day Month Year.

--an odd name 17:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed the text, take a look please. Is in this way?--Cannibaloki 19:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. --an odd name 20:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• OpposeWeak support - 'weak' mainly because of my unfamiliarity with the sources and content in this area. If this article did not represent a comprehensive survey of the relevant literature, I wouldn't know :-) Suggest the second para of the lead be shortened to stick to major facts. Otherwise now looking OK i think. hamiltonstone (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

:I haven't generally commented on articles about bands / singers etc, so this is not input from a topic expert at all. I thought this article appeared unbalanced. Entire article text is under the heading 'History'. That looks wrong, and not everything is historical material. The article needs a separate section on musical style etc. Also a section on critical reception, of which there appears to be nothing at all. The article's entire content on impact, style, lyrics, etc appears to be as follows: "...peaking at number 72 on the Billboard 200, selling more than 9,000 copies during its first week in stores.[7] The album blends elements of punk rock and hardcore punk, Sepultura's thrash metal of Arise (1991) and the groove metal of Chaos A.D. (1993),[1][6][8] with its lyrical concept taken from movies Apocalypse Now, City of God, A Clockwork Orange, and La Haine." Surely more would be needed than this for an FA on a band?

The content that has been written is generally well prepared and referenced, but I would not have seen this as close to FA at present. Happy to have a discussion here, though. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Doing... Please, next time give examples (ie. like article X or Y).--Cannibaloki 15:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Agreeing with your comment above, I expanded the article into a new section entitled Style, lyrics and reception.--Cannibaloki 06:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Pleased to see the style etc section introduced. That's better. More comments:

• Is the guy's name Igor or Iggor? Both spellings are used on different occasions.

• Since 2006 is Iggor. Anyway, I chose Igor for consistency.--Cannibaloki 19:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Lead needs to be more balanced - too much space taken up on formation of the band; no space devoted to critical reception.

• The space was created, now we have a place for devotion. :-) --Cannibaloki 19:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Do you think material on sales and chart performance should be udner "reception" rather than "Infiktd" subsection of the history? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Looks good to me on the Inflikted section.--Cannibaloki 19:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. I need to come back another time and read through the whole thing, to see if my more general objection should be struck. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image review - Images check out. Awadewit (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, I think there's a problem with the images. The montage includes images sourced from File:Cavalera Conspiracy 004.jpg, File:Cavalera Conspiracy 005.jpg and File:Cavalera Conspiracy 013.jpg. According to the tags on Commons, the files were taken from a Flickr account operated by Flickr user Eurockéennes de Belfort. All three images - here, here and here are clearly marked as copyrighted (as are all of the Flickr user's submissions). This looks like a Commons error, and I'll be tagging those as copyvios, but the upshot is that File:Cavalera Conspiracy.jpg is also non-free and will be tagged as well. The image is therefore, even if transferred to Wikipedia, non-free and speedy deletable as a copyvio as well as failing WP:NFCC#1 as the images of living people are replaceable. Black Kite 18:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps the Flickr user has changed the license.--Cannibaloki 19:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
      • If Flickr has a "View licensing history" feature that illustrates past license changes, this would be less of a problem. (Of course, the Flickr user should be asked to clarify or relicense.) --an odd name 19:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Possibly, but given that the images in the Flickr collection - which is run by the Eurorockennes festival - were not taken by one person, but a collection of photographers (some professional), I would be very surprised if any of them were ever anything but copyrighted. This isn't the first time - by a long way - that Flickr images that have been marked as "checked" on Commons have turned out to be copyrighted, though. I note that the images were never checked by a human, but by a bot, which has caused issues in the past. Black Kite 19:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I just assumed that the licenses had changed since the check - I was unaware that there had been problems with Flickr checking on Commons. I had been relying on that for image checks. Could you please leave a detailed explanation on my talk page of the problems with Flickr checking? And thank you for bringing this up. Awadewit (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
          • I will remove the images, and replace by those available on Commons.--Cannibaloki 20:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Source comments Everything just about fine. If you're going to include work and publisher, do it for all or none. As it stands, some are non-uniform with others. RB88 (T) 23:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Now, using only the field "work".--Cannibaloki 02:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose This article may have received a copyedit, but it is badly in need of another one. There is an improper comma in the very first sentence. (Can you find it?) There is a major failure of explication in the very first paragraph. (What contract with Max Cavalera's wife? Was she the band's agent? Manager? Lawyer? Promoter?) There is a substantial failure of focus in that very same sentence: This is an article about Cavalera Conspiracy, not Sepultura. Why do we need to know in the lead of an article on Cavalera Conspiracy that Sepultura broke up "after a sold-out show at London's Brixton Academy"? ("After a London concert" or even nothing at all would be sufficient.) Please, go to the Guild, get a serious copyeditor to do a serious copyedit on this article, and I'll be happy to revisit. DocKino (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.