Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Enter the Grave/archive1

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 Karanacs 17:50, 18 May 2010 [1].

Enter the Grave[edit]

Featured article candidates/Enter the Grave/archive1

Nominator(s): LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to nominate current Good Article Enter the Grave as a Featured Article Candidate, a 2007 album by Huddersfield heavy metal act Evile. While the article seems short somewhat, I feel it's comprehensive in that it draws upon all the information currently available on the topic. The album isn't well known by heavy metal audiences or by a well known band (for example, it sold roughly just 200 copies in the US in its first week of release), so for that reason, there isn't as much published material available. All feedback is welcomed and thanked for in advance. I hope the article proves to be a good read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuciferMorgan (talk • contribs)

Comment. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 19:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

With Ealdgyth on holiday, I'll ask her traditional question: given that blabbermouth.net isn't necessarily a reliable source (it relies quite heavily on press releases and reproducing material from musicians' own websites), is it only used as a source for material that isn't open to question (names, dates and the like)?

I have to 110% disagree with your assertion Blabbermouth.net isn't a reliable source, given the fact I've written four previous FAs which use the site as a source. Blabbermouth.net is the premiere online resource for metal news, and has been cited as a source by several outlets including NME. When a given metal musician has news they want known, such as the fact they've started recording a new CD, Blabbermouth is the first online site they tell, and is a reliable source on metal. It's more reliable on metal than any print or online resource you care to name. On another note, what actually makes you think other websites don't use press releases? I can assure you they do, and quite often. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with blabbermouth is exactly the same as that raised (and not addressed) two years ago at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eyes of the Insane. It may be a reliable source in Wikipedia terms, but it certainly looks to an outsider like a collection of press releases. That other websites also reproduce press releases is irrelevant; aside from a very few sites where the fact that the website has chosen to reproduce the press release makes the release notable, I wouldn't consider them RSs either. (The BBC's biography of Michael Jackson is a verbatim lift from Wikipedia; that doesn't make Wikipedia a reliable source.) It's entirely possible that Blabbermouth is a legitimate source, but it's equally possible that it isn't, and the four previous FAs aren't really relevant—they were all promoted in 2007 when the FAC standards were very different. – iride scent 18:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the FAC standards were not "very different" at all - that's actually an assumption on your part, and is 110% untrue. The last time standards changed really was due to the introduction of citations. If they were, then what you're suggesting is the previous four FAs I wrote aren't up to standard - if they aren't, nominate them at FAR, and I'm more than happy to explain in detail why three years later they still adhere to the same standard. In fact, I'd happily pit them against any article promoted in 2010. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another point - I did 110% address the issue Gimmetrow raised about Blabbermouth.net (I was the one who nominated "Eyes of the Insane", three years ago and not two), an issue which is raised at every heavy metal FAC because those who don't have knowledge of metal comment, no offence to yourself. Frankly, I get fed up of it because I have to explain it over and over to other users - it isn't my problem if users aren't familiar with metal, and assume the worst about sources unless it's Rolling Stone or some other tripe. At that FAC, may I add the issue Gimmetrow raised wasn't deemed valid or else the FAC would have failed. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Rasmussen had earlier produced three Metallica albums, and some journalists commented on his role" mean? As written, that could mean anything from "why is this legend working with a band I never heard of before?" to "his work with Metallica was awful, couldn't they have got someone better?";

It means what it says, which is a) Rasmussen had produced three Metallica CDs and b) Some journalists commented on his role. Nothing more, nothing less. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any total sales figures? I appreciate they may not exist;

Nope. Besides, sales figures change all the time because a record keeps selling copies. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know they're never complete—it's just if any chart positions etc are recorded anywhere, they're useful to readers. – iride scent 18:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, and a fair point. What I'll do is add that info in the Huddersfield Examiner you mentioned, which I'd like to thank you for. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did it get any coverage in the non-metal press – either the newspapers, or more mainstream music press like the NME, MTV etc? If so, it probably ought to be mentioned even if they didn't have much to say, to show that it received coverage outside the preaching-to-the-faithful world of specialist magazines (see the way Enta da Stage, No Depression, or the probably more comparable God Hates Us All handle it);

No, it didn't get any coverage in the non-metal press. More to the point, God Hates Us All sold 51K copies in its first week of US release, whereas this album did 200. In other words, for every copy Enter the Grave sold in its debut week, God Hates Us All sold 255 copies.

