Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)/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 SandyGeorgia 03:16, 2 July 2011 [1].

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

Nominator(s): Red marquis (talk) 04:35, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I have addressed the issues raised after the last FAC nomination. The article has also completed a copyedit from User:Chaosdruid. So, I believe it is ready. Let's rock n roll. Red marquis (talk) 04:35, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Comment. The sources need some work. You need publisher for a number of newspaper references, internet and television sources: Rolling Stone, MTV, Los Angeles Times etc are all incomplete refs without publisher info. I notice that for a number of references, you omitted the "work" parameter in the template, and placed the relevant info under "publisher" and manually italicized it (eg, you did: "Title=FAC| work=|publisher=New York Times". This is wrong. "New York Times" is supposed to be under "work" (which is automatically italicized in the template), and under publisher, you'd put "New York Times Company" (the newspaper's publisher), which is not italicized). There is also general inconsistencies: for ref 24, a publisher is listed, but in subsequent citations from the same work, the publisher is missing; for refs 65 and 66, it's "Time" and not "Time magazine". Also need clean up regarding wikilinking etc. Orane (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referfing to the Cite webs or the Cite journals? -Red marquis (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Applies to {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} only. What usually distinguishes the two templates is that the latter usually has the publisher in brackets. As they stand in the article, they're indistinguishable. Orane (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you making the changes. That's great. However, for some sources in which a singular person is listed as publisher, try substituting that with the publication's owner instead. For example, for ref 14, LA Weekly, put the publisher as Village Voice Media (its owner) instead of Beth Sestanovich. Orane (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Do I need to do the same for VH1 and MTV News? I couldn't find the publisher for either one. Would "MTV Networks (Viacom)" be acceptable? also, what about amazon.com and CNN? -Red marquis (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MTV Network (Vicom) is the owner/publisher. I did a couple publisher corrections just as an example. Another thing you have to look out for is consistency. If you use citeweb for NME, make sure all citations from NME use citeweb; you can't use cite news and cite web for the same magazine/work. Usually, if it's a website or (online) music magazine, then it's not a news source per se (although it gives music news). It's just a web source. If the source is an actual newspaper, then use citenews (which generates the brackets around the publisher). This means that LA Times, Washington Post ect all need to be changed to citenews and not citeweb. I know it comes across as being picky, but it's important that all aspects of the article is professional. Orane (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For CNN, its "Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. (Time Warner)" Amazon likely doesn't have one. It's fine to leave it without. Orane (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please check to see if I got it all right. Regarding the inconsistency issue, it is difficult to impossible to find the newspapers where the story was first published (remember this album came out 10 years ago) so, as unprofessional as it may look, I have to use citewebs to find the story (archived in the publication's website). Better to have a verifiable source than none at all. -Red marquis (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not suggesting that you go out and find the newspapers. I'm saying that if its a news source (LA Times, NY Times etc), then you need to use citenews, even if it's online. For regular websites and magazines (with an online counterpart), use citeweb. If it's a news paper, with an online counterpart, use citenews. Also, ref 117 needs publisher. Refs 24 and 123 are perfect examples of what I mean. One uses cite news, one has citeweb. To be consistent, both need to be citeweb; same for NME sources. Orane (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Will do. With the NME sources am I supposed to choose between cite journal and cite web? Also, should CNN, BBC and ABC News use Cite news? What about Salon, Time and the O'Reilly Factor? ps. regarding ref 24 and 123, the one doesn't use cite news it uses cite journal. -Red marquis (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified all of the newpapers to the cite news template. Please advise on the issues listed above. Also, I'm curious if there are any other issues with the article besides the refs. There hasn't been much input from other reviewers and I am anxious to pass this on FAC with flying colors so I could start focusing on another article. -Red marquis (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the NME sources, if you find the journal version, use cite Journal. If not, then cite web. CNN, BBC ABC News should use citenews, because the are news sources, despite having in online counterpart (usually the web is just a reiteration or expansion of what's printed in the paper version). Time and salon are magazines, not newspapers :) and the O'Riley Factor is a talk show, so use cite video or one of those templates for TV program.

