Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meshuggah/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Meshuggah
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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:55, 25 August 2008 [1].

Meshuggah

edit
Nominator(s):  LYKANTROP  ✉

I'm nominating this article about a Swedish experimental band for featured article because I think that it is ready for the nomination. I've discussed it with several users (peer review) and I think that it passes the FA critria now.  LYKANTROP  ✉ 13:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prefixmag, Sputnikmusic, about.com and rockdetector are proffesional-music-critics sources. guitarworld.com/metalkult is very professional as well (explanation here). Metalstorm is the only source that is not as reliable as the others. But it can be removed because the information has also some other sources. I used the selfpublished sources so that they do not support any controversial information. Only additional and specifying information or non-contentious facts are supported only by the selfpublished sources.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the 2 problematic references.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 10:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 14:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allright:
I'd be happier with more positive reviews from more than one source. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph in this Blabbermouth news about Rockdetector.com's Garry Sharpe-Young books says: "Zonda Books will publish Garry's "Death Metal", "Black Metal" and "Power Metal" books before the end of the year. These MusicMight titles replace the 2001 editions, which have consistently ranked number 1 on their Amazon.com searches for five years and more." Some information can be found here (introduction) and here--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The information about Chad Bower comes from the about.com page for him. Third party information would help more. Also, with About.com, just being backed by The New York Times doesn't work, since there doesn't seem to be much editorial oversight over about.com. I'll confess that about.com is Sandy's baby, she's better equiped to discuss why its questioned. (She's done the research about it, that's why). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any better information directly about Chad Bowar than the source I posted above. I only can find things such as interviews by Browar like for example this one. Sorry, but I dont know what the "Sandy's baby" means.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) the FAC director's delegate. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Metacritic is just an aggregator, being included there isn't a guaranty of reliablity. If you're just using the sputnik stuff as reviews, attribute the information to the reviewer at Sputnik and it'll pass. However, using a review for factual information means you need to prove the reliability of the reviewer or the site overall. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the reviews are reliable when they are recommended by WP:ALBUM#Review sites. I think that when you judge the reliability of sources such as Rockdetector, About.com (Chad Browar) and Sputnikmusic (staff reviews), you should also take into account that Meshuggah is relatively an underground band in the circles of experimental metal genre, which is also absolutely not a mainstream musical genre. About Browar we know that he

"has been involved in metal for over 20 years. He writes or has written for several national music publications including Outburn, Hails and Horns, AMP, Lollipop, Loud Fast Rules and more. He's done hundreds of interviews over the years with members of bands such as Judas Priest, Metallica, Cannibal Corpse, Queensryche, Sepultura, In Flames and more. In addition, Chad has covered events like Ozzfest, Warped Tour and the New England Metal and Hardcore Festival. He's also worked in radio for the past two decades at stations all over the country."([2])

From Sputnikmusic I used one review written by one of two "Heads of Staff" of Sputnikmusic. About the Sputnikmusic staff reviewers we know that

"The Sputnikmusic staff is a small group of writers and reviewers who are acknowledged as the most exemplary reviewers on the site. Staff reviewers are expected to exhibit a high level of reviewing prowess and activity on the site, consistently write at an expert level that is devoid of errors, and review new releases. Staff reviewers also contribute to the site through the "Staff Picks" feature on Sputnikmusic, in which they select recently-released albums (2005 or later) for their genre(s) of interest that they highly recommend to the community. Staff reviewers will receive the bulk of the new promo CDs coming to Sputnikmusic, and many of the staff writers keep in constant contact with record labels, artists, and artist management; in doing so, they receive promo copies and other inside information. Because of their position, the staff is entitled to certain perks that non-staff writers cannot receive (such as reviewing an album and submitting it to the site prior to the album's official release date, especially if they've maintained contact with the artist or someone affiliated with the artist)."([3])

I am absolutely not telling you to accept some not-that-good sources or bring down Wikipedia's standards or to narrow your eyes when judging these sources. I just want to emphasize that "how reliable a source is depends on context." If we accept only the best known mainstream sources such as Rolling Stone magazine, we could never create a featured article about an underground experimental band, which is renowned by professionals, but does not have a huge publicity, because of low mainstream popularity. Therefore I think that the three sources above should be accepted as reliable, because they are written by pofessionals, but not so famous ones.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, this does not qualify them as experts under WP:SPS, which discuss experts publishing in their field but not in mainstream sources. And just because a Wikiproject suggests some sites doesn't make them reliable according to WP:RS or WP:V. I really am not trying to be a pain here, you'll note that I"m not opposing the article based on these sources, but they need to fulfill the basic Wikipedia policies to pass FAC. I'm perfectly willing to leave them out for other reviewers to decide for themselves on their reliability. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are not a pain here, I just want to solve the problem. We have some third party sources about reliability of Rockdetector, but what now with the Sputnikmusic and About.com?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 19:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About.com I'm punting to Sandy (I corrected my typing error above, btw) and on Rockdetector I think we're close enough that I'm confortable saying "borderline, not necessarily proven for all things, but can be seen how it's being used in each case". Sputnik, I still haven't seen anything that looks third party. If you've put it up, I apologize, my sinuses are making my head feel like a watermelon today, and I'm not the brightest bulb on the planet today! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for "punting About.com to Sandy". I hope you"ll get well... I had enough of messing around with Sputnikmusic. No third-party sources about its reliability. I just deleted it because the source had almost no impact on the content of the article. Only one statement was not backed up by any other source (and it was deleted). --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Can ONLY the band edit it? If that's the case, it would be like their website, and a primary source. If others beside the band can edit it, then it's like a wiki, and wouldn't be reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is like their official website. I also used in the article almost only for the history issues. I generally make an effort not to source any controversial content with these sources. I used it mostly for the details in the history of the band.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're just using the review as a review, you attribute it to "According to (blah), the reviewer at (blahsite), (review of the music style, etc)." But if you're using it to cite facts, you need to show that the reviewer is reliable and published elsewhere or that the site overall is reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This website is used once in the whole article and the content has two other sources. It can be removed.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, is this site gone from the article? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has been removed. It was not indispensable (as the metalstorm and the prefixmag).--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is what you asked for. Every time I used a selfpublished source, I focused to use it only for non-contentious topics. I used them only for additional and more detailed information and facts about the history of the band, which were not so detailed in other sources. --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 22:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images

