Wikipedia:Peer review/Tool (band)/archive1

Tool (band)[edit]

I have been working on the article (with several long breaks) over the course of several years now, adding content, references, images beside album covers, samples and much more.. it has grown into a candidate for GA status, at least I hope so. After a encouraging recent review from Wikiproject Biographies (rating b, criticism: trivia section, OR in section "currently"), I would like to expose the article to a broader and/or more detailed review. Any comments about its shortcoming regarding GA standards are welcome! Johnnyw talk 21:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Various points I hope are helpful:

Take a look at WP:LEAD on how to structure the lead section of the article. My personal suggestions are to leave the details of the circumstances of their formation to the "Biography" section and their specific influences to the "Genre and influences" section.
Given the genre back-and-forth, it's best to simply say "rock band" in the first sentence. Specific subgenres can always be elaborated on in the article (and already are).
The "currently" section should not be at the top of the article. Keep it chronological. -- done.
Are there any print sources available on the band? Not just books; if you can, try and track down old magazine and newspaper articles on the band. That will help give the article historical context.
Remove the gallery from the Discography section. Album galleries are hard to justify under fair use unless you are specifically commenting on the cover. Once you get to FAC reviewers will most likely ask you to reduce the amount of fair use media in the article as much as possible. Look at Genesis for an example on how to use a cover in the body of the article if you need to; nevertheless, there should not be a cover gallery in the Discography section. -- done.
The band's videos are quite notable, and I would assume much has been written on them. Look at The Smashing Pumpkins for an example on how to approach a section about a band's music videos.

Some more recent FA band articles to look at as examples are Pixies, The Smashing Pumpkins, Megadeth, and Slayer. When in doubt, look at these pages as guidelines on how to structure the page. These are just basic observations based upon an immediate glance at the article. I'll try to read through the prose soon and provide feedback on that. WesleyDodds 12:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thanks a lot for your help and input! My comments:

Gallery: this is the easiest, as I only have to revert to a previous version, that I preferred anyways over the gallery.. since there is a discography article, it's only logical. Will do so promptly.
Videos: I don't know if you have noticed, but there is a section about the music videos, but lacks prose and is merely a table. Some time ago, I proposed a new sub section "visual arts", since Tool's not only famous for their videos, but also their quite elaborate live shows (directed by alex grey) and have this neat flash intro by joshua davis. they even have their own website dedicated to the arts. at that time, i was concerned by the volume of the article. do you think the article could deal with a new section "visual arts" with "music videos", "live shows", "word wild web" as sub-sections? The music video table could be moved to the discography.
Lead/Genre: it used to say "rock" and following some edit warring we established a consensus collecting 3rd party sources.. but i guess you are right, that the genre and influences section makes these details more or less unnecessary in the lead. I would have to merge some of the bands named in the lead with the genre section and then rewrite the lead..
"Currently": the currently section was quite useful during the emergence of facts about the new album. it kept the biography section very stable, while the currently section could be marked with an appropriate tag to indicate transient information. casual readers can read the intro and the current development, others can delve into the biography etc. don't you agree?
sources: some of the sources included are transcripts of published articles in magazines. since i currently live in barcelona it is quite tough to come across older magazines that feature articles about tool. but thanks for the suggestion, i will see if other contributors can help out.

Ok thanks again for your comments, I will swiftly go to work! --Johnnyw talk 13:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved the Currently section down before noticing your comment. It looks unencyclopedic to have a news section at the top, especially as there isn't much news nowadays, unlike last year with the album hype. It is harder to find for the casual reader, and in fact this prompted me to make a similar top section at Nine Inch Nails, which eventually got reverted, with arguments that "current events... should not take precedence over the rich history..." –Pomte 14:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work! I will return tonight to work on either the music videos/live shows/lead section.. regarding s.th. like "currently" section: i know this discussion belongs elsewhere, but maybe as a final comment from my side: in principle this is correct, but imho it can be an appropriate action to save an article from ongoing destruction of the bio or lead section during very active times.. --Johnnyw talk 14:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice the Videos section, and I shared your concern about the lack of prose. A section about the band's entire visual approach is fine and is definitely warranted. To fill it out, try looking up critical commentary made about the band's visuals. Did that DVD set they put out before Lateralus have any commentary or documentaries? If so, use it. WesleyDodds 21:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm.. yes.. both have two simultaneous commentaries by Dead Kennedys' Jello Biafra ;) Will check them out.. I have already started with many of the proposed changes (good ones by the way), given the amount of time needed to finish this, I guess it will be sensible if I keep on writing and report back here in a couple of days, after I (more or less) finished the lead and the visual arts section. In the meanwhile I can ask the other editors at the talk page about the change of the first sentence to "rock band" to give them time to comment. Thanks again and read you soon.. --Johnnyw talk 21:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The video commentaries are mostly nonsense from the one time I heard them. –Pomte 23:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After Rewrite[edit]

