Talk:Celestiial/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Before we start, this could barely be a called a "review". It is entitled "GA Pass", implying that the article was probably (or intended to be) passed before the review had begun. Nonetheless, let's what can be fixed.--Retrohead (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Please read WP:Infobox for instruction how properly to fill the infobox
  • No. Point out specific problems if you believe they are there. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
    • The labels and associated acts should be separated by comma.--Retrohead (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Nowhere on WP:INFOBOX are commas (or "comas", for that matter) mentioned. J Milburn (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• The two opening sentences are contradictory to one another. First you say it's a one person band, and then you list three members.
  • Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• "is known for making use of" — why don't you say just "using"
  • Changed. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• "modern ones" which are these "modern" instruments?
  • Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• "The primary imagery of music by the band is that of nature." — I'm not sure if the author himself knows what he is saying.
  • Rephrased... J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Celestiial has released two albums; I see three in the discography, plus a demo.
  • Expanded. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• "is signed to two labels"; this could also use some explanation (I'm not sure that is legal if the labels cover the same territories)
  • I have rephrased that point. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• To avoid repeating myself again, do not use references such as Metal Review, and delink the labels, albums, bands that do not have (nor will have) Wikipedia articles. What's the point in linking to something that doesn't exist?
  • Once again: read WP:REDLINK. If you don't like the guideline, try to change it, but do not tell me to ignore it. You are literally telling me to make changes that go against accepted guidelines. You should not be engaging in good article reviews when you have such a fundamental lack of respect for our content guidelines. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Do you see the "citation needed" templates? Please deal with them.
• Re-word the first sentence from the history section. Actually, you may want to re-word the entire paragraph.
• "He is part of an obscure death metal band" — it would be really nice to honor us with the band's name
• The second sentence from "Anonymity" should be split up.
• what is "liberal use of cymbals"?
  • What do you think it is? Any dictionary will explain what the word "liberal" means. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not supposed to decipher your cryptic writings. The prose in GAs should be concise so there is absolutely no chance the reader could misinterpret it.--Retrohead (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Nobody with a basic grasp of English will misinterpret the phrase. There is absolutely nothing cryptic about that line. J Milburn (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• "Anderson admits that there may be death metal influences in the vocals, but says that it was not a conscious design"→you mean decision, right?
• Anderson was once asked about whether there were any pagan beliefs in Celestiial→he could have been asked if the members believe in paganism, not if "there were any pagan beliefs in Celestiial"
  • Of course he could be asked that. Don't be such a moron. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't know what reaction do you want to provoke with that statement.--Retrohead (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I want you to realise how utterly moronic what you are saying is. J Milburn (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
        • For someone who has an image of Nietzsche on his profile, you sound surprisingly uncivilized.--Retrohead (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I've made some small fixes, but, yet again, this "review" is littered with idiocy and bad faith. Asking for an article to be brought up to current standards is one thing, this is completely another. No, the article's certainly not perfect. You'd struggle to find any article promoted back in 2007 which was (and I will point out that, when active, Giggy was very well respected, and was a pillar of GAC for some time). I hope I will get around to cleaning up this article a little, but I am absolutely loath to do so based on your "suggestions". J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think that. I am reassessing this article because I do not think it is according to the criteria. Call me crazy, but a page with ten "citation needed" templates certainly could not be considered a GA.--Retrohead (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Just so we're clear- Despite the problems with the article, I do not believe that this review was created in good faith, and I think you have displayed enough significant attitude and competency problems for me to be perfectly justified in ignoring you. I am asking you now to do the decent thing and disengage. If another editor wishes to start a GA review, I have no objection. That said, I will try to find time over the coming weeks to give this article a little attention to bring it up to current standards, but I am going to be in a much better position to do that without your involvement. J Milburn (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I can not disengage because this is an individual reassessment→there has to be an outcome. Again, I appologized for not informing you on the previous GAR, but this one was made without any obvious omission. I realized that mistake thanks to your "polite" comment, but I'm sure that any other reviewer would delist this article in its current state.--Retrohead (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course you can disengage. I don't care what kind of assessment this is- you can disengage by just going away. Revert yourself, I'll delete the page, and if I'm lucky, I'll never bump into you again. Another way you could disengage: you could be blocked again. I noticed a gap in your relentless nonsense while you were blocked a few days ago. I guess I could hope for that to be repeated? Look, I'm sick of this nonsense. Just go away. You're not being helpful, you're just repeatedly making yourself look like a moron. J Milburn (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I have gone through the prose, and summa summarum, it does not fulfill the first three criteria. It has many "cn" templates (indicating there might be WP:OR), a few aberrations from the manual style of writing→WP:WEASEL, and contains sentences that are not skillfully worded. Aside the prejudice you might be feeling towards me, I am always open for a collaboration. Call me if you need help in getting the article back in shape. Everything the best and carry on.--Retrohead (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)