Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/God Hates Us All

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 promoted 18:03, 4 June 2007.

---

God Hates Us All

This article is on an album, and has been re-written by myself with help from editors along the way regarding copy editing and adding content. It once looked like this back in January, and over the past few days the final tweaks have been made to prepare it for FAC. If you have any criticism, i will deal with it, Thanks. M3tal H3ad 13:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: With the inflammatory nature of the title, i would suggest that you 'move' the wikipage from 'God Hates Us All' to 'God Hates Us All (music album)' so that people can associate the context of the wiki page by seeing the title itself. Kalyan 20:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we do not disambiguate articles needlessly. There is nothing else that goes by this title, therefore it is named correctly as-is and should stay that way. Raul654 01:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely we need not divert from the manual of style because of a questionable subject album title. If done so here, we'd have to look at it for anything else with a questionable title. The "is the eighth studio album" bit in the first sentence sufficiently disambiguates it as an album for me. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 20:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the wikipage doesn't need moving. LuciferMorgan 20:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As do I. The given rationale isn't good enough. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 22:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoever though it would be appealing to have names like that? What happened to the time when music was named like Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune? Anyways, I support that move, and remind that the Manual of Style is not policy. ALTON .ıl 05:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Bands have these kinds of titles to get attention, and hey, it got yours :) M3tal H3ad 07:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't support it whatsoever - Wikipedia isn't meant to be a form of censorship so I would wholly protest it. LuciferMorgan 12:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

LuciferMorgan - i am not asking for censorship but for the title to be a good indicator/representation of the wikipage. The current title is not a good indicator of the album title. Kalyan 20:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Indicators are only used in Wiki page titles for disambiguation. There is absolutely no reason aside from that to indicate in the title that the page is about an album. WesleyDodds 21:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hah, Metal, you're right. I'm not sure I'd be convinced to listen to it... but in all, there is no mandate to change the name, and it would be an encumberance to those who are genuinely searching for the article. But sometimes it's good to take a step back and think about the actual readership of the article. Also, please do not take the policy on censorship out of meaning. I still support this change, but I do admit that this article should only be linked in context ("...as in the songs of God Hates Us All, metal music is consistently drum-and-bass oriented..."), and if it shows up on the main page, the lead would accompany it. However, proponents of this article have to remember that there is going to be a natural bias against articles like this (The F word article will have a very uphill battle getting to the front page) and us dissenters are merely providing that opinion. (Regarding the actual nom, the article is very cleanly written and looks like good material.) ALTON .ıl 22:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fuck the Millennium is an FA and there's nothing wrong with that name either. As concerns the article's readership, if they dislike the title then that's their problem. Whatever people find offensive depends purely on the person - I personally find the title Peace and Truce of God to be offensive on certain levels but you don't find me asking for a name change on that one. What annoys me is if the album was called "God Loves Us All" then nobody would be moaning, but because it uses the word "hate" then everybody dislikes it. This is yet another example of Christian conservatism rearing its ugly head - whatever happened to freedom of speech? Seems to be getting killed with all this political correctness malarkey.

And I am in no way taking the policy on censorship out of meaning - as far as I am concerned this would be censorship whichever way you attempt to dress it up, and I wholly oppose it. Furthermore, aside from the title, has anyone else got anything else to comment regarding the article? Apart from my support vote, everyone's been rabbiting on about this wholly irrelevant issue. LuciferMorgan 23:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a support in mind, take a look at that last parentheses. I am suprised something like that got through, because there are people out there much more ardent about the issue than I. But if you can't realize that the two of us were offering a suggestion, even if Kalyan bolded it in the thread we're responding to, then forget about my !vote. ALTON .ıl 04:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

LuciferMorgan - Please revisit my earliest statement. I said "SUGGESTION" and not "OPPOSE". It was OK to have said "Thanks, I heard you but i am good with what i have". I still think that the title "God Hates Us All (music album)" is a much better indicator of the wikipage than "God Hates Us All" but i shall take the title as it stands. And for the record on your "Christian conservatism rearing its ugly head", i am not an Christian and God does not belong to just Christian conservatists. Alton - thanks for the support. 59.92.86.94 17:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC) (BTW, i shall post the review of the article very shortly). Signed by Kalyan 17:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree there are people much more ardent than yourself about it, though I really don't feel we should pander to these people as they need to realise that alternative viewpoints are out there and shouldn't be diluted at their whim. Suggestions at improving the article are much welcome Alton, and I encourage you to offer them. Please accept my apologies if you took my comments the wrong way - I just feel the title move is something we disagree on. LuciferMorgan 10:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Letz all take a chill pill and get this issue done with. Kalyan 20:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC) (BTW, i moved the comments a bit because i think it went out of sequence and moved all non-heading related discussions below, for better readability)

