Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Viking metal/archive2

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 promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2017 [1].

---

Viking metal

Nominator(s): 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Viking metal, a style of heavy metal music based primarily on lyrical themes of the Vikings, the Viking age, and Norse paganism. I first started working on this article back in 2011, and, over time, became fascinated with the subject, came to enjoy the style of music, and delved into the scholarly research about Viking metal. My own interest and research seems to have paralleled with that of academia: Prior to 2010, far fewer sources discussion Viking metal existed, so the past six years have seen a sizeable increase in academic interest in the subject. Over the course of the past five years, myself and other editors have vastly improved this article. There was an conflict two years ago over the definitions and origins of Viking metal between myself and an anonymous editor, but we were able to arrive at a compromise that best summarized the existing literature. The article has subsequently become a good article and has undergone peer review. It adheres to basic policy regarding BLPs and copy-righted material. It adequately summarizes the topic, and covers all key aspects with the needed detail. It follows a consistent layout and reference style. I believe that this article is ready to be a featured article candidate. This is the second FA nomination for this article. The first one was rejected only due to inactivity. It did get one editor's review, and I addressed the problems that they highlighted.3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support as the one who helped at PR. If there wasn't really much of anything wrong with it then, there definitely can't be now. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 13:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Okay, one problem. The Stylus Magazine reference for Amon Amarth has been dead since June (after my PR).

Fixed. Apparently, apart from the homepage, the entire site for Stylus has been taken down.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

According to a Google search they've been defunct since October 2007. They seem to have just kept archives there until last June. My full support has been restored. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 19:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment as author: I had solicited for a review from User:Lewismaster, who unfortunately is unable to give a full review. However, they did say that they found the article somewhat arcane. If any editors notice this, I would welcome criticism and advice.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• support with a few added commentary--malconfort (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

"typical black metal death growls" shrieks are typical to black metal, while death growls is mostly a death metal thing.

No, death growls are plenty present in black metal, it's just that they're combined with shrieks (with shrieks being favored over growls a little bit). dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Malconfort is right. While black metal does use growling and death growls, it's more common in death metal. The source actually says "typical black metal screams and growls," which is more accurate. I've corrected this, thanks.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

the section sonic traits must covers the characteristics of viking metal as a whole not only of a few artists. this or you must change the text to a more broaden perspective.

I thought I did? The last two paragraphs I added later, after the two paragraphs were written. I admit that it might be a bit jarring to go from broad examples to specifics. I'll look into how I can rectify this. I might move those paragraphs into the history section, though I don't currently have a section on Týr, and I think I would need to include other examples if I created a section on that band. Mulvany also deals a lot with particular examples of Viking metal song structure, so an alternative possibility is bringing in a few of those, though this would expand the already massive "characteristics" section further (is it my fault that so much has been written on in the way of examples?)--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

"the exultation of violence and virility through weapons and battlefields" it's a metal thing basically, not only of a black and/or death metal standpoint. from what i remember, viking metal has close ties to traditional heavy metal...

Where'd you get the close ties idea? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I checked the source, and I've reworded it as "Viking metal combines the symbology favored by many black and death metal bands..." It is true that heavy metal in general celebrates war and battle, but I also need to make sure that this summarizes what the source says, not my own opinions. I think the sourced statement, which I've more closely followed in my new revision, is a bit more nuanced than what I had before. It implies that war is more common a theme among death and black metal bands, but not exclusive. I think that could be debated, but in this instance I'm just following the source. As an aside, yes, I think Viking metal is closer to traditional metal than its extreme origins would suggest.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorhin, the Swedish black metal band? wasn't aware they are associate with the viking metal style. what about create an article for them?

That is not the job of the nominator... dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice to have an article on that band. Mulvany seems to be the only source that identifies the band as Viking metal, at least that I can find so far, and even his commentary suggests that it primarily is a folk-influenced black metal band.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

link "megaliths"

Done by DannyMusicEditor.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

it seems the band týr is like the black sheep of the viking metal article. i have the impression they just don't fit.