Just asking… On a quick Google News search, I can see at the very least a feature in the Huddersfield Daily Examiner, which demonstrates that they were receiving at least local interest outside the metal fraternity, and provides a RS for a sales figure of 30,000 as of 2009. – iride scent 18:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point - didn't see that article. I'll add the information as it relates to record sales on Saturday. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a very quick skim, I've already found and fixed three glaring typos and a "might've"; it could do with a top-to-bottom check;

I'll give it a check accordingly. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check done. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were there any tours to promote it and if so did anything of note happen on them?

The article concerns the album, and solely the album. As far as I am aware, noting tours a band has been on during an album cycle isn't an FA requirement, because many other album FAs do not note tours. Some writers have at their own discretion, but I choose not to at my own discretion because the article is about an album and not a tour. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable enough; my personal view would be that if a tour significantly affected sales of an album it warrants mention, otherwise not. – iride scent 18:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, I hope when you say "a fair amount" needs cleaning up you are referring to other points you've yet to raise, because aside from the issue you raised about typos, none of the other points you raised I feel are valid, particularly the Blabbermouth one because every heavy metal FA uses Blabbermouth for information (and not just dates etc.) LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's closer to "there" than "not there", but it still has a fair amount that needs cleaning up. – iride scent 20:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and thanks very much for your comments - they're much appreciated. Seemed to forget my etiquette there. :( LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References comment: ~~In the cite book template the pages field is for reference to a page range, not to indicate the total no. of pages in the book.~~ Brianboulton (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me address this? I'm not sure what is meant by this comment. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Under the "References" heading you have used the "cite book" template for the McIver book. In this template, the "pages=" field is only used when you are limiting your references to a particular page or page range within the book. You were using the field, I think, to give the number of pages in the book. I have now removed the information from the template so no further action is required. Brianboulton (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and thanks very much for your help and input. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The lead doesn't seem to fully summarise the rest of the article.

Which parts specifically do you feel aren't summarized?

For example, the "Recording" section has four large paragraphs and is represented in the lead by just (I think) two sentences. The band first contacting their producer isn't mentioned. In "Marketing and promotion", it mentions that "Thrasher" was released (as a single?); this isn't mentioned in the lead. There are three paragraphs on critical reception and these are only summarised by part of one sentence in the lead, stating that "the album received generally favorable critical reviews". --Beloved Freak 20:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being specific. What I'll do is get onto this in the next few days, and address this concern accordingly. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's about an album by an English band, is there a reason that the dates are in "Month day, year" format?

Just followed the format I used with previous album FACs of mine, which were by a US band. Is there a rule / guideline regarding this? I'll of course follow it accordingly. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really a novice at FAC, so I don't know how rigorously this is followed, but according to WP:STRONGNAT, "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the U.S. this is month before day; for most others it is day before month."--Beloved Freak 20:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats in the references are inconsistent and should be eg. 6 April 2010 rather than 06 April 2010 (no leading zeros; WP:MOSDATE).

I've addressed this I believe. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic shouldn't be italicised.

True. I've addressed this. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the references to offline magazine reviews, do you have page numbers for those? Also, could we have publishers & internal links to articles where they exist (eg. Kerrang!)?

I don't unfortunately. The offline reviews are taken from scanned pages of the relevant magazines, but I cannot discern the page numbers. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Would we be able to have the internal links & publishers for those missing them? (eg. nos 31-34.) Also, did any of them have titles, or were they all just called Enter the Grave review, or untitled?--Beloved Freak 20:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the album style guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, album infoboxes should no longer contain professional reviews.

Hmm ok. To appease you, I've duly addressed this. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the {{Album ratings}} template if you wanted to include that in the "Critical Reception" section. It has a similar effect.--Beloved Freak 20:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Beloved Freak 13:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your constructive comments. I'll address your comment regarding the lead once I have a better understanding of your comment. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I've made that clearer.--Beloved Freak 20:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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