User:LuciferMorgan/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 7 |
Archive 8
| Archive 9 →

Contents

Synchronised bothering

Tee hee, you and I seem to have both posted peer review requests at User:Seegoon's talk page at nearly exactly the same time! Anyway, I thought you might perhaps be interested to know that I've put Nigel Kneale up for PR — any comments you might have would be very gratefully received. I'm really fired up to try and have a crack at FAC with this one. Angmering 21:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Actually, after Kneale there isn't really that much else connected to Quatermass that's nomination-ready; Experiment and The Pit are already FAs, Quatermass II recently became a GA and everything else is still awaiting updating and citation. I suppose I'll get around to doing the fourth serial at some point, then maybe Cartier and then the films, although I doubt any of them will get up to FA-standards. Anyhow, thanks for your comments and your kind words! :-) Angmering 22:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a tempting thought, certainly... I'll see how it goes. Angmering 22:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. Thank you — anything that helps gain more feedback is a plus in my book. Angmering 17:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Given yours and Seegoon's comments, I may well take it to FAC soon then — it doesn't seem to be doing much on peer review at the moment. Yannismarou said he'd give it a look sometime after Friday, so I will probably wait for his comments and then see. Oh and by the way, I fixed you addressing him as "Seegoon" on his talk page — beware the pitfalls of cut and paste! :-) Angmering 23:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I used that one for the second lead quote, about Kneale having "invented popular TV." Thanks though! And yes, there is more work to do on Cartier, I just got involved with other things yesterday so didn't carry on with it then. I shall probably try and carry on with it today. I don't think it will ever be that long, though, as there just aren't that many published sources around for Cartier. Angmering 08:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much how I was thinking of doing it, actually — turning the BBC television section into a general run-down of his career there, and then having a final section with some quoted praise, analysis, etc. Angmering 08:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You're far too kind! Angmering 08:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
'Tis fully expanded, I think, if you fancy giving it a look over. Still a few typos in there, no doubt. I think it's okay, on the whole, although like Kneale I worry there's not enough criticism. Again like Kneale, though, out-and-out criticism of Cartier is genuinely quite difficult to find! I'm also bothered by the decade-plus gap in his biography between his move to Britain in 1935 and when he starts being credited on films again after the war, but I can't find anything at all on what he was doing during that period. Angmering 15:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Blimey, it's already been promoted as well! Thanks again. Angmering 10:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Mimi Smith

I'll absolutely give it a once-over; it'd be good to get to grips with reviewing biography articles. Bloody Yannismarou and the like seem to have a complete monopoly! Thanks for the kind words. I'll do it tomorrow. I'm about to drink and be merry. Seegoon 00:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

I gave him/her a "first and last" warning :) — Deckiller 15:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Issue contained. — Deckiller 16:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Eyes of The Insane

The Original Barnstar
For re-writing Christ Illusion and Eyes of the Insane, reviewing articles at WP:GAR and WP:FAR and helping me with Slayer related articles :) M3tal H3ad 10:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding eyes of the insane, i wiki-linked some general things - if you disagree with them feel free to revert. Some general comments

  • Araya read the article during the plane journey.[1](Plane journey to where?, He lives in Texas so I'm guessing from his home to the studio?) Pre-production for Slayer's ninth studio album Christ Illusion had just begun - This is quite choppy also
  • Guitarist Kerry King noted that - I just realized that the words 'that' and 'then' are often redundant and not needed.
  • The soundtrack to 2006 horror flick - i believe 'flick' should be changed to film not very encyclopedic and - The soundtrack to the - missing a 'the'
  • Currently two one sentence paragraphs
  • The images are missing fair use rationales - I'll add them now

I rated it B, its broad in coverage and well referenced, I believe you could go for FA with it. Regarding Christ Illusion i found this audio interview with Lombardo - When asked "Do you guys all share the same views lyrically as King or does he just put it on paper and say this is what you are going to sing tom" - Lombardo says yes and states he doesn't share the same views as Kerry lyric wise and Tom also feels the same way. But he does say some lyrics are cool - Maybe this is worth a mention [1] But whatever. Thanks for the help and good luck with CI and its good to see you're back :). M3tal H3ad 10:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Woo thanks for all the comments, I'd say Lombardo does deserve a live section - and screw the reliability of metal sites. No one ever questions the reliability of books, but when the information is right there on the screen its non reliable. I'm going to work on Reign in Blood to try get it FA adding every little detail from that oral history on the band, and adding info to Lombardo's article along the way, not sure how to present all those influences but I'll see what i can do :) thanks again. M3tal H3ad 10:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
O regarding Araya i can't find much on his style and influence, I'll keep looking though. M3tal H3ad 10:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

ArticleHistory and bot

The bot looks for review-related templates on the talk page, and figures out the oldid (version) of the article at the time of the review. FA and PR have a subpage where a date can be found. GA doesn't, so it would be helpful if the GA templates on former FA candidates had oldid values. User:Dr pda/articlehistory.js is a helpful script; it can bring to light deleted GA and failed FAC templates, so add those back when you notice. Also any substituted dyk templates could be un-substituted, but those are relatively uncommon. Current FAs and former FAs are being handled first, but eventually we'll probably go through a large number of the articles with any failed FAC event. Gimmetrow 20:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Geography Cup FAC

You recently (5 Feburary) objected on the FAC for the Geography Cup article.