They fit in the article, they just aren't full on true viking metal. Ironic that you'd say they're "black sheep" because they're not black at all. But seriously they are important. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at the list of Viking metal bands, there are other oddballs in there (like the rock band Glittertind!). There was also some serious heat on this article and the list over the inclusion of Amon Amarth. That's one reason why I have the quote from Ashby and Schofield on how Viking metal "has diversified (at least in aural terms), and now covers a range of styles that run the gamut between black metal and what one might justifiably term classic rock."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

link "pantheon of Norse gods"

Done by DannyMusicEditor.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

link the terms "Conan the Barbarian as it does to history, saga, or Edda"

Done, except saga, which is linked to in a previous section.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Malconfort, that was very helpful.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support - wonderfully detailed characteristics section with supporting images that pretty much seals the deal. In regards to the comment made about the article appearing as arcane... I would assume weirder articles have been featured. RHedmi (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to have your support - I think what Lewismaster meant by "arcane" was that they found the content difficult to understand for someone unfamiliar with the topic - a topic can be weird, yet written in an accessible manner.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Well written article with well-articulated sections. The supporting media is also used extensively; the very detailed history section is also impressive on its own. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Read most of this during the week - highly researched and informed, excellent background and context, tightly written for the most part, good use of sources, restrained and well judged use of images, and put together in an engaging and often pacey style. Note, I began my wiki career editing black metal articles, so would be familiar with the sub-genre. Ceoil (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator Note: Unless I've missed it, we still need a source and image review. Also, I think this would be your first FA so we need a spot-check of the sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. You can request these at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Leaning oppose, on prose grounds. I've copyedited a bit; please revert anything I've screwed up.

• The "Sonic traits" section starts with ten consecutive sentences of the form "A said B". If nothing else, this needs some variation in the presentation, but I think it would be much better to drop most of the inline attribution, perhaps paraphrase more, and use the material to assemble a narrative description of the traits. The third paragraph of the section seems much better, though I think the first sentence, crediting Piotrowska, is unnecessary. I see quite a bit more inline attribution further down in the article, so to avoid repetition I'll just say that I think it should be saved for when it makes a difference to the reader -- e.g. when a minor band unexpectedly gets a review from a major outlet, or an academic paper caused a controversy and other critical opinions are to be understood as a response to the paper, or when there is some question about the reliability or neutrality of the source of which the reader needs to be aware. Otherwise they clutter the reading experience without adding anything that can't be found in the citations. Attributions also tend to force the inclusion of more and more synonyms for "said": "He elaborated that"; "he stated that"; and so on.
• "While retaining the noise and chaos of previous recordings, the band took a more sorrowful and melodic approach, working in ballads based on Germanic and Norse folklore, shanty-like melodies and folk music elements such as bourdon sounds, Jew's harps, and fifes were introduced": the syntax breaks down in the middle; given that "folk music elements" is the last noun phrase in the list, it's the object of "based on" and can't be the subject of "were introduced".
• "Bathory's song structure typically of this era featured multi-sectional formal structures, and usually followed a pattern of three instrumental sections – introduction, bridge, and finale – and two vocal sections – stanza and refrain." Two problems here: "structure" is repeated, and "Bathory's song structure typically of this era featured" is a pretty awkward sentence start. It would also be nice to find a wording that allows us to avoid having both "typically" and "usually", since they mean the same thing. I tried copyediting and got as far as "In this era Bathory's song structure typically featured multi-sectional", but I think it needs a bit more thought.
• "Enslaved, a formative band in the style, performs primarily a black metal style, but one that over time became more progressive": repetition of "style", and I think "has become" would work better than "became".
• The paragraph on Týr has "typical" and "typically" in consecutive sentences.
• "especially the exultation of violence and virility": I suspect this is intended to be "exaltation".
• "Viking metal ... shares an interest in ancestral roots": what is meant by "shares" here? Shares with ...?
• In a couple of places the article uses "sonic" or "sonically" where I'd expect to see "music" or "musically" -- e.g. "bands such as Sorhin keep the Satanic elements of black metal but sonically are influenced". Is this standard in the sources? To me "sonic" is more of an engineering term; the frequency response of a loudspeaker is a sonic characteristic rather than a musical one.
• "Many artists claim affiliation to Ásatrú": Given that "Ásatrú" isn't easily visible in the target link (to Germanic neopaganism), this is a bit of an Easter egg link. If it's generally true that every artist says "Ásatrú" rather than using other names for the religion, then a parenthetical explanation would be useful; otherwise I'd suggest using "neopaganism" instead.
• "Trafford and Pluskowski state that some members of the scene were motivated to act, citing the church burnings by black metal musician Varg Vikernes as an example": it's not clear what is meant by "act" until the second half of the sentence, so I'd rephrase (and drop the attribution): perhaps something like "Black metal musician Varg Vikernes, who has burnt churches, is one of the Viking metal artists who has gone beyond music to taking action in support of these anti-Christian views". You might also link to Early Norwegian black metal scene here; you link to it later but here seems a reasonable option too. And if there are multiple examples of these anti-Christian actions, you might mention others beyond Vikernes at this point.
• This isn't something you have to change for FAC, but I'm curious: why doesn't the article start with the history?
• I'm not keen on the use of File:Barco vikingo.jpg, since there are no sources to indicate that it is either historically accurate or accurately represents the images used in Viking metal. If nothing else is available I think a fair use image demonstrating the use of a ship in a Viking metal album cover would be better, if one exists.
• 'They stipulate that "Presumably ...': what follows is not really a stipulation -- it's an assertion, or a suggestion.
• "but stated about the first track on the album that": clumsy phrasing.

