Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 by User:SandyGeorgia 01:22, 3 August 2008 [1].

Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) edit

Nominator(s): Blackngold29, Gary King (talk), Rezter


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria. Gary King (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is that release history table at the bottom needed? Its completely unreferenced, and of no conceivable interest to the lay reader. Wikipedia isn't a repository of release dates and catalogue information, you know. indopug (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That part of ALBUMS is just a style guideline (if even that), you can see that almost no FA album article uses it. indopug (talk) 04:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed it. If someone else thinks it should be there it can easily be re-added. Blackngold29 04:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments regarding MoS:
  • Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) is the third studio album by American metal band Slipknot. It was released on May 25, 2004 by Roadrunner Records, and a Special Edition version of the album containing a bonus disc was released on April 12, 2005. Why is "Special Edition" capitalized?
    • Done
  • Add non-breaking spaces throughout.
    • I added them to "12 reviews", but beyond that, I'm not quite sure where else they need to go. Gary King (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the album was complete, the band expressed that these side projects "saved the band" and "helped [them] break out of the box [they] were in". The period goes outside of the quotation when only a segment of the sentence is a quote. I see this quite a bit in the article, so instead of me listing every one, just make sure to read up on WP:PUNC.
    • I think I got most of them. Let me know if there's anymore. Blackngold29 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still see at least two, but it's getting better. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I undid them. Logical quotations are flexible with regard to the ones in this article. Particularly, in WP:PUNC, it says "When quoting a sentence fragment which ends in a period, some judgement is required: if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside. The period should be omitted if the quotation is in the middle of a sentence." A lot of the quotes in this article are in interviews and are sometimes smack dab in the middle of sentences, so unless the quote is an entire sentence, like: John said "our band wanted to do this." Then if you take "Our band wanted to do this" it is a full sentence, so the period is appropriate there. Otherwise, it's pretty flexible and so I would prefer the way we have it now. Meaning only include the punctuation for full sentences. Gary King (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, it seems to comply with the MoS. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the reliablity of the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of FLs use the same sources as we have (we also used them on Slipknot's discography) see Sepultura discography, Metallica discography, Nine Inch Nails discography. REZTER TALK ø 16:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a lot of FL's use them, doesn't mean that the source itself is reliable. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I can't determine how reliable they are, but my point is that if there is so much featured content using the same sources they must have been challenged before and found reliable. If the case is that this article isn't considered FA quality based upon these sources then all articles sourcing these sites should be challenged too. REZTER TALK ø 00:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to everyhit.com's FAQ page To anyone who submits info: "Please quote your source as we're keen only to print factually accurate information and may need to check it." Seems reliable to me. Blackngold29 03:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they don't give their sources on the pages themselves. And I'm not seeing that anyone else uses them as reliable, such as Rolling Stone or one of the UK magazines. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following FAs all use the site: Californication, Dookie, Blood Sugar Sex Magik, Year Zero, and that with hardly looking. If there is even another site that offers the same info, I cannot find it. I would find it difficult to believe if the topic of UK album sales has never come into play before...and from what I can see everyhit is the only consistant source used. Blackngold29 16:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the reliability of the source http://www.everyhit.com , whether it is used in other articles is not relevant here, and please see this:

It all began with Janet Jackson. No; not that one! My mum! She had a wind-up gramophone and a wad of 78 singles; 12 inch discs, the 'modern' ones made of thick pure vinyl, the older ones manufactured from brittle shellac. Quite why I was drawn to these as a very young child is unclear. But the combination of the technology, the fusty smell and silky texture of the vinyl and, above all, the magical way in which the music was made was an irresistible draw.