  • Object per 1b as the article isn't comprehensive. It doesn't discuss how other noted geographers and geographical bodies have reacted towards the cup, and the receptance from these people. Do they think its a good idea, or bad idea? Do they think its flawed? Furthermore, the article doesn't assess the impact and success / failure of the Cup's intentions of "raising awareness of the importance of world geography in the modern world". Has it worked? Has it failed? The article fails to come to any conclusion. LuciferMorgan 01:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I addressed the objection to the best of my ability with the information available. I found a couple of websites of geogreaphy teachers, geographers, and enthusiasts, that support the competition. I found some complaints about the website itself. I was not able to find the (elusive, possibly nonexistent) press release though.

I would appreciate it if you could review the article again. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The FAC may be closing soon (it is the second to the bottom) so I would appreciate it if you could look it over and leave a comment on the FAC. Thank you! Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thank you! Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Eyes of the Insane, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On February 22, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eyes of the Insane, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 23:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Christ Illusion

I'll definitely give time to this, but have a few projects on at the moment that I'm struggling to get to; gimme a few days. Have tickets for this bty, oh joy! Ceoil 00:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems good to me — comprehensive and well-referenced, although this is coming from somebody who has absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of the subject matter. The only thing I picked up on, as you will have noticed from my edits, is a degree of under-linking. To a degree it's a personal thing, possibly, and you may disagree with my view as may others, but I think that the first mentions of places (i.e. North Hollywood) and publications (The Guardian) ought to be linked where there are articles available.

Apart from that though, as I said, it looks good. Angmering 19:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say so, yes — although I just noticed I'd missed off Germany when linking the country mentions. That's one of the problems with editing any article that has a lot of references so close together: you can get a bit lost in all the mark-up sometimes. Angmering 20:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
A, It's very good, and close to FA standard - well done there. I'll give a full copy edit over the weekend; I'll have other comments and suggestions, where do you want me to post them? My openion is that a week or two's work is needed before nomination. Ceoil 00:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I see you've noticed this already; I'm ok with copy editing, except that I can't spell at all. Me not thick, but me not so clever either ;). Ceoil 00:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
That's not a problem, I'll post copy and other suggestions on your talk, and feel free to revert or ignore at will. Ceoil 00:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely no offence taken at all; I'm not usually so sloppy, but its late here where I am. Would be happy to help out. Ceoil 01:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Pass it

Sorry; real busy week. Would you mind passing it for me? I'm pretty much on check message mode right now. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DoomsDay349 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Christ Illusion feedback

Apologies, your message somehow slipped under my radar and I didn't see it straight away. I'll give the article a once-over, but judging by the reactions of others, it doesn't look as though many things are likely to crop up.

OK, here's what's going on:

  • "and Westlake Studios, Los Angeles, were Brian Warwick assisted" - that should be "where".
  • "whoes contribution" - "whose".
  • "Rubin's contribtion" - "contribution".
  • "clearer Punk vibe" - why do you capitalise "punk"?
  • ""a mix between God Hates and Seasons."" - I what you've done in your wikilinking with God Hates Us All here, but I'd personally add some square brackets to the quote in order to make it easier to understand for non-fans. Something like "a mix between God Hates [Us All] and Seasons [In the Abyss]. However, this is a matter of personal taste and your opinion is as valid as mine.
  • "removed from 17 bus benches" - I'd change "17" to "seventeen".
  • "Critical reviews of the album were generally mixed." - can something be "generally mixed"? I'd be careful with this phrase.
  • "Chris Steffen of Rolling Stone magazine dismissed the album, saying it "mines much of the same territory as its predecessor, God Hates Us All, just without the memorable riffs."[36] Despite the dismissal" - you use "dismiss" and forms of it twice here; I think a writer as decent as you should be able to vary things a little more.
  • "Lombardo came in for appraisal with the quip" - I'm not entirely sure "quip" fits, but I'd look it up in a dictionary before taking my word as law.
  • "The Guardian newspaper's" - we know it's a newspaper; do you need to tell us again?
  • In reception and criticism, you say the reviews were mixed, but give much more weight to the negative ones. It might be fair to dig up a more glowing review to counterbalance some of the slating it received. And a hefty amount of praise seems to have been placed on Lombardo - you could focus on this a little, or at least tie these appraisals together.
I would personally deem reviews to be negative - would you? One person at peer review told me reviews were mixed, which is why I changed it. Do you think I would be right in changing "mixed" to "negative"? LuciferMorgan 02:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "Slayer came under fire due to several concerns surrounding Christ Illusion." - this is a pretty redundant sentence, I feel.
  • "of Rolling Stone magazine opined that" - "opined"? Bizarre lexical choice.
Changed to "judged" - is this better? LuciferMorgan 02:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "perceived flaws in American religion,[46]," - two commas here. Delete the latter one.
  • "Critical reception to the album's lyrical content was generally mixed." - not only is this a repetition of a previous phrase, it's a second instance of a weak one.
  • "while The Guardian newspaper's" - same as before - do we need it highlighted that The Guardian is a newspaper?
  • ""no blasphemy left unuttered".[6]" - you lump this in with a section of negative reaction, but as it stands, this isn't necessarily a criticism.
Depends on one's viewpoint. In the context of the overall review, I;d saw this was meant as a criticism by the reviewer - Slayer's generally known for blasphemizing, so I feel the reviewer is saying that it's self-parody. LuciferMorgan 01:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "twisted-as-f*ck" - do we need to censor "fuck"?
  • I'd put a space between the external link and the Slayer infobox thing.
  • Have they not released any music videos?
Yeah they did for Eyes of the Insane (I did a quick rewrite of that article the other day - it's currently rated B). I'm unsure how to tie this in though. LuciferMorgan 01:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