I'm 100% sure 'is the eighth studio album by the American thrash metal band Slayer' is a very good indicator of what the wikipage is about (to the person that said it isn't). M3tal H3ad 10:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A title move would set a poor precedent, and the matter is so subjective we would need to elect a moral committee to pass judgement on the potential of titles of albums, books, films etc to offend a hypothetical sub-section of the readership. I don't see that happening anytime soon. It's a Slayer album FGS; newspapers don't begin reviews with "God Hates Us All (which is an album) is not quite as..." Ceoil 19:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support as a light copyeditor of the article, and as a Slayer WikiProject member. LuciferMorgan 21:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support as WikiProject member, and light copyeditor. Ceoil 19:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support: Well written article and concise. However there are some minor copyedit stuff required:
  1. Lead para needs to cover the no. of songs in the album
  2. "However, every three to four months the band was distracted by commitments to the Ozzfest," - sentence needs to be re-written
  3. "The band's producer, Rick Rubin, was too busy to work with Slayer, and believed he was "burned out" " - Who does the he refer to? Kalyan 17:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The he refers to Rubin himself. Maybe this is unclear and needs clarification in the article? LuciferMorgan 19:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. it is not clear when we finish reading this sentence though it gets clearer after the next one. but still, would be good if we correct it here itself. Kalyan 20:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to correct this. If you feel I still haven't corrected it, feel free to say so. LuciferMorgan 16:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—1a and 2a. This sentence appear in the lead (it's nearly half of the lead).

"The release of the album was delayed due to the nature of it's artwork—which depicts a blood covered bible covered by nails forming a pentagram—as well as difficulties encountered during audio mixing, and the band's record label, American Recordings, changing its distributor during the release period." Oh dear. Long, unwieldy snake. "It's". "forming" --> "that form". Ungrammatical and awkward noun +gerund. Hyphen needed in "blood covered". Heck, what a train wreck.

Don't just fix this; the whole thing needs major surgery. Tony 14:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

An editor has made an attempt to fix this awkward phrase you've highlighted in the lead section. Is this phrase now fixed? Also, what other instances can you find which need work? Thanks. LuciferMorgan 12:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Overall very good article. "Wikiproject Slayer" should be proud of the work they have done recently. These articles have all been very good; consider at some point in the future, once the entire Slayer article set is featured or good, bringing these up for a Featured Topic. These have all been enjoyable reads. That having been said, there are a few fixes I need to see before I can fully support this article. They are all pretty minor, but taken together they amount to a "less than brilliant" article:
  • Consider wikilinking "Drop B Tuning" in the lead to Guitar tuning#Alternate tunings. It needs some linking for context for non-guitar players.

This has now been wikilinked. LuciferMorgan 16:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Also, the lead does not fully summarize the article. No mention of the Lyrical Themes section appears in the lead; and mo mention of Bostaph's Departure shows up either. Also, the Reception section gives space to negative reviews (as it well should) but the lead doesn't mention this at all.

I'll get onto the lead and get back to you. LuciferMorgan 16:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've tried to address this. Is it now improved? LuciferMorgan 16:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Interestingly, the two songs with their own articles aren't even mentioned in the article, and the one song that IS extensively covered by the article, Disciple, has no article? Something seems weird about that. First of all, given that it was nominated for a Grammy; and also given the excellent articles written on other Slayer songs, it would seem that this song could merit an article. Also, given that two of the songs DO have articles; there must be enough to at least mention them in the body of the article? This is not a huge issue, but it is something that gave me pause.

The two songs that were made into articles were wrongly made by an inexperienced editor who made stub articles for every Slayer single just about, and are already redirects. We'd love to make an article for "Disciple" though and I've thought about it - in fact, if there was enough material, we'd make an article on just about every Slayer song. I even asked User:WesleyDodds if there was info about "Disciple" in the magazines he has copies of, but there wasn't anything worthwhile. The simple fact of the matter is that it couldn't be elevated beyond stub status, and there is little info available. So, until that info materialises, I don't feel Wikipedia should be plagued with yet another rubbish stub. LuciferMorgan 16:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Overall, as I said, this article is quite close. For the record, I see no compelling reason to rename the article, as requested above. The use of parenthetical titles should ONLY be for disambiguation reasons; since there is no similarly titled article, I see no reason to slap a Parental Warning sticker on the article. There is no chance of this article title being confused with another title. Make the above changes, and I would easily change my vote to support. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 15:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I left a request 2 days ago for Jayron32 to take another look at the article and see if it has improved, and am now waiting for his reply at this FAC. LuciferMorgan 07:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed it. My to-do list is always a mile long, and I sometimes forget to do stuff. I will take another looksee. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support All fixes made. This is a fine article, and I would be proud to see it as a Featured Article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, and thanks overall for your improvement suggestions. LuciferMorgan 08:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Mild oppose Consecutive citing of the same footnote on consecutive sentences is pointless and embarassing. This can be fixed relatively easily, however. On another matter, I am particularly unconvinced by Kalvan's point because Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun was deliberately provocative, both on religious and moral grounds. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. M3tal H3ad 03:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks much better, although the infobox doesn't really need any footnote, much less two. Genre descriptions should really be justified in text, and summarized in the box. But this is a genuinely minor point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from on this point PMAnderson, though the two citations are mostly to appease the Metal people who edit Wikipedia. They have this horrible tendency to debate what subgenre a certain band or album is, and a bad habit of changing the genre in the infoboxes per their opinions. These citations from critics as to what genre a CD is tend to prevent them from disputing that the CD belongs in "X subgenre", according to whatever critics believe. It's a shame we have to cite such trivial things, but I'm just offering the reason why the genres in the infobox are cited. LuciferMorgan 17:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.