Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)/archive7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 18:45, 28 July 2017 [1].

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

Nominator(s): Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the fourth studio album by American rock group Marilyn Manson. I've edited the article significantly since it was last nominated here (it's been nominated a total of 6 times since 2011). I've gone through every archive with a fine tooth comb and dealt with everything that was ever raised—except the issue in archive3 about converting the Mercury logo from *.jpg format to *.svg (I have no idea what an svg is, and none of my image editing software has the ability to create svg's). Aside from this, I believe the article meets the FA criteria. This would be my second FA, after The Pale Emperor. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Freikorp.

Done. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • Does "declaration of war" have to be wikilinked? Its strikes me as a bit inappropriate. Suggest you put it in quotes also.
Done. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • "citing rumors that they contained animal sacrifices, bestiality and rape" - strongly suggest you add a comma and then add information that these rumours were completely false. Snopes has a article you might find handy for this: [2]
Changed to "Numerous politicians lobbied to have their performances banned, citing false and exaggerated claims that they contained animal sacrifices, bestiality and rape." Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • "alleged that the shooters were fans, and were wearing the group's T-shirts during the massacre" - again, can you find a source that states this was incorrect then add that information to the sentence?
added ", although these reports were later proven to be false." with new source.
  • "Gigwise ranked it at number ten on their list" - What year did this happen?
2008. Added.
  • "Drowned in Sound rated the album 10 out of 10, highlighting the band's performances." 'highlighting the band's performances' is rather vague and seems to raise more questions than it answers regarding why it got 10 out of 10. Can you be a little more specific?
Added quote from review.
  • "was seen by music critics and fans alike as the best album of the band's discography, as well as one of the greatest rock albums of all time" - I think you're going to need direct inline citations for that claim.
This was sourced by The Needle Drop's review of The Pale Emperor, but apparently he's not WP:RS. Whoever removed the review neglected to remove this comment. I couldn't find another source to match the exact wording, so I've removed this completely and expanded the entire paragraph with some more features/articles discussing the album's impact. Homeostasis07 (talk)

Well done on the article overall. Very close to supporting. If this nomination doesn't pass, notify me the next time it gets nominated and I'll be happy to comment on it again. Freikorp (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I believe I've addressed everything raised above. Let me know if you're not happy with any of the changes I've made, and I'll try again. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. Supporting. Freikorp (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Retrohead.