These are all minor niggles; overall this is another incredibly sound Slayer article. You and Metalhead should be proud of yourselves, you've done a lot in a short amount of time, and it's been a pleasure watching these articles grow and flourish. Seegoon 01:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well even if you've not been the primary contributor with these, it's incredibly satisfying to have an effective heirarchy set up: He writes, you tweak, I feed back. If this pattern continued across Wikipedia, there'd be massive numbers of FAs springing up across the board. As for the video, I represented videos in list form in Cult of Luna. It might not work in the structure of an album article, but you could take a look. Seegoon 21:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, see a Slayer project forming here. Ceoil 23:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It's called WikiProject Slayer Ceoil. :) LuciferMorgan 23:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

More Christ Illusion feedback

A few suggestions:

  • The article's references are over reliant on Blabbermouth.net. Would it be possible to use the origional sources; eg ref 8 could cite the origional Modern Drummer interview and credit Waleed Rashidi as author.
  • The sound files should be split and positioned separately. They should also include short captions.
  • I'd prefer to see the alternate cover taken out of the infobox (which is already very long), and placed, say in the "Marketing and promotion" section.
  • "Not all media attention surrounding the group on June 6 was favourable." - should this be placed before "In late July 2006, bus benches in several Californian cities"? As is, the sentence is not developed or explained.
I thought it was explained and developed by the antics of the National Day of Slayer who vandalized the seminary. LuciferMorgan 00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
No, the current version assumes that the "National Day of Slayer" were a once off oddity, not a 'media' group. Do you want this changed? Ceoil 00:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I definitely do, as it isn't a one off. They got their next event planned for June 6, 2007 - check National Day of Slayer's Official Website for proof. I'm currently writing a longer reply to you on your page. LuciferMorgan 00:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

- And that's it, for now. Ceoil 16:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The Rubin section needs to be overhauled, haven't read the sources on this yet; but the sequence of events is unclear in the present version. Otherwise, the article is very strong, and I agree that it can be submitted with a day or two. Great work LM, the article is comprehensive, insightful, and particularly well balanced. Feel free to fold out your black laurels. Ceoil 21:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Read back over the article earlier and checked it against each of the criteria. I think it's there. My last minor quibble is the coverage of Rubin's role; chronologically the section (at least from what I can make out form the sources) should read like this: Slayer approach Rubin to produce, he agrees. He delays, Slayer get fed up, they find out he has committed to Metallica, they drop him. They hire Warwick, and retain Rubin as exec producer, but are not impressed by his (Rubin's) input.
All of that is clear enough from the current version, but the order of sentences could be switched around. Anyway, look forward to seeing it on FAC sometime soon. I'll be around to help out with requests during the nomination, but let me know if there is anything else needs doing before then (except for <cough> Rubin (I have tried!)). Ceoil 21:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The "Recording" section is fine; I'll go ahead and make my changes either tomorrow or saturday night; but I doubt anybody would object on the minor issue I've raised above. It's ready for nom, but be warned music articles are often slow to pick up comments. Also, make sure that any voters who have contributed to the article make that fact clear when commenting. All that said, I cant see any major issues cropping up (famous last words..yikes!) Ceoil 21:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, just as well I didn't edit that sequence directly. From what you say, seems like Slayer might be changing labels sometime soon. Make sure you put in the 'label boss' & 'after the album was wrapped' facts also. Nice angle, clash of the egos and all that ;) Ceoil 22:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: ROC FAC. Drop the thread, forget it. Can you clarify the recordings section of CH? Ceoil 22:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the sequence you posted on my talk has a lot of colour, if you could detail it in the article, it would make the article much stronger. Ceoil 23:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been around for long enough not to take King's interview remarks at face value. Need to read up on the relationship between him and Rubin, will give better advise then. Ceoil 23:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
yep. Ceoil 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/u/c/User%7ELuciferMorgan_Archive_8_6657.html"