Self-nom. I've put a lot of work into this article, with the help of several other editors and a peer review. In my opinion it's a comprehensive article on the history and impact of a popular and controversial band, and I think it's ready to go through the Featured Article process. --keepsleepingsay what 01:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralObjection -- article's content is almost entirely in the "History" section. The History is important, but an encyclopedic article should separate different aspects of the subject for reference. The current article reads more like a biography than an encyclopedia article. If I wanted to know about what Marilyn Manson's music is like, or about the controversies which have surrounded them, or another specific topic, I would have to read through the entire article searching for relevant passages. I'm sure that all of the information you'd need is currently in the article, and it looks very well-researched. But the article should have separate sections for, at a minimum, something like "Music" and "Controversy / Media Reaction". -- Creidieki 05:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have added two new sections to the article: "Music and influences" and "Controversy and media reaction". They incorporate some information that was in the "History" section, making "History" less of a behemoth :) Are your objections satisfied? --keepsleepingsay what 21:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that these new additions are very well-structured, and the article looks a lot better. I'm afraid I don't know very much about this topic, and I'm reluctant to give a support vote without looking through the article more thoroughly; I can take another look at it later if you have trouble gathering the necessary number of support votes, but I don't expect you will. -- Creidieki 23:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd appreciate it if you did do that. I believe that a very important part of being a Featured Article is being easily understood and informative to a reader who isn't already familiar with the topic, so your vote of support would do a great deal to show that this article is (or isn't, as the case may be). --keepsleepingsay what 01:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I'll try. It'll probably be a day or two, I'm in the middle of gradschool apps at the moment. -- Creidieki 01:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak object -- This article covers the history very well, but I don't think it goes into nearly enough detail about the music. I'd be particularly interested to see some or all of: the lyrics and poetic structure, the themes addressed by the songs, the musical and chord structures of the songs, more detail about the instruments typically used in the band, how Marilyn Manson affected later bands. Some of these topics can be inferred from other sections of the article (the personnel section lists instruments, the controversy section talks about the lyrics some), but I think they should be explicitly discussed in the Music section.
My other comments aren't things that I feel strongly enough to object over, but that I wanted to mention: I had some trouble following this article while I was reading it. The paragraphs are very long, the sentences are long and complicated, and the language is sometimes grandiloquent or overly complicated. Stylistically, it often seemed more like an article in a music publication than a general-purpose encyclopedia article. Perhaps my difficulty in focus was just my ADHD acting up, so I don't want to object over that concern. I also would like to see things that were wikilinked in the introduction relinked in later sections, particularly the names of band members and other bands. And I think that statements about influences ("Manson had the desire to form a rock band...", "Late influences have come from the glam rock...") should ideally be footnoted, because of their analytic/semifactual nature.
I've beefed up "Musical style and influences" to include some discussion of songwriting, instrumentation, and lyrical content. I added those wikilinks and footnotes as well. Does the article address everything you'd like to see? --keepsleepingsay what 07:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- That's exactly the kind of information I was hoping for, and I'm happy to be able to support this article. The "Musical style and influences" section is a bit long with the addition, and it might be profitable to try to split it in two somehow. But I'm now happy with the article's content, and much happier with its structure. Good job. -- Creidieki 06:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. The article should be restructured into events rather than dates – someone should be able to find the details about Columbine (which incidentally should be mentioned in the lead) without having to know the year or search for it. Secondly, the references are not full enough - there are many opinions reported from various people that are not cited in any way. Finally, there are some parts of the lead (mention of their influences) that are not present in the main article. There are many positives about the article, but these three negatives stand out for me. violet/riga(t) 09:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the two new sections, I have restructured the "History" section into periods of time, described in the section heads, rather than just as dates. The elements you mention, like influences, are included in the new "Music and influences" paragraphs. I have tried to source every quote, either in an endnote or as a generalized reference. --keepsleepingsay what 21:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You've done some excellent work there! The references section does not fully match up with the main text (a pain, I know). One other point is that dates should really be fully wiki'd; 29 November2005 instead of 19 November 2005 (in order that all the date options work). I'm moving much more towards a support with this, so congratulations with all your efforts. violet/riga(t) 23:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dates are fixed; that was easy enough (and I didn't even know they were supposed to be formatted that way). I went through all the attributions again and tried to make sure everything had a source — if anything is still unreferenced, please point it out and I'll source it. --keepsleepingsay what 00:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you can match the references fully then I will support it - the numbers inline should match up with numbered bullets in the references section. Good work for sorting out problems people have raised. violet/riga(t) 08:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Weak object. Image:SmellsLikeChildren.jpg and Image:MarilynManson2002.jpg do not have fair use rationale, and the latter does not have information on its source and/or copyright holder. Otherwise, though, it's a wonderful article, and I look forward to giving it my full support. Extraordinary Machine 21:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I feel it's missing something that many of the more mature articles I've seen have (some kind of logical flow or style issue) but this presents the information very well, POV is well positioned, and it is comprehensive without being overdetailed. In time I think this article could grow into a few more (there really is so much more information about the band and it's controversies) but as for the core Marilyn Manson (the band) article the information here is quite sufficient. The article will benifit with some time and future 'other editor input' (OEI?) but you've put a lot of work into it (since I last saw it) and it's looking pretty good now. freshgavin TALK 00:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that came to mind: I think the way you enter (begin) each section could use a little smoothing out. The way it stands right now, the first 3 sections sound like they were written as answers to a questionnaire, e.g.
What is MM's musical style? (The music of Marilyn Manson is usually described as...)
Who was MM influenced by? (Initially, after being introduced to...)
Who writes for MM? (All of the band's lyrics are written by...)
Of course you want to answer those questions in each section, without straying too far from the point, but in order to keep the beginning of each section from clashing with the end of the previous, I think you should use some sort of contextual dampener to improve the flow.
Quick example (excuse the POV!): At the time of the band's conception, Marilyn Manson was considered a unique sensation and was quickly picking up fans all across the US. From the early days Manson's work was subject to the influences of those around him, and ...
This will conform the text to a more essay-style as opposed to questionnaire, which I feel works better with this article. It could also be argued that the essay-style doesn't fit in a 'pedia article, so in that case it would be better not to include any reference to the section title at all in the first sentence, e.g.
Classified as alternative metal, or industrial metal, Marilyn Manson makes heavy use of electronic music instruments and unconventional recording techniques attempting to merge styles with the more typical heavily distorted power chords and kick heavy drum tracks of earlier 1980s heavy metal.
This might just be my complex; I've always cringed when the title of an article or section is repeated in the first sentence (or simply reworded). I think if you add a handful of intro-ramps (think of them as literary drumrolls) to the beginning of each major subject change, you will add about 100 words to the article, but make it about 15% smoother to read and more pleasing to my supple brain. freshgavin TALK 00:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is good! Both the article, and the FAC comments and response. The article seems thorough, reads easily, is well-illustrated. The well-documented and annotated samples are great, they enhance but don't at all carry the text... My comments are based on reading the current version. There seems to have been quite significant article improvement. The FAC comments regarding organization and additional material were well-responded to, and it would seem made a huge difference. freshgavin's concerns about style and cohesiveness were alse solid, the comment acknowledged the necessary balance between judging FA quality now, and recognizing that Wikipedia is not static: good things can be made better. Not an easy call at times, but required to keep on bootstrapping. Good FAC comments help the process along. So, I'm very comfortable supporting this fully, for all of the above reasons. (Relevant expertise: I have a fair degree of experience in general areas of "pop music", and a reasonable knowledge of Maryilyn Manson and the various technical and cultural references in the article.) --Tsavage 16:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