  • There's a recommendation from the manual of style that the lead should not contain exclusive information (information that's not part of the article's body). Therefore the two references in the lead about the citations are not needed if the quoted sentences are present in the body, which in this case they are.
Done.
  • "British rock magazine Kerrang! went on to include it on their list" Shouldn't be its list because Kerrang is singular?
Done.
  • "Three singles were released to promote the record" Why not just "Three singles were released from the record"? After all, singles are meant to promote an LP.
Done.
  • I'm not sure about this, but I think it's incorrect to have two punctuation marks next to each other as in "Edgar Bronfman Jr.," (from 'Background and development').
Done.
  • "The record was also released on 2×LP and Cassette formats". You can drop formats from the sentence. "Cassette" should be with small letter too.
Done.
  • "Manson and W.I.Z.," drop the comma (as mentioned in the fourth note)
Done.
  • The article is well written, well researched, and has a very interesting background. I'll wait for the minor corrections to be made, but I expect it to easily pass.
Thanks for the review Retrohead. I've fixed everything you've mentioned above. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support from me then. Good luck with the nomination.--Retrohead (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image/media review - the fair use images and audio files are generally fine (low res, short), but there are a few issue. FunkMonk (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two concert photos look suspiciously like screengrabs from videos (due to the aspect ratio, border, and blur). Are we sure these are usermade? What are their sources?
  • The alchemy symbol seems generic enough to maybe not be copyrightable, but this is just a note for further investigation if anyone wants to.
Thanks for the review, FunkMonk. Regarding the two live images, I went to a fansite and specifically asked for fan-taken pictures from the Guns, God and Government Tour which I could upload here under a CC license. Those images were offered to me, and I was told they were from the band's show on January 22, 2001 at the Evening News Arena in Manchester, England—which wasn't filmed for broadcast. It appears as though I was lied to. The reason I went to a fansite was because I had already checked the likes of Flickr, Google Images, Pixabay, etc. for CC images, and couldn't find a single one. I'll remove them and tag them for speedy deletion. I hope the article not being illustrated by a live image would get in the way of it being promoted to FA status. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good move, though we can't of course rule out that whoever provided the images filmed it themselves or some such. But in that case, it should have been made clear in the image description that you as the uploader did not create the photos. Anyhow, lack of such photos doesn't hinder promotion. But a photo of the artist may be appropriate somewhere, even if it isn't contemporary. FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review
  • I'm not going to harp on it, especially as I can't find the hard rule about it I dimly remember, but as per Template:Cite web#Publisher and MOS:INITIALS corporate marks such as LLC should generally not be included in the name of companies e.g. Wenner Media LLC or Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. without a good reason
Removed every instance of LLC or Inc. from the article, with the exception of Time Inc. UK, since Time UK just links to a disambiguation page. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • Also per Template:Cite web#Publisher, you should skip the publisher if it's basically the same thing as the work- the example given is the New York Times Company... which you do on ref 6. (There's also others, such as ref 2)
Removed all of these (as well as Village Voice Media; Washington Post Company, etc.) Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • You're mixing linking styles- at first you're linking every instance of the publisher/work/author, but then sometimes you only link the first instance (e.g. refs 16-22 drop the links, but then it starts up again intermittently after that). You should pick one; I personally go with linking all instances because finding the "first" is a pain.
Yeah, this has always confused me. People keep saying you shouldn't overlink in references, but it's annoying when you have to go trolling through an entire article to find the one that's been linked. Fixed this. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • Props for both the archiving and for the instructions on 127!
  • {{Cite journal}} is meant for scientific/academic journals; you should be using its cousin, {{cite magazine}}
Changed. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • You don't seem to be using ISSNs in all cases for magazines, which is fine, I guess? NME is 0028-6362, for example.
Nice catch. Never occurred to me look up the ISSN or IBSN or the journals. Fixed. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • Spotchecks: 14, 58, 67, 85, 105, 115 (though what's the point of the second ref for that sentence?), 130, 149. No issues found. --PresN 01:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, also, to be clear, I didn't see any questionable sources either. --PresN 02:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, PresN. I've taken care of all your points. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review: passed. --PresN 01:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support due to engaging prose, comprehensiveness, and drastic improvements made in the wake of multiple FA attempts. I believe this should be the last time this article be in this pool awaiting evaluation against the FA criteria as all improvements have been exhausted and some leeway should finally be given. Slightlymad (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  • I am not entirely sure about the use of the Kerrang quote in the last paragraph of the lead as it is rather lengthy. It is appropriate for use in the body of the article, but I feel that this part could be paraphrased. If the quote is absolutely needed, then it will have to be cited in the lead with the appropriate referenced, but again, I think paraphrasing here would be better suited for the context of the lead.
I tried paraphrasing, but the quote itself is so loaded that I found it impossible to paraphrase without that sentence sounding undue or fancruft-ish. So I just put the reference beside the quote. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • In the "Background and development" section, Rock is Dead Tour should not be in quotations as it is the title of a tour.
Fixed. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • This is more of a clarification question, but sometimes you use the album's full title and sometime you only use the first part (Holy Wood). Does this particularly matter/should this be consistent through the article and lead?
This was pretty much done just to save space. Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death) is a bit of a mouth-full, and I thought it'd be overkill to use it every time. I tried using "the album" or "the record", or "film" or "novel" as much as possible - since these projects all had the same title, at one point or another. I replaced one instance of using the full title in Release and artwork; the only remaining time the full title is used in the body is in Recording and production: "... it was announced that their upcoming album had been re-titled Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death). I think it's necessary to give the full title there, since its previous title was just Holy Wood. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • In the "Tour" subsection, do you think that you should put the tour as a further information bit as done in previous sections?
Done. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • I am not sure of the value of the Robert Christgau review, especially since the meaning of the bomb icon is not made clear in the context of the sentence.
I left that there because Christgau seemed like a distinguished journalist, but was always dubious about it since his "review" consisted of nothing more than a symbol. I've removed it now. Homeostasis07 (talk)

