Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Alice in Chains/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review‎ | Alice in Chains

Alice in Chains edit

I've listed this current GA, former FAC article for peer review because, it is looking very good now but I still think there are some minor glitches.
Thank you,
Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 03:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan edit

Comments There's some POV within the article, and other issues;

  • "The title track had moderate success on metal-oriented radio, preparing the way for the release later that year of the group's first studio album, Facelift, which debuted at #42 on the Billboard 200 charts.[3]" - "Moderate success"? According to whom? Whether something is deemed successful or not is an opinion. For example, others may have deemed it a minor success, or a major success, and not a "moderate success". By stating the "title track had moderate success", you're casting judgment which means that is your own personal opinion. Such a personal observation means you're nominating yourself as a music critic, so this is therefore POV. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The song "Man in the Box" had success as a single and the music video recieved rotation on MTV." - Yet more POV per the reasoning given above. Stick to the facts please. Instead of stating the song is a success, tell the reader what positions the single achieved (and which charts they achieved this / these on). LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both of these singles had success on the United States singles charts.[7]" - Yet more POV. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Facelift was certified gold by the United States RIAA, with access sales of 500,000 copies by the end of the year." - When an album is certified gold in the US, it means 500,000 copies have been shipped to stores. It doesn't mean the album sold that many. Therefore, the sentence is misleading. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The successful debut was supported by a tour opening for well known artists such as Van Halen, Poison, and Iggy Pop.[3]" - "Successful"? And yet more POV - whether the debut was "successful" is an opinion as I said. Stick to the facts. Also, how do you measure whether these artists Alice in Chains supported are "well known"? Album sales? Chart positions? Television appearances? Whether they're "well known" is your own personal opinion. In some territories, they may not be well known. The words "well known" should therefore be removed. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The EP contained five acoustic songs (one being a hidden track), in order to keep the band in the public eye between the albums Facelift and Dirt.[8]" - The reasons for Alice in Chains releasing the EP is a personal opinion, and in this case the opinion of Rolling Stone. They may have released the EP as they thought the material was strong? They may have released it as new product to plug while on tour? See, so this is where personal opinions can mislead people. Such an opinion as Rolling Stone's needs attribution. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is the band's highest selling album and considered by many fans and All Music Guide, Alice in Chains' best album.[3][14]" - "Considered by many fans"? According to whom? How did they come to such a conclusion? Did they do a survey? The fact many fans allegedly consider it to be their best work is merely a personal opinion of a critic, so therefore should be attributed as such. This is not factual, so shouldn't be presented as such. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once the above examples have been sufficiently addressed, I'll take a second look at the article. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M3tal H3ad edit

  • In 1986, Layne Staley's band Sleeze, featuring bassist Jim Sheppard now of Nevermore, had just broken up - The stuff in italics is unnecessary and the sentence could be reworded to something like " In 1986, Layne Staley's band Sleeze had disbanded and he wished to start a new one the following year.
  • He went to the 'Music Bank' practice studio to watch musicians play, and met guitarist and song-writer Jerry Cantrell. - practice studio gives the impression they are playing instruments
  • and playing clubs in Seattle - playing at clubs
  • Their name - again is the band a singular or plural
  • In 1989 Columbia Records signed Alice in Chains - comma after the year
  • After recording a series - tell the reader how many "series" also sounds awkward
  • The title track reached number five metal-oriented radio - missing words in this sentence
  • preparing the way for the release later that year of the group's first - awkwardly worded "preparing the way" is not encyclopedia language
  • The band also appeared in the film
  • The album also featured a song titled "Iron Gland" with guest vocalist Tom Araya of Slayer. -> The album featured a guest appearance by Slayer vocalist Tom Araya on the track ""Iron Gland" .
  • While the band was touring to promote Dirt, Starr left the group due to the band's nonstop schedule,
  • once again in 1993 - they already entered the studio in 1993 before this?
  • Still the problem with the images - saying its a girl in the sand won't be good enough for fair use, did it create controversy, is it significant, and the band's logo is still in the infobox, which was part of the objection on the FAC last time. M3tal H3ad (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the image is significant (like his last performance with the band) it, then yes it will probably qualify as fair use. M3tal H3ad (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indopug edit

