Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gothic metal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Gothic metal

Toolbox

Self-nominator here: Bardin (talk). I have been somewhat hesitant to nominate this article for FA status even though I do believe it meet the requirements. There are some people who apparently feel rather strongly about whether some bands are really gothic metal or not. I suppose that's not really unusual among heavy metal genres though. I actually expect there to be some opposition to this article's FAC on such a basis: i.e. "so-and-so is not not gothic metal! this article is not accurate!". I seek solace though in wikipedia's policy of verifiability, not truth.

This was the original version of the article before I came along. There were so much problems with the article that I felt a fresh rewrite would be more appropriate so that is what I did.

References There are 239 citations (!) in the article at present. Some of these citations are used more than once too. Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources states that articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment. I believe all the sources are reliable but that might not be apparent to everyone so here's an explanation of the sources used.

  • Books There are 12 different books and one academic essay listed in the references section. I trust that there will not be any question of the reliability of these materials published in print.
  • News There are a few news report used in the article, mostly to support claims of commercial success and chart placement. With one exception, these news report are all from Blabbermouth.net. The exception is from CBS News and I do not think any explanation about the reliability of CBS is necessary here. Blabbermouth is a website that should be familiar to most online fans of heavy metal music but it is probably not something that you would come across otherwise since it only provides news concerning heavy metal music. It has a solid reputation and I reckon that it is probably the most reliable website that one can use for any heavy metal related article here on wikipedia. It has been used as a source for many other news media and even published books. It would be rather ridiculous if members of the academia and other news media find Blabbermouth to be reliable while wikipedia does not.
  • Biographies The overview of the genre's history in the article provides some biographical details regarding the more significant and/or prominent bands that are associated with the genre. Aside from the books, the biographical details are mostly sourced from the two databases Allmusic and Rockdetector. Both sites have their share of online detractors. I believe this is mostly due to disagreement about the choice of genre labels that are tagged to some bands. Those tags are not used as references in this article, btw. Both sites have also released numerous books in print: Allmusic and Rockdetector. These are not self-published books. As far as I know, these books provide biographies on bands similar to what can be found on their website so I think it would be downright silly if we can accept these books as reliable sources but not the websites from which they are derived from. For the record though, both sites have been used a reference by other non-related books: Allmusic far more than Rockdetector.
  • Reviews Pt. 1 These are mostly album reviews and a few concert reviews. The article only make use of professional reviews. No fan submitted stuff. A large proportion of the reviews come from the three mainstream publications Allmusic, PopMatters and About.com. About.com is another database site like Allmusic and Rockdetector only its scope extend to many other areas beyond music. Like Allmusic and Rockdetector, it too has released published books and it has also been used as a reference for other books: link. All the material used from About.com in this article are from Chad Bowar, an experienced journalist in heavy metal music who has conducted some newsworthy interviews as reported on Blabbermouth: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. PopMatters is closer to the rest of the sources used in the article in that it is a webzine or online magazine devoted to music. Like Blabbermouth, it has been used as a reference for other news media and published books. There is also just the one single review from musicOMH.com used as a source in this article: the website is fairly mainstream with an editorial oversight and it has also been used as a reference in books. The only other review from a mainstream publication comes from the Rolling Stone. Need I say more about that famous magazine?
  • Reviews Pt. 2 The other reviews used in this article come from webzines that specialise in heavy metal music. These are not sites that have a mainstream presence in the news or in books although Chronicles of Chaos have been used as a reference in one book so I do not think I need to explain the reliability of that site any further. A large proportion of the reviews used in the article come from The Metal Observer, "one of the world's longest-running metal web sites" and "one of the top international online metal resources" as identified by Blabbermouth here and here. Lordsofmetal.nl, Soniccathedral.com, Tartareandesire.com and Live-metal.net are the other metal specialist webzines whose reviews are used as sources in this article. I believe all of these sites have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as evident by the occasional report of their content as news on Blabbermouth. Here are some examples (two for each site): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Granted, none of these news report concern album or concert reviews since such reviews are generally not newsworthy but using some common sense here, I feel that if the content of these sites are deemed reliable enough for blabbermouth, then they should be reliable enough for wikipedia. Live-metal.net and lordsofmetal.nl also turn up a few hits on google news here and here. Bear in mind that the google news search is only for the past month and hence, the result will eventually disappear.
  • Interviews Pt. 1 By far the most diverse and numerous collection of sources in this article. They only represent a small proportion of the sources in this article though since each interview source are generally used only once or twice while the aforementioned review sites are used more frequently. Some of those review sites also have interviews used in this article as sources: Chronicles of Chaos, soniccathedral.com, tartareandesire and lordsofmetal. The other websites used are mostly music webzines as well. One exception is Gathering.nl which is the official website of the band The Gathering. The interview is used to provide information on a non-controversial biographical detail: namely, that their first album includes supporting vocals by Marike Groot. For some reason, this piece of info is not found on the band's biography on Allmusic or Rockdetector. I feel that the info is rather noteworthy in the context of the use of female vocals in the genre. Another exception is Suicidegirls.com. That's the website for Suicide Girls and I think that's pretty mainstream so I don't really feel I need to justify its reliability. Moving on. Releasemagazine.net has appeared as a reference in one book while Antimusic.com has appeared as a reference in several books.
  • Interviews Pt. 2 Metal-rules.com is a rather well-known heavy metal webzine. It has been identified by Blabbermouth as "one of the world's largest and longest-running heavy metal webzines" here and as the provider of "top-notch metal news, views, reviews and interviews" here. Its content are occasionally used as a source for news on Blabbermouth as are the content of Rockeyez.com, Fourteeng.net, Blistering.com, Metal-realm.net, Getreadytorock.com, Thegauntlet.com, Hallofmetal.com, Musictap.net, Metalstorm.ee, Metalmonk.co.uk, Rockezine.com/net, Metal-temple.com, Dprp.net and Musicaldiscoveries.com. Examples here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. Phew! I think it would be rather odd if the original source for these interviews cannot be considered reliable by wikipedia's standards but the news report of these interviews on Blabbermouth can.
  • Interviews Pt. 3 That leaves just three sites: Metalcrypt.com, Stormbringerwebzine.co.uk and Ssmt-reviews.com. A single interview from each of these site is used on the article as a reference. None of these interviews are being used to support anything remotely contentious or controversial. They are all harmless in my view. I highly doubt that any of the person being interviewed would take issues with the points that these interviews are being used to support.
    • Metalcrypt.com is used for one interview with Christofer Johnsson of Therion wherein he credits Celtic Frost as playing a key role in the development of both gothic metal and symphonic metal. He pretty much says the same thing in other interviews such as this one on thegrimoire.com, a website that is reliable enough for a published book. Yes, I can switch the reference but I prefer the way that Christofer Johnsson expresses the viewpoint on the metalcrypt.com interview over the other. It makes for a nice quote in my view.
    • Stormbringerwebzine.co.uk is used for one interview with Moonspell vocalist Fernando Ribiero. The webzine is not well known but the interview is conducted by one Vinnie Apicella, a journalist with a fairly decent resume. Personally, I think it would be rather odd if his interview on one webzine is not deemed reliable but his work on other sites like KNAC would be.
    • Ssmt-reviews.com is used for one interview with Jeroen van Veen of Within Temptation for support on the band's early influence. I feel this interview is useful in drawing a connection between the early pioneers of the gothic metal genre and the later, more commercially successful bands. This webzine has been around for over ten years now and for what it's worth, the site does have an editor.
  • Articles The article also makes use of a few general articles as references. One of them is from Grammy.com, the website for the Grammy Award. The others are on Allmusic, About.com and The Metal Observer. 'Nuff said.