  Looking at this again the difficulty is in enforcing the reference to the first track. Is this necessary? Is it the case that the "this vision should not be seen..." comment really doesn't apply to the rest of the album? It's a bit confusing as it stands because the initial comment ("incorporated themes...") is about the album, not just the first track. Should the first comment be also restricted to the first track? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It's only the first track - I made this explicit, and I'm not sure why I was so nebulous before.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

That's definitely clearer. How about 'For example, the Austrian black metal band Abigor incorporated Viking themes and Germanic paganism on "Unleashed Axe-Age", the first track on its 1994 album Nachthymnen, but said it "should not be seen as a part of the upcoming Viking trend".'? (Incidentally, to me it should be "on their album" not "on its album", but I assume that's standard in AmEng.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. And you are right about "its" vs. "their" being American English. As an American, I personally use "their" and "them," but the standard apparently is "its" and "it" (unless the band name is plural - Eagles, the Beatles, etc.), which is something that I've brought up as an FA reviewer before.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Struck; I made one more tweak. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• 'Enslaved, from Norway, formed in 1991, is cited as another of the first Viking metal bands. Mulvany cites as "probably the first truly 'Viking' metal band".' You have "cited" and "cite" in quick succession, and it looks like there's a word missing from the second sentence.
• The sentence following "They further opine that" has a fairly complicated structure -- the verb doesn't show up till "it is notable"; putting "They further opine that" in front makes it really hard to parse.
• The last three sentences of the "Burzum" section seem unnecessarily wordy; if the sources allow it, can we cut it to "The first burning, that of Fantoft Church on June 6, 1992, was thought by many to be related to Satanism, since the burning occurred on the sixth day of the week, on day six of the sixth month and was thus a reference to the number of the beast. Vikernes contends that the date June 6 was really picked because the first recorded Viking raid (upon Lindesfarne), occurred, according to Vikernes, on June 6, 793."
• 'Robert Müller considers the song "Galder", the final track from Helheim's 1995 debut album Jormundgand, the death blow to Viking metal emerging as a concrete genre, since the ambitious track even went beyond compatibility with heavy metal.' I don't follow this; what is Müller asserting?
• "combine songs about ancestors and Norse gods with electrifying, to power-driven, arrangements": something seems wrong here -- is "to" in the source?
• "Amon Amarth and Unleashed's music could be described as death metal but incorporates Viking lyrical themes and thus are considered": the music is the subject of "incorporates" and also of "are considered", so the two verbs need to agree on singular vs. plural. I suspect it should be "thus the bands are considered".
• "as, similar to Bathory's rejection of common black metal imagery, the band do not employ the common death metal themes": needs to be reworded -- the band are not similar to Bathory's rejection of black metal imagery.

