Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)/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 SandyGeorgia 00:24, 16 April 2011 [1].

Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)[edit]

Nominator(s): Red marquis (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... Actually, I need help figuring out what I need to do in order to get this to FAC status. I know your rules state that I should go through Peer review first but it's been there forever. They just don't seem interested in helping me. Anyway, the article recently passed GA nomination, if that helps convince you guys to take a look. Thanks in advance for your time. Any constructive criticism is appreciated. Red marquis (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Just looked over the GA assessment of this article and I had similar problems when I nominated Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death) a few months back so I believe I may offer some suggestions on how to improve this page. Simply put, it needs a healthy section on its Development, Composition, Release (+cover art and formats subsections), Promotion and singles, more extensive Critical reception section, Accolades (if it had any) and finally, a brief synopsis section on the Grotesk Burlesk Tour. Charts and certification is already completed. To achieve FA status, we'll just have to add a Recording and production section under Development." Well, i saw this sentence at GAOG album page... so, i believe we already have everything in the article, because the recording and production section is already in there. User:Salgado96 (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Im sorry but this article should not have passed its GA review, i failed it the first time and i dont believe this is near GA status let alone FA. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Abuse of WP:NFCC, why are 6 music samples needed? one, maaaybe two are needed at most.
  - Reduced the number of music samples to 4. Please check to see if it is acceptable. It may be possible to take off another one. -Red marquis (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - As i said i think 2 will suffice, the two under "Promotion" dont add anything, please remove them. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS violations in references, incorrect use of italics, incorrect work/publisher fields.
  - Please expand on where I violated MOS so I can fix each problem. Thanks. -Red marquis (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS date violations, use 2000-12-01 or Dec 15 1999, not both, choose one; YYYY-MM-DD or the written form.
  - Please expand on where I violated MOS so I can fix each problem. Thanks. -Red marquis (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OVERLINK in the references.
  - Please expand on where I overlinked so I can fix each problem. Thanks. -Red marquis (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have completely addressed this issue. -Red marquis (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LEAD violations, no references in the lead as there should be nothing in the lead that isnt cited in the rest of the article, thus no need for references in the lead.
  - I haven't looked at this article, but just a general note: WP:LEAD does not say *no* references in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." Its understood that music articles should avoid references in the lead as there should be nothing in the lead that isnt apart of the body of the article :P - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 02:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Still incorrect. Again, I haven't looked at this article, but if a music article said something like, "This is the best-selling song of all time", that would be cited in the lead, as an example. Data or opinion that may surprise the reader in the lead would be cited, and citations in leads are quite common. I just don't want the meme "no references in the lead" to be propogated at FAC, since it is incorrect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Just so you guys know, I've reduced the amount of refs in the lede to just two. Please check to see if it is acceptable. -Red marquis (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~File:Marilyn Manson - Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death).jpg is not corrected licensed.~~
  - How is it incorrectly licensed, so I could fix the problem. -Red marquis (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not an image expert, but I don't see a problem with the licensing here - it's fair-use and has an FUR. Lakeshade, could you explain the problem(s) you see? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Checking the history would have cleared this up :P When i review it this is how it was licensed, it has since been corrected. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Article structure issues throughout, one sentence is not a paragraph.
  - Please note each structural issue so I can fix each problem. I've been looking at this article for so long, I fear I've developed a sort of tunnel vision. Thanks. -Red marquis (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry but im opposing this article. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assessment Lakeshade. Could you expand on your points (ie. where I violated MOS in references and dates, where I overlinked and where in the lede I failed to reference) so I could address them immediately and retain GA status as well as possibly achieve FAC status. -Red marquis (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I didn't upload File:Marilyn Manson - Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death).jpg but how is it not correctly licensed? -Red marquis (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I promoted this article to GA, which has seemingly caused some dissent here. If I've missed the mark, I apologise; for what it's worth, I believe it was ready for GA, but perhaps a little short of the stringent criteria of FA. I've contributed to it enough that I don't feel distanced enough to comment on its readiness for FA, but there was literally no grace period between it passing GA and being nominated here. Despite that, it's not a long way off and I can only wish luck to Red marquis. I believe the shortcomings (CK)Lakeshade pointed out have been addressed, and there's not a lot more that can be done to it. Seegoon (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time, with no comment on the process or the article's GA status. Here are some examples of concerns:

Per WP:SAMPLE, "samples should not exceed 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter". File:Marilyn_Manson_-_The_Love_Song.ogg, for example, is 30 seconds from a 196-second song - 15%, and thus too long.
- fixed.
"A decade on, it is still scathingly relevant" - this quote from the lead is not sourced there and does not match the sourced version later in the article. Please check it and other quotes for accuracy and verifiability
- fixed.
Article as a whole includes way too many quotes, and too many very long quotes
WP:MOS edits needed - hyphens and dashes, italicization issues, WP:OVERLINK, etc
- Please elaborate where? -Red marquis (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Needs copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow. Some examples of problematic phrases: "It would finally be worked into shape in his aforementioned former home during his confinement" is awkward and repetitious; "December 16, 1999 which announced that the album is now progressing" uses an incorrect tense; "other critics found larger cracks within their assessment" is awkward and unclear
- I've addressed that ones you've listed but I need you to help point them all out to me. I've been looking at this article for so long, it all looks the same to me. I need a fresh pair of eyes. Thanks. -Red marquis (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Needs to be more accessible to lay readers. For example, what is "DisinfoCon 2000"? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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