My parents were (and still are) great music lovers. Having been teenagers through the rock 'n' roll era, they had amassed vast record collections. These were carefully stored and catalogued. They were keen that I - and my brothers - developed an appreciation for music and soon we were off to buy our favourites with every last bit of pocket money. Our complimentary tastes worked well and the record collection swelled. We realised that, with our combined tastes and pooled resources, we were building the definitive (post) rock 'n' roll record collection; every track ever to have hit the Top 40.
As a student, I took a job in a record shop. I never saw money in my wage packet. The management cut out the middle man and paid me in vinyl! The staff discount came in handy for family and friends too. The collection swelled. Now, in the 80s, I was purchasing every track to hit the Top 40.
This habit has continued through to this day. Happily, I find myself in the lucky position of getting each new release through the promotions mechanism of the great British record industry.
The website itself gives no reason to believe it meets our WP:V policy; please establish that it meets the expectations for WP:SPS (see the examples at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opposition to just removing the three charts cited to the source, that would be easier (until a better one can be found of course). But I still find it difficult to believe that there is no site comprable to Billboard in the UK. Especially with the large number of albums that are included throughout WP that list UK charts; thusly we are essentially saying that there is no UK singles chart. Blackngold29 22:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure how much of a difference this makes but on the Discographies project page they list all the sources you have provided as "reliable". See Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#Useful_resources:. REZTER TALK ø 09:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for a discussion of why various wikiprojects useful sources lists don't always translate into reliable sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everyhit.com has been removed until further investigation can be done as to its reliability. Blackngold29 22:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is the first and only album" - if it's the only of course it's the first
  • "Nevertheless, they eventually managed to write more than enough material for the new album, releasing five singles" - the two parts of this sentence are pretty unrelated
  • Pleased don't use the metacritic score in the lead; instead summarise reviewer opinions
  • Is "exercised other musical projects" correct phrasing? Don't think excercised is a good word here.
  • "The musical style of Slipknot is often difficult to pinpoint because of the genres their music covers; however, Vol. 3 is regarded as their most diverse album." – why however; the statements agree?
  • Why is the audio sample in the reception section?
  • Sometimes it’s referred to as Vol. 3, sometimes as the full name. Be consistent.
  • Some of the reviewers in the reception section are wlinked, some aren’t. Be consistent (I don’t think any are linked earlier in the article)

—Giggy 02:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done Gary King (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —Giggy 02:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 1c, as certain statements aren't "factually accurate", but are opinions. More specifically;
"The musical style of Slipknot is often difficult to pinpoint because of the genres their music covers, and Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) is regarded as their most diverse album." - According to whom?
Removed
"The lyrics of Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) include strong use of metaphors and touches upon themes including anger, disaffection, and psychosis.[16]" - According to whom?
Allmusic... hence the citation. It sounds weird to say, "According to Allmusic, the lyrics...". I'll remove the "strong use", but I don't think this is a case that needs accredited. Blackngold29 01:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"However, songs such as "Pulse of the Maggots" and "Before I Forget" use the band's usual "pounding metal" style.[15]" - According to whom is this "usual"?
"Other tracks such as "Blister Exists", "Three Nil", and "Opium of the People" combine the two extremes of their recognizable metal edge with melody, with the most apparent shifts being in Taylor's vocal style.[16]" - According to whom?
Me, ;) Removed
"Despite the initial problems, the writing process eventually became extremely productive." - According to whom was the writing process "extremely" productive? What can be regarded as "extremely" productive? The composition of 10 songs? A 100 songs? The use of the word "extremely" isn't warranted.
Reworded

LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to state that I don't feel my objection has been fully addressed, and deem it valid still. At the end of the day, comments as regards lyrics are opinions, and not factual. Therefore, they need to be accredited. I am vehemently against quotes being misused, and am frankly fed up of seeing them in FACs. Take this from the lead as an example; ".. some critics also added that the album was "a triumph"". That's absolute rubbish, as any minor investigating can tell. Only Q uses the words "a triumph", and as far as I am aware, one magazine does not constitute "some critics". LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have accredited the reviews in the intro, as well as the lyrical themes to Allmusic. Blackngold29 20:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns still remain unaddressed: "However, songs such as "Pulse of the Maggots" and "Before I Forget" use a more "pounding metal" style.[17] Other tracks such as "Blister Exists", "Three Nil", and "Opium of the People" combine the two extremes of their recognizable metal edge with melody, with the most apparent shifts being in Taylor's vocal style.[2]" These are opinions, and not facts, so need to be attributed to the journalist's opinion. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have attributed the remaining statements. I only took into consideration the specific examples you mentioned, I should've realized that you wanted everything attributed. Blackngold29 19:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning to Oppose
Some comments resolved. --Efe (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some complete dates dont have links (WP:DATES).
  • Some quotations are not using the logical quotation style (WP:PUNC).
    • Example: The magazine also concluded that "the riffs have lost none of their impact, but it seems like finally the group also wants you to appreciate their vocal and lyrical impact." --Efe (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have unlinked all dates. That punctuation used in that quote is correct because it stands as a full sentence on its own, so the period belongs in the quote. Gary King (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The precedent "that" means that the quotation is quoted not in full. Also, what is the rationale behind unlinking full dates? --Efe (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly no expert on punctuation marks but that's how I interpret "When quoting a sentence fragment which ends in a period, some judgement is required: if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside. The period should be omitted if the quotation is in the middle of a sentence." Full dates are unlinked in this article because they are optional. Gary King (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are parts in the first section called "Recording and Production" that are obviously off-topic. "To promote the album, the band toured on Ozzfest and the Jägermeister Music Tour, and made an appearance at the Download Festival. The album's record label, Roadrunner Records, posted an MP3 of "Pulse of the Maggots" in its entirety (excluding the fadeout transition from "Vermilion") on the now defunct SK Radio website for free download for only one day on March 30, 2004. Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) was finally released on May 25, 2004,[14] and a special edition version of the album containing a bonus disc was released on April 12, 2005." --Efe (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Renamed the section Production and promotion. Recording is part of production, the others are part of promotion. Blackngold29 17:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it that there is a chart for the singles? This is about the album and not its singles. --Efe (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just following the precedent set by other FAs. The vast majority that I see also include singles. Blackngold29 17:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am actually negative bout this. Anyway, its not major. BTW, there are enties in the singles chart that do not follow WP:CHARTS. --Efe (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Efe, your own statement should answer your question. "Its singles", meaning "the singles of the album". The it in your statement is the album. Why would the singles of an album be mentioned in an article about the album? It's like asking why the states of a country would be mentioned in the country. --JayHenry (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your so hot. --Efe (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Commercial performaces (chart performances) of the album's singles is crucially one of the important factors to achieving comprehensiveness but making a chart for the singles is a no-no. This is the article of an album and not of the single(s). YOu can mention them in the prose but never a table. --Efe (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Based on what? I count at least one, two, three, four FA articles that do include a singles chart. If we can't use other FAs as a precedent then what are we supposed to use? Blackngold29 02:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • They are not evaluated here. I suggest removing those. They are not actually substantial since they are about singles and not the album. --Efe (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I agree with your reasoning and have therefore removed the table. Gary King (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section Artwork only explains the main cover and not the alternate cover. Therefore, the latter fails to comply WP:NFCC#8. --Efe (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not exactly sure how much we could add for a simple picture of the band, let alone any sources. Would simply stating that it is a picture of the band be enough? Blackngold29 04:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not necessarily. Even main covers of albums and songs are deemed NFCC non-compliant. How much more if its just an alternate cover. Also, this is not about the band. The image must increase reader's understanding why the cover is presented like that (especially that its an alternate cover). --Efe (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The artwork section saves more the main cover but the alternate, its not. --Efe (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have looked for an article about the SE, but cannot find one. As far as I can tell it's their picture in front of the Houdini Mansion, but I obviously don't have a source. So I assume it's better to leave it out then add un-sourced material. Blackngold29 16:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The audio sample Image:Slipknot - Vermilion.ogg's fair use is just a copy and paste. The inclusion of this sample is not well-explained in the purpose parameter and in the article itself, it is not mentioned. Therefore, it fails WP:NFCC#8. --Efe (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Efe, that's not a correct statement. The song is mentioned several times in the article itself. There's no problem with the rationale here. --JayHenry (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mentioning the song throughout doesn't warrant a fair use. The sample is used to present the kind of music the album is featuring, or part of the album. And I see no discussion in the section "Musical and lyrical themes" that corresponds to the caption of the sample as well as its fair use purpose. Also, the audio samples lacks copyright information. --Efe (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • In my opinion that just doesn't have anything to do with WP:NFCC#8. The caption of the sample doesn't need to be repeated in the musical and lyrical themes section (what would be the sense of requiring information to be repetitive?) nor does it need to repeat the image page. NFCC#8 says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This easily, easily clears that hurdle, and is thus a valid rationale and valid use. It's actually a bit silly to suggest that someone could understand a band without hearing any of their music. The source of the audio is clearly identified as Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) and the record label (which by definition administers the copyrights) is also clearly identified. There is nothing to suggest this sound clip is inappropriate. --JayHenry (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • using the sample, what do you want to convey to the readers? or enhance their understanding in connection with what is being discussed in the article? --Efe (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Do you seriously not know? 1) I've never edited this article and don't like Slipknot. I'm a neutral reviewer. I personally don't want to convey anything. 