Wikipedia:Peer review/Cannibal Corpse/archive1

Cannibal Corpse

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for featured article status eventually, I've recently done a lot of work on it (especially regarding references), and I need feedback as to what else can be added to it in order to make it a better Wikipedia article. Here is a useful comparison of the article before I started editing and after I finished. Let me know what you think: areas for improvement, formatting problems, overlooked unsourced statements, etc.

Thanks, Huntthetroll (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've continued to edit the article, so I'll just provide a link to what the article looked like before I started editing: [1] Huntthetroll (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Hornoir

Sorry, Huntthetroll, but you are not going to like me. In depth review follows.

• Lead paragraphs:

1. "American" should be "[[United States|American]]".
2. "Although Cannibal Corpse has had virtually no radio or television exposure, a cult following began to build behind the group with albums such as 1991's Butchered at Birth and 1992's Tomb of the Mutilated." This sentence is unsourced and seems irrelevant. If you wish to use the beginning aspect to lead the following sentence, restructure to something more neutral sounding like "Despite minimal radio and television promotion, Cannibal Corpse…".
3. "Cannibal Corpse reached over 1 million in record sales worldwide in 2003, including 558,929 in the United States, making it one of the top-selling death metal bands of all time." Since these figures are based on Nielsen SoundScan numbers, that should be mentioned ("According to Nielsen SoundScan,…"). The part regarding "top-selling death metal bands of all time" sounds slightly promotional and biased; maybe something like "Based on these figures, Cannibal Corpse was considered the top-selling death metal band as of 2003." Without up-to-date figures, you can't assume this trend continued and that this statement remains true.
4. "The band's lyrics and album art, which draw heavily on horror fiction and horror films, are highly controversial. At different times, several countries have banned Cannibal Corpse from performing within their borders, or have banned the sale and display of uncensored Cannibal Corpse albums." I don't like the term "highly controversial" as a statement. Perhaps "considered controversial". The second sentence is needless long and could flow directly out of the previous sentence: "controversial, provoking bans on the sale of uncensored versions of their albums and on live performances by the band in several countries."

• Biography section:

1. "Within a year of that first gig, the band was signed to Metal Blade Records, apparently after the label had seen a videotape of a live show, and their full-length debut album, Eaten Back to Life, was released in August 1990." This is cluttered with some unnecessary words and information. Try something like: "Metal Blade Records signed the band, based on a videotape of a live performance, and released their full-length debut, Eaten Back to Life, in August 1990." My suggestion still seems awkward, but I can't think of better phrasing right now.
2. "The band has had many line-up changes over the years." Remove this sentence as it is unnecessary. You detail the line-up changes immediately following it.
3. Remove all the information regarding what band members went on to do after being dismissed. If I am interested, I will follow the wikilink for that band member. It also doesn't really have anything to do with Cannibal Corpse directly.
4. "Writing for the next album began in November 2007, as presaged in an interview with bassist Alex Webster. Evisceration Plague, Cannibal Corpse's eleventh studio album was released February 3, 2009, to a highly positive response from fans. The band will tour in support of the album in the spring of 2009." This seems odd, since it is the only instance to detail something about the actual recording and not the band members. It is also needlessly long and contains some promotional sounding text; try: "The writing for the bands eleventh studio album, Evisceration Plague, began in November 2007 and it was released on February 3, 2009. A tour to support the album release is planned for the spring of 2009."
5. Overall, this biography section needs more information that is vital to it. It feels padded out with information about the post-Cannibal Corpse careers of formal members.

• Controversy section:

1. Remove the "and publicity" from the section name, as there is only one instance mentioned and it could easily be added to the Biography section.

• Controversy section, Australia subsection:

1. This section is poorly structured and contains the same information repeatedly given. Try: "On October 23, 1996, the Australian Recording Industry Association and the Australian Music Retailers Association implemented the "labelling code of practice", which banned the sale of potentially offensive records within the country. As a result, it was illegal for Australian music retailers to sell any audio recording produced by Cannibal Corpse. This ban was lifted on April 1, 2006." I think all the pertinent information is there.

• Controversy section, Germany subsection:

1. "All Cannibal Corpse albums up to and including Tomb of the Mutilated were banned…" how about "The first three Cannibal Corpse albums were banned…" Or, even better, "Until June 2006, the first three Cannibal Corpse albums were banned…" which allows you to remove the fragmentary sentence "This prohibition was not lifted until June 2006."
2. The quote is unnecessary and obviously biased. Paraphrase it to be unbiased. Not a good example, but something like: "According to Fisher, the ban was the result of a woman — whom he recalled as being a schoolteacher — complaining after she saw one of the band's shirts."

• Controversy section, United States subsection:

1. First sentence. He accused them. And? If nothing came of it, then state he "publicly denounced them" instead of "accused". Accused implies there will be a trial, hearings or the sort.
2. Sentence two, remove "the band came under fire". Try: "A year later, a campaign by…" blah blah blah "…sought to have all major record labels cease-and-desist releasing albums by 20 bands the group considered offensive, including Cannibal Corpse." And, I'm assuming, a follow-up sentence about how the campaign failed.
3. Move the Ace Venture sentences to within the Biography and remove the Jim Carrey likes death metal sentence — it doesn't matter if Jim Carrey likes death metal or not.

• Responses to critcs section:

1. Should be preceeded by a Critical reception section so that an unbiased amount of information regarding the negative criticism regarding the band is detailed.
2. This entire section needs to be rewritten. It has biased wording, redundant information in the form of lengthy quotes, and extraneous information. I'd be more detailed, but — to be honest — I'm running out of steam here.

• Musical style section:

1. This section seems completely extraneous to me, but I don't mind it. It's not long, so it doesn't really bother me. Admittedly, with the title, I assumed it would detail more regarding the band's style in general rather than the chords they use.

• Members and Discography sections:

1. Both are simple lists that I have no problems with.

• References section:

1. #16 (the long note) seems unnecessary to the topic. #21 takes up quite a bit of space detailing the possibility that Jim Carrey likes death metal, which has very little (if anything) to do with the band.

• External links section:

1. This is my pet peeve: a link to a single interview. It shows preference towards that interview over all the others one can find. Personally, I don't think interview links belong here. If the interview is quoted or cited from, then it will appear in the References section where I feel it belongs.

Sorry for the long and detailed amount of information. You have a really strong beginning here, but I do feel it needs work. hornoir (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)