Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Meshuggah/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Meshuggah edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want the article to pass the featured article criteria even before I add it to featured article nominations. So I thank everybody who gives me some suggestions. I just want to know what needs to be improved so that the article passes the FA criteria. Thanks a lot, Cheers :)  LYKANTROP  09:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've red User:AndyZ/Suggestions and corrected some things. But I still need opinions of other experienced users...--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 18:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am still in the middle of copy-editing the article, but one thing I noticed is your heavy reliance on the band's official bio. That will cause you a lot of problems at FAC should you decide to list it. You will need to find more reliable, secondary sources to back up many statements. --Laser brain (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know. WP:SELFPUB. But do you think that those facts are controversial or contentious? Where else can I find such details about the biography?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, probably not. But rest assured, they may be challenged. If they are, I'd be glad to help you find other sources. A good place to look is a database named General OneFile. Most libraries have access to it. You can type in "Meshuggah" and it will search tons of magazines for articles about the band. I found a 27-page article named "Re-casting Metal: Rhythm and Meter in the Music of Meshuggah" that would probably have tons of great info. --Laser brain (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would be really glad If you help me with that. The General OneFile sounds very interesting. I will search in some libraries, but I am not sure if it is so spread also in Europe. In which form does the General OneFile give you the article(s)? Thanks for the help..--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • New biography source added. The information based on the official web of Meshuggah has been reduced rapidly.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added some sources to the text more appropriately. Less text is based only on the official bio now.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 09:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I have done some copy-editing through the whole article. I didn't do much in the lead section of "Musical style" because, frankly, it is very hard to edit with so many refs. I think we will need to slim them down. I know people love to argue about genres, but can we stick to one or two reliable sources for each item? --Laser brain (talk) 06:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So I reduced the sources in the lead section of "Musical style". There are still few statements with three sources, but all the three sources are very good ones. The genres are reduced mostly to one single source.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is looking much better. I can see that some of those statements will require multiple sources to avoid being challenged. --Laser brain (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cannibaloki

With a bit of experience I have as editor the only three things that I do not like in this article are:

  • Lack of a band's photo for the infobox.
  • The session Musical style, there is in my opinion an excess of references.
  • It could not stop talking about the affection in the article, with respect to the references that were retired from the Meshuggah's official website - biography, it certainly is a problem. --Cannibaloki 16:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok. What exactly do you mean with the affection in the article? Read for example the Slayer#Style - what is the difference except for the length?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 19:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only an excess of references, in relation to the Meshuggah's official website. --Cannibaloki 20:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