Wonderful work with the article as a whole. Once my above comments are addressed, I will support this. Good luck with getting it promoted, and have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reviews, Slightlymad and Aoba47. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks good; great work with it. I will support it. Aoba47 (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Have I missed an image review anywhere? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: FunkMonk provided one, about halfway down the page, on 21:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC). Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde[edit]

I know very little about Marilyn Manson, so please forgive me if I miss the obvious. With that in mind, a few quibbles. I've also made some minor copy-edits for flow and clarity, let me know if you disagree with any of them. Vanamonde (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead paragraph references a trilogy, but it's unclear whether the three names albums are the ones which constitute it.
I've rearranged the opening paragraph to make this clearer.
  • "the band's T-shirts" is odd unless they actually belonged to the band, which I doubt they did: "commemorating the band"?
    and the same again in paragraph 2 of background
Officially merchandised T-shirts featuring emblazoned images of the band on them. I don't really know if this could be made any clearer.
I guess there's no easy phrase to replace it with, so okay.
How about "were wearing Marilyn Manson T-shirts". This sounds ridiculous, but I'm genuinely struggling with this. I guess I've spent too much time on Wikipedia trying to truncate and paraphrase complicated concepts. So when it comes to rephrasing simple statements like this, I just have a total brainfart. ;) Whatever phrasing you like best, I'm fine with. Homeostasis07 (talk)
Yeah, that's fine/better, don't sweat it. Vanamonde (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The band found they could accomplish more there than in the limited environment of Manson's home studio" This sentence doesn't appear to add very much.
Removed.
  • "and the iconography of his crucifixion as the origin of celebrity." I am not certain what this means.
The paragraph goes on to explain this: he's arguing that the image of Jesus being crucified can be considered the first piece of officially-sanctioned merchandise, exploited for financial gain by the Vatican.
Alright, though you could go with "celebrity originating from the iconography of his crucifixion" or some other reordering to clarify the meaning.
I worked a bit more on this whole paragraph. It now reads: "A substantive portion of the album analyzes the cultural role of Jesus Christ, specifically Manson's view that the image of his crucifixion became the origin of celebrity. [...] He developed an opinion that Christ was a revolutionary figure—a person who was killed for having dangerous opinions, and whose image was later exploited and merchandised for financial gain by entities such as the Vatican." A bit better, although I'm still not confident about "developed an opinion" (sounds a bit childish). Any suggestions? Homeostasis07 (talk)
Much better, thank you.
  • "for the purpose of Holy Wood, he accepted the story" of what? religion?
The story of the crucifixion of Jesus, as told in the bible. I've re-worded to make this clearer.
  • More general comment; there are places in which Manson's statements are presented in a fashion that almost gives them editorial backing. The use of "noted" for instance, is questionable, unless this is a perspective that the secondary source reporting this agrees upon.
Could you be a bit more specific here? There were two instances of the article using the word "noted": one was a Manson quote, which I've removed; the other is "CMJ noted that ["The Nobodies"] could be interpreted as a tribute to the Columbine shooters..., which is a secondary source giving their perspective.
That's better. I'd also remove or rephrase "He concluded that it was unwise to allow detractors to scapegoat the work of a controversial artist"; which honestly doesn't add much. Also "He discovered that Christ was a revolutionary figure"; which is also odd because others have certainly "discovered" it before him.
Removed the former; see above point for the latter. Homeostasis07 (talk)
Satisfactory.
  • Also, Manson's statements themselves are used rather a lot. I'm not well-versed enough with the topic to say whether this is inappropriate; I know that if I were writing about a book, using the author's statements as frequently as here would not be appropriate.
Even though I don't believe this to be the case, I do get your point. There are a few quotes in Recording and production and Concept and themes, then one or two more in the first paragraph of Composition and style, but those are really just there to elaborate on what's being said, and I don't think they're being used to give undue weight, or to back up any exceptional claims. After all, who else could converse in any amount of decent detail about the specifics of the album's recording or concept, other than Manson or band members?
I'll let it pass. Yes, a musician obviously knows their own work, but allowing people to talk about themselves is at a basic level something we should minimize; NOTPROMO, NOTFORUM, PRIMARY, etc, etc.
  • "record was also released on 2×LP" To people unfamiliar with LPs, ie most people, this is confusing.
Changed to "double-LP"
  • You use "the band's vocalist" a few too many times, I think. Manson is a central figure in this story, using his name frequently is not necessarily a problem.
This was changed because others reviewers had previously complained that they weren't sure if "Manson" was referring to the vocalist or the band. They found it confusing, because they both use the same name.
Alright.
  • I'm confused as to the structure of the accolades section, which begins with a list of accolades, but in the second paragraph turns into a mixture of accolades and reviews.
I've re-arranged this.
  • Link or explain white trash with respect to Eminem.
Linked.
  • The lead sentence of "track listing" needs a source.
Done.
  • Is it usual to have a "Marilyn Manson" subtitle for the credits section, rather than a "music" or "performance", which would complement "production" better? Not familiar with this, so your call.
Yeah, it's fairly typical to have the band separated like that, where appropriate. The left column is Marilyn Manson, as its existed as a band at that time; the right one consists of recording and mix engineers, artwork creators, additional musical contributors, etc. It wouldn't be right to rename Marilyn Manson to Musicians without also adding the additional musicians to the left column: which would confuse the casual reader about the band's lineup, if they weren't all that familiar.
  • Another general comment; the article does not appear to discuss the instrumentation used for the album; is that commonplace? It may also be worth mentioning whether or not all the lyrics are in English: it's a fact English articles often overlook, but is not actually obvious.
Are you referring to the actual brands of instruments used? What's on the article is what could be sourced: Twiggy's credit for performing Leslie speaker-amplified guitar on "Lamb of God" is the closest anyone could likely get to detailed instrument credits. I doubt you'd ever find a detailed, reliable reference which specifically states: "Twiggy used a Gibson Les Paul Deluxe on track X", or "John 5 used an Ovation acoustic model on track X". And all of the lyrics are in English. They're an American band. Aside from some German double entendre's on The Golden Age of Grotesque, everything Manson's ever written has been in English.
No no, more basic. Rock bands have a basic vocals-guitar-guitar-bass-drums lineup, but deviate from it often; did these folks do so? The brands are not needed. Also, I think the point about English needs to be in the article, as even U.S. based bands use non-English lyrics frequently; especially when dealing with religious themes. I won't push too hard though. Vanamonde (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Manson use a vocalist-guitarist-bassist-keyboardist-drummer lineup. This is actually discussed in the Recording and production section. Also, I'd add English to the infobox, but the infobox template says not to use the |language=English parameter for "English albums by English-speaking artists". Should I still add it? Homeostasis07 (talk)
Missed that...that's a strange instruction; but I won't ask you to override it.