2) It's obvious that the authors of the article included the music sample so that someone can hear the song being discussed and the band that performs it and specifically the song's use of guitar solos and some more melodic song structures which were previously absent. This is all explicit. You cannot argue that a musical sample of an album does not enhance one's understanding of an album. -JayHenry (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sir, I am only 18 years old and I may not fully learned the nitty-gritty of WikiPedia yet. But somehow, with my constant editing/contribution, I have learned little by little.
                1. "The caption of the sample doesn't need to be repeated in the musical and lyrical themes section" I didn't say you have to repeat it. The gist only.
                2. I read the first and section and I see no better warranty of the sample's inclusion.
                3. This is about the album so the audio sample have nothing to do with presenting who's band is singing. So what about Slipknot? Hmmm. Maybe the vocals. But I can see nothing in the text that explains their, for example, their blah blah blah vocals.
                4. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This statement does not mean that because you mention the guitars and whatsover of the song, the sample will help readers increase their standing. Besides, its not deterimental to our understanding if the editor will take out the sample (not to mention the sample is "Vermillion" and the text always mention "Vermillion Pt. 2"). --Efe (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I didn't inquire about your age. But I am concerned because you're making distinctions that appear to me to have no meaning. This album is a collection of songs by a band. So a sample of a song is a sample of the album. Hearing the band play a song on the album is hearing the album. Presenting a band's album is the same as presenting the sound of a band as heard on the album. Do you see what I'm saying? The things you're talking about don't have anything to do with image criteria. Slipknot's "blah blah blah vocals" has nothing to do with anything. Look, an album is primarily an auditory thing. You listen to it. Therefore listening to it significantly increases ones understanding. Could someone who has never listened to Mozart truly understand his music? Of course not. That's actually ludicrous for me to suggest, is it not? Despite the vastly lower standard of artistry, the same thing holds for Slipknot. This is very simple, very basic, completely valid fair use. --JayHenry (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Oh my. Pity myself. I still have to "educate" myself what truly fair use is. Since I will be out for two days, I'll consult, probably, two users on this matter. Good day. --Efe (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: everything resolved. --JayHenry (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review
    • Image:Slipknot - Vol. 3- (The Subliminal Verses).jpg -- This is a visually arresting image. Both the article and the fair use rational would benefit from some discussion of this piece of cover art.
    • Image:Slipknot - Vol. 3- (The Subliminal Verses) Special Edition.jpg -- I'm less enthusiastic about this image. It's just a picture of the band. Many albums have alternate cover art, but without discussion of the cover art or any evidence of its significance I'm not sure it's really following the letter or spirit of the guidelines to include this. This looks like just a picture of the band to me, and they more-or-less always look like this in their pictures, so I'm not sure it's even very distinctive. I dunno... thoughts?
      • My opinion on this is the cover art is very different from the original and it should be used to help visually identify the product. The content of the cover (for example you saying it's just a photograph of the band) is beside the point. It isn't a limited product, it's a deluxe edition of the album which was released about a year after the original and includes an additional disc. REZTER TALK ø 01:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, that seems reasonable. I think the fact that there's extra music does make this case more compelling. --JayHenry (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Slipknot - Vermilion.ogg -- The official style guideline is: "Copyrighted, unlicensed music samples should generally not be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter." In this case, 10 % would be about 25 seconds.
      • The Original track is 5:16 (316 minutes) 10% of that is 31.6. So 30 seconds is shorted. REZTER TALK ø 01:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I had taken this information from Vermilion (song) which says it was 4:16. I guess the single had a different mix. I do see that it's listed at 5:16 in the track list on the album. Apologies. --JayHenry (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thoughts welcome. --JayHenry (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Special edition" is discussed in the second sentence of the article; in addition to the track listing. The FUR of the regular cover art, seems pretty on par with other album covers to me. Blackngold29 01:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So there are two schools of thought on Wikipedia. One is that an album cover is fair use for an article about the album as identification. The other, more conservative school of thought, is that you really ought to have discussion of the cover art itself to justify the rationale. With the first image it's actually more of a content issue. That's a really interesting image on the cover--what's the story behind it?--inquiring minds want to know! With the second image it's trickier, because another goal is that Fair Use should be limited. Very many albums have alternate covers, or different covers in foreign countries, etc. Most people will grant you the first image without any discussion. Is it acceptable Fair Use, however, that every single alternate cover is automatically allowed, even if the image is unremarkable? I think most Wikipedians would agree that's going too far. In my opinion the second image is really borderline: just a non-significant image of the band on a fairly typical alternate issue... --JayHenry (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK well I have added information regarding the artwork. REZTER TALK ø 02:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think that's a nice touch. A nice bit of additional information and should make everyone happier with the Fair Use. Thanks! --JayHenry (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoaaa, I see non-breaking spaces added to double items such as "12 reviews"; please see the MOS and MOSNUM guidelines on this. Only add hard-spaces where it's likely to be ungainly or confusing for a number to appear on the next line. This is hardly the case in 21 chairs or 12 reviews. The disadvantages of adding willy-nilly all over the place are possible text-stretching (especially adjacent to images), more work for editors, and clunky edit-windows. Tony (talk)