These should be relatively easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed that.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that, but the user does not have a userpage anyway.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lykantrop is listed as the uploader and Valerian Noghin as the author and User:Valli as the copyright holder. We need to establish somehow that these are the same people or that User:Valli and Valerian Noghin are the same person and that they did release the photo somewhere. Awadewit (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Originally the picture was uploaded to Wikipedia by user:Valli (Image:Tomas Haake.jpg). I wanted to move it to the Commons so I asked on Village pump and they told me to upload it to the commons again and leave the author and the licence as it was originally. Somebody told me about this tool later, but did not use it anymore. Maybe we can just move the original one to the commons (with the Move-to-commons assistant) and delete the newer version (that was uploaded by me). On the other hand, we can simply use the original as it is.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 11:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I used the Move-to-commons assistant and the image looks fixed.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 06:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images look good. Awadewit (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose-needs a thorough copyedit. Here examples from the lead. Comments I'm sorry, I jumped the gun on that. I will go through and fix the lead now. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Meshuggah are a Swedish five-piece experimental metal band that formed in 1987." Subject-verb agreement, please. The band is a single entity, are-->is.
  • "Meshuggah first acquired international attention with the 1995 release Destroy Erase Improve for their fusion of death metal, thrash metal and prog metal." Wrong verb, acquired should be attracted.
  • "Meshuggah have been labelled as one of the ten most important hard and heavy bands by Rolling Stone and as the most important band in metal by Alternative Press." Once again, we're talking about one band (have-->has).
  • "Nothing and all later albums reached Billboard 200, obZen ceased on No. 59 and sold 11,400 copies in the first week." This sentence is vague. I don't understand how an album is "ceased".
I fixed this up the best that I could. However, someone who understands the content better should proofread what I've done. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks allright now.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 09:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The band was nominated for a Swedish Grammy Award in 2006, played on the Ozzfest festival and are currently on a world tour." This sentence should be split up. These events are rather unrelated. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section is the part of the article that has been made at last. The whole article body went through a detailed general copyedit by both User:Kakofonous and User:Laser brain. After that the article had almost no changes, but the lead section was completely re-written (by me - I am not a native speaker). That is why the lead needs copy edits.
All these "are-->is" "errors" are problems of American/British English. It has been changed by some user here. Many articles use "are" instead of "is" - for example typical english bands like Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple. Meshuggah are a European band, so why should American English be used?
Yes the lead section needs copyedit anyway. It was written by a non-native english speaker. But the rest of the article has been checked by several users. I would welcome if someone helps me with the lead section rather than just oppose the nomination.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I addressed almost all the issues in the lead. I'll look at the rest of the article when I get time. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC) More comments[reply]

  • I find that in the Lyrics, songwriting and recording section, there is an specific statement on obZen's lyrics and themes, but none of the other albums.
  • Maybe there should be a main article link to the articles about the albums in the section describing the albums.

These issues are not big; I'll have no problem supporting the article once these are fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the links to the main articles and I also added few more lyrical themes in that section. The new three sentences will probably need copy-edit.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 09:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I copyedited the new sentences. Great job! My support will come as soon as the sourcing issues are resloved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuetral This is one of the best written band articles I've seen. I was weary when I was reading becuase I saw no reviews, but then I got done reading the biography, and I saw the phenomenal style section. It is freakin amazing. The one thing I hate to mention, is some of the sources are questionable. Whenever I have been at FAC, allmusic biographies were only able to be limited as sources, while this one is used a lot. The band's official website is also questioned because it may not be nuetral, but this one looks nice because it was written by ESPN. I really hate mentioning that because of the controversy caused for using the autobiographical info for Opeth when I wrote that. Rockdetector is also usually seen as a problem site. I think it is a beautiful article, but some sources, I hate to say, are questionable. If there is some type consensus on them, I would gladly change to a support. Burningclean [speak] 04:00, 22 August 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/Meshuggah/archive1&oldid=1136458264"