Long way from FA The main problem right now are the sources you've used. Amazon.com (customer reviews?!), blogspot, rockdetector, rockonthenet, cduniverse, cd.ciao, discogs, loisville.edu, isound, metal archives, historylink, geocities ... Also, you dont need to reference stuff like Grammy nominees, track-listing, whether the song was in a soundtrack etc... Indopug (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Rockdetector is an excellent source. Secondly, of course that stuff needs to be referenced- it's very important that Grammy nominations are referenced, and soundtrack/tracklistings need to be referenced as much as any other fact... However, I completely agree with you about the non-reliability of many of the sources you listed. J Milburn (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rockdetector isn't an excellent source J Milburn, actually. Their biographies are riddled with edits, and are mocked in the metal community. In the past, I have spotted many many mistakes in their articles. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has an article (Rockdetector) which at least suggests some prominence/importance; that's not to say your misgivings about quality are valid or invalid :) --kingboyk (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that it falls under our definition of a reliable source, but, obviously, you've [LuciferMorgan] got a much better knowledge of the metal community than I have. I'll avoid it in future. J Milburn (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn edit

Ok, I'm not going to go into the prose in detail in this initial review, it looks as if LuciferMorgan and M3tal H3ad have already had a good go at that.

  • I am not convinced about the fair use rationale on Image:Laynemtv.JPG. I know copyright fuss is something that bothers a lot of people, but it is something that we need to pay attention to. Firstly, there needs to be completely seperate rationales for each article that it is used in, and secondly, the rationale needs to explain explicitly why it is not replaceable (not so difficult in this case) and why it adds a lot to the article. Non free images that aren't something obvious (screenshots, album covers, logos, that kind of thing) are often a lot more trouble than they are worth. Have you tried contacting someone and requesting a free image? Take a read of this and this if you fancy giving that a go- that is one way of getting a free image that often works, but not something that people try very often.
  • Ok, I'm going to go through sources which I think need removing, as they are unreliable, to go into a little more detail from Indopug's point above.
  • I'd say that the other references are fine, apart from one or two to the same sites that I skipped because I didn't want to repeat myself. But, as that shows, the article really needs gutting of weak sources. Because of my two (rather serious) concerns above, this article isn't even worthy of its GA status, despite the fact it is so professionally formatted.
  • There is no need for the absolutely huge logo- it should be small, and at web resolution, and the rationale is a little weak.
  • In the discography section, 'Upcoming album' isn't the album's name, and so should not be italicised.
  • "On 1992-03-21 Alice in Chains released" I wouldn't format dates like that in the prose itself. Try "On March 21, 1992..."
  • "During the band's reunion shows, they enlisted Comes With the Fall's William DuVall, who previously performed with Cantrell's solo band, to sing lead vocals. Velvet Revolver's Duff McKagan joined the band for the tour, playing rhythm guitar on a few songs.[38]" Single sentence paragraphs don't look good, at all.

Although to the untrained eye this article may look excellent, the poor sourcing and image use drag it down. Clean that out, and it may rise again to featured status. J Milburn (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the sources for a second time-

  • First of all, please correct me if I'm wrong, (I know I've made at least three mistakes tonight...) but I think, when formatting sources by multiple authors (say John Smith and Joe Bloggs) it should be formatted like this- "Smith, John; Bloggs, Joe." In other words- [Surname1], [Firstname1]; [Surname 2], [Firstname2]. You don't seem to do this all the time- look at citation 40 for example. "D'Angelo; Vineyard; Wiederhorn, Joe; Jennifer; Jon (2002-04-22). MTV.com – "'He Got Me To Start Singing': Artists Remember Layne Staley". MTV.com. Retrieved on 2007-11-08."
  • Consensus above seems to be that Rockdetector isn't a reliable source either- may be worth trying to find another citation for whatever you have cited to it.
  • Another typo! "Singles - Souundtracks and music scores. Aliceinchains.com. Retrieved on 2007-12-28."
  • http://aic.gsg2007.de/biography.html - Looks like a personal site to me.
  • http://www.still-in-chains.de.vu/ - Another personal site.
  • "Directed by Joe Perota. (1996). Unplugged - Alice in Chains [Television production]. MTV." Seeing as we can't immediately access this, perhaps quotes which back up what you are citing would be appropriate, providing they aren't too long.

Sorry, but they still aren't all looking good. Well done on replacing some of the problem citations so quickly though. Logo is now much better, the other fair use image still needs work. J Milburn (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Alice_in_Chains/archive1&oldid=326077752"