Comments—<frowns and grimaces>

  • FU justification of audio file. There's only one in the article, which is good. Caption: ""Vermilion", the album's second single, makes use of guitar solos and some more melodic song structures which were previously absent from the band's discography." This is not well-written. "Makes use of" --> a single word? Song structures absent from discography? No, songs might be absent or present, but style and structures are something within songs. By "structure", do you mean the formal structure of repeating segments of the music/lyrics? What was different or unusual? Guitar solos: so their first album didn't have these; does the second album stand as unique in this respect, or did it establish this use as a hallmark of their style thereafter? Trying to get a grip on why this FU satisfies NFCC#8 (inclusion leads to a significant understanding).

Prose: Gary, where are your word-nerd collaborators?

  • "Taylor made a point of avoiding the use of profanity in response to people claiming that he relied upon it". The old noun plus -ing, and here, rewording is the best option—"in response to claims that". See: easy! Can we make "upon" just "on", in 2008?
  • "the lyrics of Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) include metaphors and touches upon themes including"—the lyrics touches? "Upon" again.
  • Stylus magazine—would italics make it clearer for the readers?
  • This—> Stylus Magazine called it the most "depressing and emotional" track on the album. The magazine also concluded that "the riffs have lost none of their impact, but it seems like finally the group also wants you to appreciate their vocal and lyrical impact."—Dot after the closing quote would be less clunky, and MOS-compliant. But more importantly, you've lost me on the logical flow. Why "but"? The quote is pretty crappy, so what about paraphrasing the gist of it and making both quotes flow into a cohesive run of statements (with the same ref. number).
  • The "Artwork" mini-section. I've had a go at trying to fix it. Please check my "whenever".