  The wording is a bit better now, but it's still a complicated sentence structure. Re-reading it, I'm not sure we need the back-reference to Bathory. Bathory's rejection of black metal imagery isn't mentioned in the earlier paragraph about them, so how about simplifying this to: "Unleashed set a precedent for many of the coming black metal bands by avoiding the usual death metal thems and instead focusing on pre-Christian Swedish heathenism, particularly the Viking Age and old Norse religion"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

One last nit-pick on this: if we have "themes", we need more than one theme listed, and we just have "gore". If the themes are all related to gore, can we rephrase to "gory themes" or something like that to avoid the misreading? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Death metal also has death, horror, war, Satanism, anti-Christianity, and, sometimes, philosophy and social commentary as common themes, so I'll turn "themes" here into a singular.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Some members of the Viking metal scene believe that it is impossible for someone to be a Viking unless they themselves are of northern European descent. However, the scene also spread to other parts of Northern Europe in areas united by a common Germanic heritage, such as Austria, Germany, and the Netherlands." These are from two separate sources, and the second sentence refers to the music scene, not to the claim of Viking heritage. Are these really connected? And does the first sentence add anything to the article? It seems a pretty unexceptionable statement as it stands and the opinion is not held only by Viking metal artists and fans.

  I see you removed the "however", which is an improvement. Do we need the first sentence, though? It seems to be saying little more than "you can't be descended from Vikings unless you're descended from Vikings". Or do members of the Viking metal scene feel that you shouldn't be a Viking metal artist (or fan) unless you are of northern European descent? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I re-ordered the sentences in the paragraph, opening with the statement that some Viking metal musicians believe that only those with northern European heritage should make Viking metal music. That should provide context for the regional focus that follows.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Is there a link for Baltic war metal? If not, would a redlink be justified?
• The article has a couple of mentions of the question of racism in Viking metal. Can you confirm that these references are appropriate weight for the sources? White supremacism and related racist views seem like a plausible pairing for some of these bands, but there's not much in the article about it. For example, are Nordic white supremacists often fans of Viking metal? Or is Vikernes an anomaly? If you don't have sources on this, of course there's nothing to be done.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Mike Christie, this gives me a lot to work on, and articulates issues with the prose, which is something that I was wondering about. I will work on this. I will respond to a few points that you brought up:

-I think maybe it's just peeve that I personally have, but I used "sonic" or "sonically" as opposed to "musical" because I consider lyrics an aspect of music, particularly in a genre like this where the only truly defining feature is the lyrics. However, you bring up a good point about the difference between "sonic" and "musical," so I'll happily change this.

-I'll put in a note of some kind that Ásatrú is basically synonymous with Germanic neopaganism.

-I put "Characteristics" before "history" because that is how the heavy metal music featured-quality article is organized.

-Good point about the potential original synthesis - I'll consult the sources on this.

-There is more about the racist undercurrent behind some black metal and Viking metal - unfortunately, much of this is in sources that I cannot access. I'll see what I can find.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I replaced the image, and worked on a lot of the prose suggestions. I still need to re-work most of the source attribution sentences, and I will have to do some research address the Nordic heritage and racism aspects of the topic.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I reworked the attribution and quotes - I tried to list the names of authors only if it is particularly relevant - some direct quotes, or specific scholarship that might be contentious to put in Wikipedia voice, or else might be a minority viewpoint. Mike Christie, does the prose look okay now? I will do some research for the Nordic heritage and racism discussions.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

These sentences - "Some members of the Viking metal scene believe that it is impossible for someone to be a Viking unless they themselves are of northern European descent. However, the scene also spread to other parts of Northern Europe in areas united by a common Germanic heritage, such as Austria, Germany, and the Netherlands." - which you contested as original synthesis, are from the same source, which links the musicians and scenes together. The "However" qualification is mine - I will remove that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I did some research regarding Vikernes, and racism and white nationalism within Viking metal more generally, and implemented a few changes. I couldn't access all the sources, but those which I could access were adequate. On the whole, with these new edits, I think the article represents the scholarship. There can be more detail put in here and there, and Catherine Hoad has a whole article on the topic of white ethno-nationalism, which was already listed in the further reading section, but I think what is in the Wikipedia article now is fairly neutral, with adequate weight given toward different views within the scholarship.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I've struck most points above and have a couple of responses above. Generally it looks much improved. I'll reread for overall prose and the first bullet point above; might not get that done this morning depending on how long the rest of the household stays asleep. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I've re-read the first few paragraphs and struck the first bullet above. I'll go through the whole article again for prose, either this evening or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I've caught up on everything above; everything I pointed out is fixed. I'll do another read through; I have house guests so can't be sure when I'll have time but will try to do it no latter than tomorrow evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Reading through again. As before, please revert my copyedits as needed. I've struck my "leaning oppose" above.

