Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meshuggah/archive3
- 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 03:39, 27 December 2008 [1].
Meshuggah edit
- Nominator(s): User:Lykantrop
- previous FAC (00:34, 19 September 2008)
Since the last nomination, the article went through a peer review and many copy-edits. I've heard several opinions from different kinds of editors and I fixed everything they told me about. This improved the prose, structure and the content of the article. Now I believe it meets the criteria :) Thank you.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 14:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Intro looks okay. I fixed one word. Overall structure, use of images and references, looks solid, but I didn't read past the intro. I'm also not familiar with the subject matter. Crystal whacker (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: Images appear to be fine.
Unrelated comment: I noticed the footnotes are small font. Is this a problem with accessibility? SandyGeorgia knows more about this than I do. --Moni3 (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a note on Wikipedia:Accessibility#Text, which says "You can change your individual display to show footnotes in full sized text". To do that, we can just replace the head formatting of the section with this:
<div class="references-small; font-size: 100%;">. What do you think of it?-- LYKANTROP ✉ 10:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - Size - You break your history into five sections. Some are 2 year periods, and some are 4 or more. Why are they each different sizes? For example, Nuclear blast, a 4 year section, seems like it should have at least three paragraphs to be comparable to the size of other sections. Same issue with the early work in Musical Style. It just seems like the sections are comparatively short. Any reason? Could these be expanded to be more comparable to other areas? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends mainly on the information the sources provide. I wrote it independently on any sections and paragraphs. And afterwards it was separated into sections. They have been chosen more or less by the content rather than by the lenght of the text. Where I saw a break in the career (history) or style (mysical style) of the band I did a new section. I can't expand a section just for the sake of it being the same lenght as the other sections. What I can do is to split one if it is too long or vice versa. I can see a reasonable possibility in fusing "Formation and early years (1987–1989)" and "Nuclear Blast and Contradictions Collapse (1990–1994)" because they are shorter and the content of both of them is still "the beginning of the band". But then if t would be a 7 years section in one, which is pretty much compared to the others. I left them separated because I think that the longest hisotry section "Catch Thirtythree and obZen (2003–present)" could be split into two sections later when more iformation about the current events will be available. But it would be a logic to keep the subsections rather longer that shorter in general and to fuse those above into one "Formation and Contradictions Collapse (1987-1994)" What do you think?-- LYKANTROP ✉ 23:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just hoping that there was a way to add a few more sentences in the smaller areas, flush out some detail, etc. I'm sure they had to do at least something else in 4 years. But, they might not have. I don't know, which is why I originally wanted to ask. I prefer larger sections aesthetically because they make me think that the topic is more complete. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends mainly on the information the sources provide. I wrote it independently on any sections and paragraphs. And afterwards it was separated into sections. They have been chosen more or less by the content rather than by the lenght of the text. Where I saw a break in the career (history) or style (mysical style) of the band I did a new section. I can't expand a section just for the sake of it being the same lenght as the other sections. What I can do is to split one if it is too long or vice versa. I can see a reasonable possibility in fusing "Formation and early years (1987–1989)" and "Nuclear Blast and Contradictions Collapse (1990–1994)" because they are shorter and the content of both of them is still "the beginning of the band". But then if t would be a 7 years section in one, which is pretty much compared to the others. I left them separated because I think that the longest hisotry section "Catch Thirtythree and obZen (2003–present)" could be split into two sections later when more iformation about the current events will be available. But it would be a logic to keep the subsections rather longer that shorter in general and to fuse those above into one "Formation and Contradictions Collapse (1987-1994)" What do you think?-- LYKANTROP ✉ 23:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that is right (about the longer sections)... Well I am sure they did something worth mentioning, but during the time it gets more documented and more information is available about the more recent events...-- LYKANTROP ✉ 23:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those two first history subsections were fused, because they were pretty short.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 15:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Billboard 200 should be formatted as Billboard 200.
- For chart positions, "number 59" is preferred to "No. 59".
- "Meshuggah began in Umeå ... " -- I think it'd flow better if don't mention the word "Meshuggah" until the band Meshuggah actually forms. For example, you can see the "Formation and early days" section in Black Sabbath, where the band name isn't mentioned until Iommi and co began calling themselves that.
- In that section, I don't think you need to mention the bandmembers of Metallien and Calipash, especially if they directly involved with Meshuggah. (there are too many names in there; its too confusing!)
- The second sentence of the lead made me think that all five members were founders. You might want to make it a little more explicit that only two of them are. indopug (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments! I think it's all done now. I removed all the unnecessary names from the first history sub-section and kept only those, who have had some impact on the band (I hope there are no grammar mistakes). In the lead I completely removed the "founding members". It was confusing. The article body explains it; I think :) -- LYKANTROP ✉ 16:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please consider reducing caps per MOS:ALLCAPS; reading through them is hard on the eyes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Images
- Some of my concerns about use of nonfree content do not appear to be rectified. File:Meshuggah - Catch Thirtythree - cover.jpg is already used in the individual page, so it's a tad redundant. File:Meshuggah - Straws Pulled At Random.ogg and File:Meshuggah - Choirs Of Devastation.ogg have weak explanations and captions which are pretty loose in connection to prose and could be done without; all nonfree images have to significantly impact our understanding.
- Lead
- The lead throws out many facts without much semblance and structure. We go from their attention to their guitars to albums selling copies to their total albums. There is next to nothing on the formation of the band. I'm concerned about peacock terms that add little, such as "renowned" and "in spite of its critical acclaim" which suggest a listenership far more than its sales indicate.
- Body
- You got lots of sourced info in footnotes, and I think that much of it would be better served integrated into the actual article. For example, note [a]: it's basically citing the whole paragraph before it. Why not just have the citations in the article body?
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for your comments!
- I added appropriate captions to the music samples. The nonfree images have been used to depict every member of the current lineup once clearly. One capture is the whole band from their first world tour (2008) and one is in infobox. I just tried to do it similarily as the other FAs are, for example Metallica. I used the album cover because I think it is as helpful as the covers in Slayer or Metallica. But I don't insist on that.
- I re-structured the lead and added the information about the formation of the band. You also have a point about the wording. I think it's fixed now. It was partly because I misunderstood some of the words (my English is still pretty far from being perfect..)
- Those footnotes are a long story. The simple explanation is: when there were no footnotes like that, many editors told me that the readability of the text is very bad with some sentences having 20+ footnotes. It was simply impossible to read fluently and they suggested to cut most of the footnotes (which means also the sources). But I invented these footnotes, rather than just unnecessarily removing sources.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 01:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for your comments!
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.