Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Megadeth

Megadeth[edit]

Self-nomination. This article was put up for FA before I got a hold of it, but has been completely rewritten, formatted, cited, and peer reviewed. It may be a little long in kilobytes, but nearly half of that is inline citations, and seems comparable to other music FA's such as The KLF, Rush (band), and Pink Floyd. -- Skeletor2112 06:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a remarkable improvement over the previous version. Well cited, very detailed while staying on topic, and well-written. Great work. Jay32183 23:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, so long as you fix the categories. Why is it in Category:American heavy metal groups and Category:Heavy metal groups? Country specific categories are already subcategories of the main category, so putting the article in both is wrong. They should only be in the American one, the general one should only contains band that don't yet have a specific heavy metal category for their country. Also, why are they in the speed metal, thrash metal and heavy metal categories? Pick just one - the article describes them as a heavy metal band, so I would go with that. Otherwise, article is fine. Proto::► 13:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the Category:Heavy metal groups. Not sure what you mean about the genre categories though, after all, they belong to each one of these genres. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed the speed metal category, even though they were commonly referred to as a speed metal band, the term has fallen out of favor, and is somewhat contested these days. But the band is widley considered both "thrash metal" (early albums) and "heavy metal" (later albums), since their sound has changed greatly in the past 20 years. Skeletor2112 05:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Weak support~~. Please correct the excessive music samples problem as described over the Slayer discussion page, once you done with it I will probably switch to full support. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all of the extra samples, leaving only Grammy nominated songs, and "hits" like "Symphony" and "Trust", ect. Skeletor2112 07:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The lead shouldn't be inline cited - the lead is meant to be a summary of the article. Any info in the lead should be in the body of the article also and cited there. LuciferMorgan 01:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all cites from the lead paragraph. Skeletor2112 07:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thorough, well written, and well referenced. It wasn't ready last time, but it is now.JeffStickney 08:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support As stated.--K-UNIT 15:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great article. Deizio talk 00:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, universally rocking! Also very well written and well referenced article. FrummerThanThou 03:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above user seems to speedily tagging some of the articles on FAC with {{LEAD}} without bothering to actually read them...:-/ (see Special:Contributions/FrummerThanThou). Gzkn 04:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The KLF has a lead roughly the same size, and won a Wikimania 2006 Award, so I don't feel the objection is actionable. LuciferMorgan 20:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FrummerThanThou, can you explain what "not universally rocking" means? The lead has been combined into four paragraphs, as per WP:LEAD, and is roughly the same size as the Battle of Dien Bien Phu page, which you voted to support today. Skeletor2112 06:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object Image problems. Image:Megadeth-Band-2006.jpg fails WP:FUC #1 and needs deleting. Five other images are sourced to some fansite, with no indication of copyright holder (failing WP:FUC #10) and need deleting -- they should have been tagged as "found on an unconfirmed website", not as "promotional". One of them is apparantly the back of an album cover, so that one at least could probably be properly sourced -- look in the liner notes for the photographer and copyright info. Jkelly 19:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gigantour is the official tour website of Megadeth's latest tour and is a confirmed website. Image:Megadeth-Band-2006.jpg meets WP:FUC, as the picture is promotional and is intended for use by third parties. LuciferMorgan 20:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to actually read my comment. Image:Megadeth-Band-2006.jpg fails WP:FUC #1 (and is now so tagged -- incidentally, it also fails #10). The rest of the images are from fansite with a Polish extension, except for the one that is a back of an album cover, which is nevertheless credited to the same Polish fansite. Jkelly 21:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem so certain it fails #1, what free equivalent is available then?— Preceding unsigned comment added by LuciferMorgan (talk • contribs)

Image:Megadeth at Sauna.jpeg is a recent photo of the band. In case it is helpful, I've cropped it -- Image:Megadeth at Sauna crop.jpg -- to remove the extraneous overhead space. In any case, we don't need to already possess a freely licensed image to know that something is replaceable. Many editors spend significant time asking people to donate their photography under a free license. You can find some examples of polite letters to use at Wikipedia:Boilerplate requests for permission. Jkelly 23:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So we should remove Image:Megadeth at Sauna.jpeg and make Image:Megadeth at Sauna crop.jpg the lead image, and then just remove all the images marked as unsourced? I want to make sure I understand your suggestion. Jay32183 23:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More or less, except that I really have no opinion on whether the cropped version should be used or not... that's an aesthetic decision, and you should feel free to use whichever version of the freely-licensed photograph that the local editors prefer. Jkelly 00:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you've tagged the images as having no source won't a bot remove them from the article and in a few days it won't be an issue? Jay32183 21:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, most of the images need to be deleted, and when they are my objection has been dealt with, but that means the article will look quite different once the problem images are gone. Jkelly 21:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well when the images are gone, it's obvious someone will moan about lack of images, which may I add isn't a valid reason for objection.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LuciferMorgan (talk • contribs)

Support, Well written and well referenced article. Ac s 4b 16:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well written with plenty of pictures, music samples, etc... It's a lot better than most featured articles Freezing the mainstream