• "Viking metal emerged during the late-1980s through the mid-1990s, as a rejection of Satanism and the occult, instead embracing the Vikings and paganism as the leaders of opposition to Christianity": what does "leaders" mean here? At this point in the lead the reader doesn't yet know that black metal often includes Satanic and occult themes, but I don't know if it's only black metal that is seen as the precursor to Viking metal. How about something like "Viking metal emerged from black metal during the late 80s/early 90s, sharing with black metal an opposition to Christianity, but rejecting Satanism and occult themes in favor of the Vikings and paganism"?

Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• "It is similar to folk metal, and is sometimes categorized as such, but it uses folk instruments less extensively than that genre": "that genre" is a bit awkward, but I can see you were trying to avoid repetition. How about "It is sometimes categorized as folk metal, but it uses folk instruments less extensively, though there are similarities between the two genres"?

Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• 'the band has changed its sound "significantly with every record."' doesn't seem like it needs to be a direct quote. How about "The band's sound has evolved with each album since Mardraum – Beyond the Within (2000)"?
• I'm not sure we need the long description of "Yggdrasil" by Mulvany; do we learn anything about Viking metal from it?

I've taken that out. I put it in as part of a larger effort to address User:Malconfort's concerns that the characteristics section focused on two artists exclusively. I agree that that particular sentence did not really add anything to the article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• "In an attempt to replicate these uneven signatures, Týr often places the accent on the weak beat of the bar. In songs based on old Faroese ballads, Týr will try to play in harmonic or melodic minor scale or else in mixolydian mode." I'm not clear what is meant by "attempt" and "try" here; do they fail or succeed?

"Attempt" is in the original text - they attempt to replicate Faroese music time signatures in a rock music style. I changed "try" to "usually." I know that this now means we have "typically," "often," and "usually" in rapid succession, but it matches the source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Other Finnish bands, such as Ensiferum, Turisas, and Korpiklaani, focus on Sami traditions and shamanism, further stretching the definition of Viking metal": so this is regarded as Viking metal, and not pagan metal?

  In short, those bands are labeled as both Viking metal and pagan metal. This particular source, which discusses both genres, considers them Viking metal. Here is a quote from the paragraph that I summarized in the article: "More recently, the [Viking metal] scene has seen considerable growth, with the success of bands such as Sweden's Amon Amarth (whose videos feature images of Viking longships and warriors, while their album Twilight of the Thunder God was paired with a short, Norse-myth themed graphic novel), and Finnish bands such as Ensiferum, Turisas, and Korpiklaani, who are particularly notable for their distinctive focus on Saami tradition and shamanism, calling into question again the validity and usefulness of the 'Viking Metal' label."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

  Fair enough; what you have does reflect the source accurately. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• "and thus, apart from its lyrical content and heavily folk-influenced music, the band is virtually indistinguishable from other heavy metal bands": could this be simplified to "and only their folk-influenced music and lyrical themes distinguish them from other heavy metal bands"?

Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• 'Mulvany says that while much of the thematic history of heavy metal uses parodies of the occult in an incongruous fashion, Viking metal bands use "a very specific mythology which controls not only textual choices, but also the imagery used on albums and frequently the kind of music composed". Deena Weinstein notes that despite a whole pantheon of Norse gods to choose from, Viking metal bands typically focus on Odin, the god of war, and Thor, "whose hammer, 'the hammer of the gods', defended the Pagans against the Christians".' I think you might be able to cut, or at least shorten, the first sentence; the comment from Weinstein plus the first paragraph of the section seem to give the same information. And do we need to attribute Weinstein's quote? How about: 'Despite a whole pantheon of Norse gods to choose from, Viking metal bands typically focus on Odin, the god of war, and on Thor and his hammer, which he wielded against the Christians'?

Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• 'In 2013, The Wall Street Journal published an article which examined how heavy metal fans around the world learn languages such as Norwegian or Finnish in order to understand the lyrics of their favorite bands. It reported, "A band of young metal heads – spanning Romania to Singapore – have taken up a Northern European language in order to better appreciate or even mimic their favorite metal bands."' I don't think the source is important here, so I would suggest shortening this to something like: "Heavy metal fans around the world sometimes learn languages such as Norwegian or Finnish in order to understand the lyrics of their favorite bands and improve their appreciation of the music".

Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think you need the "sign" parameter on the Mulvany blockquote; you already attribute it above the quote. Similarly for Quorthon's quote. This is personal preference, not an FA requirement; I just think it's wasteful to give the attribution twice.

I've never liked it either, I just thought it was required for blockquotes. Very happy to remove.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Looks like you have at least a couple of spaced em-dashes, which is frowned on; you might want to do a pass through looking for them.

Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• "The roots of Viking metal proper are generally cited to be later in the Scandinavian metal scene, particularly the death and black metal scenes of the late 1980s": I assume "later" refers to the previous paragraph, but since it's titled "Precursors" I don't think you need the reference. I'd make this just "The roots of Viking metal proper are generally considered to be the death and black metal scenes of the late 1980s".

Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• "The band's fourth album Blood Fire Death, released in 1988, includes two early examples of Viking metal – the songs "A Fine Day to Die" and "Blood Fire Death", and thus is possibly the first genuine example of Viking metal": you don't need both "two early examples" and "possibly the first genuine example". I think you could cut everything from "and thus" to the end of the sentence without losing any meaning.

I guess so. Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Why is Laut.de attributed inline? Seems like those sentences could be substantially compressed unless there's some reason to let the reader know the source.

When I was going through this article before, it seemed that it was important to specify these claims, but now I don't think so. Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• On the other hand, the mention of Metal Hammer seems reasonable, since it sounds as though that's not a universally-held opinion, but shouldn't we attribute the opinion to the article writer and not to the magazine as a whole? And if we can make it clearer that this is a minority view I think that would be good.

I don't know how much of a minority opinion it is, and I want to try to avoid original synthesis. I'm not what I can do to indicate that his opinion regarding Viking metal as a genre isn't shared by everyone, when I haven't seen another source that talks about Müller specifically.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

How does this look?

"Robert Müller of Metal Hammer Germany argues that Viking metal never solidified as a genre, and attributes this to Jormundgand, Helheim's 1995 debut album. Jormundgand included an ambitious track - "Galder" - but that song was considered incompatible with metal, and audiences, looking for a specific musical style, merged with the pagan metal scene, which had no particular "Viking" identity."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• "but yet goes largely without comment from the scene regarding its authenticity": how about "but is rarely criticized as inauthentic by the scene'?

Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Conterminous to the rise of Viking metal": do you really mean "conterminous", or did you intend to say "contemporaneous"?

Yes, I picked that word intentionally, as in "sharing a boundary" along similar ideological lines - but I realize now that this could mean that they arose in the same area, so contemporaneous is better.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Overall this is much improved, and I expect to support once the above points are dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I will work on these.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. Thanks for being patient with my nit-picking. I think the article now fully deserves FA status. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. No, this is the kind of review that I wanted.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Lewismaster

I finally found some time to read again your article and write some comments. I'm sorry that my small initial observation stirred reactions about this subject being arcane. I think that the article prose is much improved since last time that I read it and the then overwhelming quantity of quotations has been reduced to a more acceptable number. I am not willing and probably not capable of doing a review about the prose, but some doubts remain regarding form, structure and accessibility. Feel free to ignore my ramblings and to take them as a subjective vision of how a Wikipedia article should be, considering that the promotion of the article as it is should not be in discussion.

In my opinion, Wikipedia articles should be accessible to the casual reader, meaning that the structure and form of the article should provide to anybody the keys to at least understand what the article is about. Your article is extremely well-researched and complete, but it still appears to be aimed at a restricted circle who already knows much about extreme metal genres and subgenres, about folk music and Scandinavian history. Some background information is dispersed within the article, but I think that it would be better if those snippets were gathered and focused upon in a proper background section at the beginning of the article. This section, which is now missing, could provide the reader the info necessary to enjoy the rest of the article without the need to wander around Wikipedia to learn about the more technical details in other miles-long articles. In the Background section I would add synthetic paragraphs about:

• Vikings, their history and beliefs - they gave the name to the music genre and a hint to who they were behind the shallow oleograph is in order.
• Scandinavian folk music - you cite folk influences a lot, but Nordic folk music has peculiarities that probably need some explanation.
• Scandinavian black metal - because Viking metal originated from this black metal scene a brief description of its origin and characteristics would be useful.