Regarding other issues with the article: The prose is pretty good. There is a minor issue that I saw in the critical reception section. The prose is good, but the formatting is off. It's Billboard, formatted ''[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]'' magazine and not "Billboard Magazine"; Q magazine, and not Q Magazine. Also, Drowned in Sounds and Pop Matters are websites/webzines, and should not be italicized. Orane (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. All of them. Are there any more obstructions to FAC that need to be cleared? -Red marquis (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also fixed the numbering of the refs. They are now in proper sequential order. -Red marquis (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - hey, there's a lot of statements that are well sourced, but maybe too well sourced? As in you have a statement, then three or four sources to cite the point when really all you need is one. To my eye this looks a bit messy, and I don't think it's especially necessary. For example, towards the beginning of the article it says "In the aftermath (of Columbine) Marilyn Manson and his eponymous band became a "scapegoat"" with four sources cited. All four appear to me (admittedly without having looked into them in too much depth) to be perfectly reliable, so surely one will do? There's certainly no notability concerns about this article, and the statement isn't too contentious, so I think you should stick with the one source that you feel is the best, and scrap the rest. This would then tidy things up a bit. Coolug (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. I know what you mean but as much as possible I would like to keep all of them. Some of the statements on this article are contentious and having them backed up by multiple sources helps bolster or defend it. -Red marquis (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm wondering if it would be helpful if I included a complete transcript of Senator Shugars' comments, Senator Hatch and Lieberman's assertions on 1999 hearing as well as Manson' op-ed essays as notes. The essays are quite long. -Red marquis (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media: Firstly, File:Marilyn Manson in Bishop regalia.jpg. What is added by using this image? Surely, a free image of Manson in concert would actually serve the purpose better: the image is currently used to illustrate text talking about costumes used on stage, rather than the style of promotional material. File:Holy Wood logo.jpg is claimed public domain- I'm really not sure I agree with that. Further, the music samples use useless, copy-pasted rationales. The rationales should explain explicitly what the samples show and why that needs to be shown, preferably with reference to the article text, as opposed to vague statements. Template:Non-free use rationale may be useful there. J Milburn (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, there is no free image of Manson in concert during this tour here or on Commons. I checked. Second, I did not put the image in public domain. Someone from the Italian version of Wikipedia did. I specifically uploaded it under the logo template. Third, scroll down the pages of the music samples. Under the "Licensing" section, I added explicit rationales, using Template:Non-free use rationale, for why they are vital to the article with reference to the article text. Did I need to add citations as well? Other FAC article images don't. -Red marquis (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What effort have you made to acquire a free image? Do we have free images of him in his "trademark" costume mentioned in the article, whether at one of these concerts or another one? As for the logo, whether or not you uploaded it, it is in use in the article, and that's what I'm assessing here. I will nominate it for deletion on Commons. (As for the music files, sorry, I didn't see that, and the rationales seem fairly sound). J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked wherever I can. The ones I have found are copyrighted by their respective photographers. If they wanted to share them they would have uploaded them here already. They've had 10-11 years to do so. If there were a free image I would never have uploaded the photo in question in the first place. Unfortunately, this will have to suffice. Regarding the logo, I can't very well be held accountable for what other people do to the image I upload. You can't expect me to conduct a daily patrol of every single media file I upload to Wikipedia. Would it ameliorate the problem if I reupload it under the logo template? -Red marquis (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "trademark" costume, there's no image of that either on Wikipedia or Mediawiki Commons. Unfortunately, there just doesn't seem to be much live images of Manson on either site before 2007, by which time he had retired said costume. Even if such an image exist I have no intention of using it on Holy Wood. It is better suited for use in another article where the use of that costume became synonymous with the tour's iconography. Here, the bishop attire is it. -Red marquis (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to be speaking different languages here. Concerning the publicity photo; "If they wanted to share them they would have uploaded them here already. They've had 10-11 years to do so"- That's simply not the case, and I can tell from the way you're speaking you've made no effort beyond a quick look around to acquire a free image. You