Otherwise, this looks decent. The prose is good. I cannot comment in detail about comprehensiveness or neutrality, though I have raised a couple of points above. Ideally, I would also like to see more than two images. I can understand if none are available, but surely there must be something; of the recording studio? Of performances? Of the instruments? Of the band members during this period? Vanamonde (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the review. I think I've dealt with all your points, but let me know if you're not satisfied with anything, and I'll try again. Regarding some more images, I looked everywhere, but there are no Creative Commons images of the band performing - or even of the band generally during this era - online. I did find this, which does say "Editorial use", but I can't see any specific Creative Commons license. I'll have to ask Commons for help to see if I could use those. Update: Nope. Never thought of looking up a CC image of The Mansion (recording studio) (where the album was recorded). I can't see any at a glance, but will have a more thorough look around later. Update: Again, can't find any. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, take a look. Not a make-or-break issue. Vanamonde (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose and tone, and, to the best of knowledge, comprehensiveness, though I am not an expert on the subject. Vanamonde (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I've done a little copyediting to remove some "with [noun] [verb]-ing" constructions, but I notice that there are a few duplinks in the article. They aren't worth holding up promotion over, but someone should take a look. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And I believe I've sorted out all the overlinkage. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Holy_Wood_(In_the_Shadow_of_the_Valley_of_Death)/archive7&oldid=792831470"