Moreover, I would move the paragraph about Viking metal precursors here. Led Zeppelin, Manowar and Heavy Load belong in a Background section, instead of the History one. The second paragraph of the "Paganism and opposition to Christianity" subsection could also be easily adapted for the Background section. It could be a lot work, but the result would certainly enhance the article.

About sea shanties, if they are considered so important for the genre, shouldn't most or all the text about them be included in the Music traits section?

On a more technical note, citation 93 is missing the reference in the reference list. There is no Laut.de in the list.

The only non-free image in the article, the cover of Blodhemn, is missing the rationale for this article. Lewismaster (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, this was very helpful, and something that I considered before. I will work on that. Regarding the Blodhemn album cover, I added a rationale to the file information.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: @Lewismaster: and @3family6:, how are we progressing with these comments? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Excellent first Background section. The two technical problems were fixed. Keep up the good work! Lewismaster (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - I need to get going and finish up the next two sections. The Nordic folk music article wasn't that useful for digging up sources, so I basically am having to write everything from scratch.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lewismaster: I added a Nordic folk music section, and re-ordered some sections. I just need to add the black metal overview.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Very good! We see the end of the tunnel! Just one more section to go... Lewismaster (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I fixed and formatted the references. I hope you don't mind. Lewismaster (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: I think we really need to wrap this up now. The comments from Lewismaster were left 3 weeks ago, and if a lot has changed, we might need to ping the other reviewers to check they are still happy. (I don't know how much has changed; if we have just added some short sections, that would be OK) Given the length of time this has been open, I might have to archive if the nominator is not working on the article any more. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I should have this done by the end of the week - I'm working on the final requested section in my sandbox. I apologize for the length of time involved here, I'm also working on graduate school applications and thus I am trying to fight off burn-out. Once this article is done I'll pull back off Wikipedia for a bit.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have put such a burden on your shoulders. I didn't realize that there was a deadline for the FAC. Maybe Sarastro1 can give us a little more time in consideration of the great improvements applied to the article in the last weeks. Lewismaster (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no deadline, but it helps if things are happening. This FAC has been open since the end of October, which is unusually long. With so many supports, and the considerable work that has gone into this, there is no danger of archiving as long as we start moving again. I was just concerned that nothing seemed to have happened for 3 weeks. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Sarastro1, what you did was give me a good kick in the pants to get me moving again. I hadn't been expecting to add so much content to the article, but I still should've been quicker at implementing the proposed changes.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lewismaster: How does it look now? Needs some clean-up, but the content is there.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks good. I did some editing on the last section and removed some wikilinks. Feel free to revise what I did. The book for the "Voegtlin & Lee 2006" reference is missing in the list of references. Lewismaster (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, along with some other content tweaking. Thanks for helping clean up things. I had to rush off to work, or I would have cleaned up myself. Anything else?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie and Ceoil (and any other previous commentators): A few sections have been added since you supported. Before this is promoted, are we happy with the additions? Sarastro1 (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The article has been on my watchlist; and have followed. Happy from my side. Ceoil (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Just read through and did a very minor copyedit; my support still stands. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Closing note: OK, I think we are good to go now. This has been open a long time, and has had a lot of eyes on it. If there are other points from Lewismaster or anyone else, they can be taken up on the talk page. If possible, the image in the "Vikings" section could be tweaked; having two different sized images together like that looks a little strange to me. After promotion, I'd be grateful if someone could check duplicate links. A few show up, but they are arguably necessary as the linked terms are some distance apart in the article. Also, while it makes sense, "Nordic folk music refers to folk music traditions from the Nordic countries" lacks a certain elegance, and could stand with rewording somehow to avoid the word repetition. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Full support - I arrive too late to give my support for the long and great work done. I think that the article has a more logical flow and is more accessible now. Bravo! Lewismaster (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.