Well, I just saved my try at a rewrite of the lead and most of the genre and influences' beginning. Maybe it's time to sum up what has been done since my request for PR to see, what else needs to be done:

"currently" section has been moved to the bottom of the biography
new section as been added, "visual arts"

we have a lead to that section, linking to dissectional.com (official page dedicated to the arts)

music videos: mainly the same, added rolling stones commentary
album artwork: completely new, goes on about grammys mostly, cites jones' intentions
live shows: completely new, incorporates a quite detailed article about the shows, sports a CC2.0 image of a show

the infobox now has a CC2.0 image as well
the "tours" section was rewritten. it was s.th. like an early predecessor to "live shows" and is now a summary of its parent article
the discography is now text-only
we have a new lead section
comparisons from the lead about sound etc have been merged with "genre and influences" (fomerly "Arguments about genre and classification", which lead to a rewrite of the section's beginning

Well.. I hope that was about it and the changes satisfy ;) Comments, anyone? Johnnyw talk 16:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance it looks better; I'll review it in-depth later tonight. My main concern right now is the whole "progressive rock" section in the genres section. Is prog-rock really the most common classification given to Tool (from personal experience, it seems to me the most common specific genre label given to the band is alternative metal)? A statement like that should be directly cited, or the part of the section should be restructured to discuss the elements of prog Tool draws upon (which is cited in the article) in a NPOV way. In fact, many of the traits discussed in order to back up the prog definition would work better in the context of simply discussing the band's musical style. I'd suggest renaming the section "Musical genre, style, and traits" (or something similiar) and adjusting the section accordingly. The band's own musical motifs should be given more emphasis than what genre the band should be classified in. Use the genres to help provide context for their sound. Think "Danny Carey drums this way, he has these techniques and these influences" rather than "this is their sound/genre; here's how Danny Carey's drumming fits that". I'm sure there's been a bit written about Jones' guitar style and Maynard's singing. WesleyDodds 04:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've read through the entire article. It's looking pretty good so far. I do think the lead needs more tightening. Don't be afraid to state the obvious; it's the lead and it's designed to introduce the casual and the familair reader to the subject, so make it clear and concise. You might even want to list all their albums in the lead, since they've only released four anyway. In the body of the article, you might want to combine some of the shorter paragraphs (particularly in the "Early days" section). Also, watch out for POV or weasel words; one I noticed was "notorious" Use descriptive words like that only if a source uses those exact words. Finally, once you get this article near FA territory, you're really going to weigh the fair use in the article; make sure the fair use media (pictures and soundclip) are necessary and essential to understanding the article. If you have any further questions, let me know. WesleyDodds 08:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I bet a majority of both Tool fans and prog rock fans would oppose labelling Tool as prog rock. I have seen art rock as a more favorable term. But of course what I think and what fans think do not matter, so let us try to dig up more sources.

I think the following 2 sections should be removed or re-arranged:

Band members: The short lists of past and present member(s) are covered by the infobox, the lead-in, and the history. Side projects of the individual members are not directly relevant to this article on Tool, but they are of genuine interest, so I propose subsectioning the list under some general section on the band's mystique and the members' attitude towards Tool, to illustrate how between their feminine (APC), less serious (Puscifer), non-music (Adam's art) professional (Lobal Orning) side projects, they come back to work on Tool as an intense music project. This section can be the non-music counterpart to your suggested "Musical genre, style, and traits."
Tributes: Move the list of tribute albums to Tool discography with an explicit comment that these were not released by Tool. Make a brief mention in the main article about how Tool has been interpreted into other formats. –Pomte 13:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the genre: we had a discussion about that some months ago, the result is still visible at the talk page. We could try to complete the picture by adding more sources =)
Band members: I don't really know if that's a good idea. It would be pretty much repeating many of the things that actually belong to the respective biographies of the band members, wouldn't it? Also, it would probably set a focus on Keenan's activities which is undue weight regarding the band.
Genre etc: structuring the section would be the first step imho. the introduction that describes the sound and the comparisons can stay as far as i can see. then, we could elaborate on the subject in more detail, as you recommended, adding the sources we can find that mention their traits in a genre-free context, mentioning the genre allusions alognside, and finish with tool's influence on other bands. Well and thanks again for your comments Wesley, and for your help Pomte! --Johnnyw talk 12:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intro has been tightened in the meanwhile by some nice contributors.. therefore, I started a rewrite of the genre section to incorporate your ideas, e.g. add more sources regarding the genres and go more into their traits... After some feedback and corrections, I will nominate the article for GA... hope you agree.. --Johnnyw talk 20:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better. Some small points: try and make the lead more direct and clear (the line "The band's sound is subjected to many favorable comparisons; therefore, it is difficult to pinpoint a genre. This results in an ambivalent relationship between the band and the music industry" in particular bugs me; it sounds too much like original research even though I have an idea of what it's rying to say), and fix citation #27, which is currently blank. WesleyDodds 08:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]