claim that a photo of a different costume would not be appropriate, but why, I simply cannot see. Why's it so important that we have a picture showing this costume, as opposed to any other? I'm really, really not seeing it. You claim the costume became synonymous with the tour- if that was the case, you may well have a good reason for using it, but where are the sources? Where's the discussion of the importance of the costume? Right now, it's just one entry in a list among many. Concerning the the logo, you claim that you "can't very well be held accountable for what other people do to the image I upload"- no, perhaps not, but you have sent this article to FAC, and so I'm going to review what is there. If you didn't upload that image, great, but it's still in the article. No, uploading the image as NFC would just create new problems, as it's not clear that the image meets the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why is that Marilyn Manson has always been very particular about the imagery he uses for a particular album/supporting tour. As with any artist, to him they are loaded with specific symbolism. If I used imagery from another tour I would be doing the article a disservice. -Red marquis (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the logo, I have uploaded it as a non-free. Please check to see if my rationale is satisfactory. File:Holy Wood mercury logo.jpg. I used File:RHbear.svg from FAC article Radiohead as a guide. -Red marquis (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To further elaborate on the publicity photo, I did make an effort but, simply put, there is no free image out there of this tour. If I asked permission from a photographer, how am I going to solidly prove to Wikipedia that permission was given? With a legal contract? And what of the photographer decides to change his mind? That's liability I have no interest in being embroiled in. A publicity photo, on the other hand, is designed specifically to be distributed and used for educational/promotional purposes. It's use here is a grey area between the two. If it is really unacceptable then I will remove it. It's better to have no image than the wrong one. This FAC nom is already taking too much of my time. -Red marquis (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to reply to most of what you have said, but please note that we have a whole procedure for asking permission and proving it, and the majority of licenses we use are non-revocable. Take a look at this page. You're showing again and again that you simply don't know what you're talking about, and the combination of an argumentative person and someone who hasn't the first clue is not something I can be bothered dealing with. J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the picture to put an end to that argument. Are there any other issues on this article that I need to address? I am anxious to move on. -Red marquis (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Red marquis, I have an idea... well, what if you put the picture in the promotion section and write something about it? I believe that it is relevant to article, because Marilyn's image is part of the promotion... We all know that he re-creates his personal image every time a "new era" begins, his image makes part of the concept of the album, so i believe the picture is really relevant in that section. Thank you, Salgado96 (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion but, at this point, I'd rather just cede that picture. This article has already taken too much of my time and I am interested in moving on to another one. If that's what it takes to get this passed on FAC then so be it. -Red marquis (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any more issues with the article? Has it passed or failed? -Red marquis (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously need to stop rushing like this. Your impatience is doing a disservice to the process. This is where the best articles are promoted, so you should be more concerned with ensuring that your article is up to standard, however long that takes. It's not a numbers game. Yes, you're eager to move on to another article, but be patient. There needs to be consensus to promote an article, and with zero "supports", the article will likely not be promoted (of course, that's not up to me at all). But, the most that will probably happen is that the article will stay here until more editors lend their opinions. Orane (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I'm being pushy. I was just getting anxious that there hasn't been a comment/criticism for days. I thought it had been allowed to go into limbo. As far as what I said to J Milburn, that was just a general comment and not intended in any way to be a disparagement of the FAC process or the reviewers. -Red marquis (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very great quality, intresting tone and style, the most complete information for an album. 'I () () `'/ I><pron0un¢ed "On£-ThouSand-$e7enT¥"> 04:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, compromised account, disruptive editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. For a while I thought this FAC had been allowed to go into limbo. -Red marquis (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree! Very good quality! By the way, the article of M.I.A's album Maya is a FAC and it hasn't got a lot of good information like this article does. Come one! It should be passed! Salgado96 (talk) 15:15, 27 June 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.