I believe User:Deckiller might be copy-editing at the moment. He's very good and knows the field. Tony (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GrahamColm has given the article a c/e. I've believe I've fixed the remaining concerns that you have raised. However, about the non-breaking spaces: Earilier in this review Juliancolton stated that they should be added, so they were, now you're saying to take them out. Which is correct? Blackngold29 03:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No problems with the criteria. Prose and aesthetical details can always be more or less improved of course, but the current version is definitely well written enough for FA status. Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — I had previously ignored the article, but looking over it, I'd say that it is very good in terms of writing, formatting and sources. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comments: I'm not familiar with too many music related FAs, but there are some issues which stood out to me.
    • Organization: The flow of the information in the article seems off to me and I think the structure of the article can be rearranged to improve this.
      • The "Artwork" section seems too small to stand on its own. I would try to integrate the content into the rest of the "Production and promotion".
      • The "Personnel" section seems out of place at the end of the article. I would consider moving it to be a subsection of "Production and promotion". Also, what do the numbers beside each band member's name mean? If those numbers remain in the article, I think some kind of brief description should be included.
      • "Chart positions" looks like it should be a subsection of "Reception". I know in video game articles, a table of review scores is included to the right in the reception sections. maybe something similar could be done here as well.
      • As ended an article with a "Reception" section is general practice on Wikipedia, I would suggest moving the "Track listing further up in the article. Either before or after "Musical and lyrical themes".
    • Excessive use of quotes: I would summarize some of the quotes in the "Reception" section. Some are hard to follow. I'm not sure what "Slipknot still bring the noise" exactly means; I'm assuming something positive.
Overall the article is good and informative, but not quite Featured quality. I'll check back later to see if they are addressed and to check refs/other loose ends. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Reply to Guyinblack25
Most album articles put the prose before the "listy stuff" (track listing, band members, chart info). I guess it could be changed if you still want it to be, but it would be the first time I've seen it like that. The numbers are explained in their article, I don't think too much info should be repeated. Blackngold29 16:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really agree with that style of organization; all prose then all lists. But I'm no music article expert, and if it works for others, then it can't be all that bad.
I still think some explanation should be provided for the numbers, either that or exclude them as it was very puzzling seeing them there. That and the long quotes are the only style issues I think should be addressed. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Things are looking better, but I still think there are too many long quotes in the reception section. I believe such content should be summarized as often as possible. For example:
  • Instead of John Robb of PlayLouder proclaimed "Slipknot defied all kind of logic by becoming one of the biggest groups in the world", try John Robb of PlayLouder complimented Slipknot's unexpected rise to become "one of the biggest groups in the world"
  • Instead of Robb went on to add, "Its differing textures make it far better than Iowa.", try Robb added that this album is better than their previous album, Iowa, citing its "differing textures".
It looks like the reliability of everythit.com has not been completely addressed above. I would also like to know what makes artistdirect.com a reliable source? I didn't look too deep, but I didn't find much info about them on their website.
These are minor issues:
  • Some of the magazine references, like Q and Kerrang!, include the "accessdate" parameter. I've come to understand that accessdate refers to the date a webpage is accessed. I believe this is normally reserved for when the "url" parameter is used.
  • Some of the magazine references, like Kerrang! and Revolver use the {{cite news}} template instead of {{cite journal}}. This is certainly nothing to oppose over, just my slight OCD desire for uniform formatting.
Those are the remainder of my concerns. I'll check back in later. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
While the {{cite journal}} template does include a space for accessdate, I think I'm gonna agree with you that there's really no point for a non-internet source. I removed them, and cleaned up the news/journal cites. I understand better what your saying about the quotes/prose, I made a few adjustments, including your suggestions. I hope it's enough, let me know if it isn't. Thanks. Blackngold29 19:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are some good steps forward. I wouldn't be opposed to the negative comments in the "Reception" section getting the same treatment and summarized more. My only major concern left is the reliability of everythit.com and artistdirect.com. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Both questionable sources have been eliminated. I'll see what I can do with the negative comments. Blackngold29 22:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: All of my major concerns have been addressed. My only remaining issue with the article's structure is more of a personal preference. The article looks to be well-written, well-sourced and comprehensive. Nice job. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Vol._3:_(The_Subliminal_Verses)&oldid=1138475071"