Post-metal edit
I'm most curious as to just how informative and interesting the article is to those uninitiated in metal or avant-garde music. Seeing as I wrote three quarters of it I think it's genius. But if there are any issues, I'd be grateful to hear them! Seegoon 16:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about this genre of music, but here are my thoughts:
- Per WP:LEAD, the introduction should be more of a summary -- probably shorter, and without facts not presented below it. I would keep the first paragraph, and, with the next two, make a separate section discussing exemplary post-metal bands or artists.
- The prose needs some work. "It could be argued...", for example, is fairly weasely. Two examples of other expressions to avoid: "It is Isis who are..." and "what this indicates is..." (in favor of simply "Isis are" and "this indicates").
- More on origins and influences?
- The criticism section is unclear.
- In general: more references. Your description of the genre's characterisitcs might be genius, but, being completely ignorant myself, I'd like to see some sources verify it. :) -- bcasterline • talk 04:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've made a significant edit in reaction to what you've suggested. I've tried to "de-weasel" some weak phrasing, added several references and quotes and altered the structure slightly. Does this improve upon the article or have I butchered it? Thanks for your contribution. Seegoon 14:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Good work. In my opinion, much improved. -- bcasterline • talk 17:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've made a significant edit in reaction to what you've suggested. I've tried to "de-weasel" some weak phrasing, added several references and quotes and altered the structure slightly. Does this improve upon the article or have I butchered it? Thanks for your contribution. Seegoon 14:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)