M3tal H3ad

From the lead

  • "extraordinary technical" - is POV remove the extrodinary, it glorifies them
  • important hard and heavy bands - hard what? this is awkwardly worded for someone who doesnt know about genres
  • Rolling Stone and Alternative Press are publications and should be in italics
  • Jens Kidman, who also played rhythm guitar until 1991, and Fredrik Thordendal, were some of the first band members. It says they are members in the first paragraph, seems redundant. The history section can deal with the founding members.
  • groundbreaking release - POV, attribute the quote to the person who said it or remove "groundbreaking"
  • for their accurate calculated fusion - according to..? "accurate"?
  • With 1998's Chaosphere, they made an impression on the guitar, drum and metal magazines - necessary? also remove "the" if you do keep this strange sentence OR how about rewording to something like "With growing popularity the band was featured in several guitar, drum etc etc - "metal magazines" is also too vague for the common reader, try heavy metal music
  • I actually think you should restructure the lead. There is too much information on who left/joined/plays what.
    • Just mention the current line-up
    • Any high charting albums
    • Any sales figures
    • Any big world tours/festival appearences
    • Number of releases
    • Some style/influence (you kind of got that down)
  • Look at Metallica. The first paragraph introduces the current line-up and past members (i wouldn't with this band as they aren't as popular, ex everyone knows about Mustaine and Cliff) Paragraph 2 and 3 deal with the band's history/rise to fame/some criticism/style. Paragraph 4 is about releases, sale figures, album positions, awards. Just keep it simple and brief. Goodluck. M3tal H3ad (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks a lot. The lead has been rewritten. The only 2 things I kept (for now) are "groundbreaking release" and "accurate calculated" - They have sources further in the article, I would like to duscuss this rather than just delete it. Do you think it is otherwise ok? The first paragraph of the lead is the total sum of the band (current members, what kind of band they are), the paragraph 2 and 3 are short history + style, the 4 is sales, charts, big tours (numbers, mainstream info). --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)
  • Their latest album obZen was released in 2008. This sentence seems a little weird.
  • Meshuggah have been labelled as one of the ten most important hard [rock] and heavy [metal] bands by Rolling Stone and as the most important band in metal by Alternative Press. I don't think the brackets are needed, as it's not a quote.
  • Meshuggah was originally formed in 1987,[3] comprised of vocalist Jens Kidman, guitarist Johan Sjögren, bassist Jörgen Lindmark and drummer Per Sjögren. "Comprised" &rarr' "Comprising".
  • This 12" vinyl EP had only 1000 copies released, sold by local record store Garageland. Use {{convert}} for the 12" measurement
  • Is it possible to cut down on some refs in the "Musical style"? A few sentences have as many as 15, which makes it hard to read.
  • I'll have some more comments later. Good work overall. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks...The problem of the convert template is that it shows as "12 inches (30 cm)", but I need 12" (30 cm) or 12-inch single (it can't say 12 inches single), so I did it without the template as the 12-inch single article.
    • I did a sources reduction of that section already some time ago (this is how it was looking originally :)). I re-ordered them a bit again and I hope its better now. But the problem is that some of the sentences just contain lots of information with many sources. --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More comments
  • The debut album is also been described as a relatively immature but original release. "Is" → "has".
  • Nick Terry of Decibel Magazine describes the album as a four-movement symphony. Try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs.
  • Are there any sources for the Discography?

That's it from me. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is fixed now.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 13:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn

Sorry if it seems I have been ignoring you, I will take a look now. J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the 1995 groundbreaking release" - Groundbreaking seems a little POV- you could certainly explain/quote in the main body to support that, but I would leave it out of the lead.
  • "Erase Improve for their "calculated" fusion of death metal," - Again, quotes in the lead should be avoided, and, if they are needed, cited. I'd just remove the word.
  • "and has sold 11,400 copies in the first week" - Why not just "and sold"?
  • Last paragraph of the first section is a little short- if you're looking to take this to FAC, I know a lot of people pick fault with that.
  • Ok, just reading through this, and I am seeing nothing much at all. The writing is great, the detail is good, statements are referenced...
  • Another short paragraph in the middle of "Chaosphere and Nothing (1998–2002)"
  • "In February 2004, Dick Lövgren officially joined the band,[6] Meshuggah subsequently recorded and released the I EP, which contains a single 21-minute track, released on Fractured Transmitter Records[1][9][21] Catch Thirtythree, the only album on which programmed drums have been used, was released the following year on May 31, 2005.[22]" This sentence doesn't quite work for me. I think it should be split in two, the tenses need sorting and something else. I'm not actually sure exactly what is being said.
  • "A remixed and remastered version Nothing with re-recorded" - "of Nothing", surely?
  • "Tomas Haake told Revolver:" a link to Revolver (magazine) would be good.
  • "which started in the US and proceeds to Europe, Asia, and Australia." - U.S., "will proceed" or "is now proceeding" would be better here, I think. Or maybe not, but I think the word needs changing.
  • Maybe this is just because I'm a Brit, but this is a European topic, should British English not be used? I'm looking at "caused music journalists to categorize" here.

Sorry that's so short, and sorry it's so late. Overall, I have to say it's a very well researched and written article, and I can't see any reason that it should have any problem at FAC. I'm surprised I wasn't familiar with the band until now, so thanks, I've learnt something. I may take another look over the article at some point, but this should give you a little bit to work on. J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips. It is all fixed now.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 13:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Meshuggah/archive1&oldid=1138563863"