That's all the references explained. Unless I've missed out on something, of course.

Photos There are 12 photos used in the article which seems about right for its length. All the photos are free from wiki commons except for the Black Sabbath album cover which can be used for this article per Wikipedia:FAIR#Images: Cover art can be used for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item. The block quote next to the image provides that commentary. I think it is quite important to have the cover art next to the block quote since such descriptions as a "spectral-looking girl" and "shot through a sickly pale ochre filter" are not readily apparent or understood without the accompanying image, i.e. "Oh, that's what pale ochre filter means."

Sound samples There are ten sound samples divided into five groups of two samples each. Five groups for five sections. All of the samples have a specific purpose in the article as indicated in the accompanying captions. They all in Ogg Vorbis format with quality reduced to zero (64 kbit/s). None of them are longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the original, whichever is lower.

Phew! That's it. Bardin (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - OK, so you have the references covered, and they do look very good indeed, but there are problems with the prose:

  • "Formed in 1968, the English band from Birmingham started with the name of Polka Tulk before first changing it into Earth and then later into Black Sabbath" - Hmm? Weirdly organized sentence to start a paragraph... Try instead: "English band Polka Tulk was formed in Birmingham in 1968 before changing its name to Earth and later Black Sabbath." - Much shorter, and much easier to read.
  • "The name was derived from the 1969 Boris Karloff horror film Black Sabbath." - You should clarify which name, so try: "The latter name was derived from the 1969 Boris Karloff horror film Black Sabbath."
  • ..."As one of the first exponent of the genre, Black Sabbath has had a massive influence on heavy metal music" - I believe 'exponent' is the incorrect word to use here, unless I'm wrong. But in any case, it certainly isn't needed and just making the reading harder. Try instead: "As one of the first gothic metal bands, Black Sabbath has heavily influenced the genre." - Please avoid words like "massively".
  • ..."and hasthey have been credited in particular as the pioneers of the doom metal subgenre." - More dodgy wording. And what exactly on earth is "doom metal" ?
  • I could go on, but the prose isn't up to the required standards, and thus this fails criterion 1a for "brilliant" prose.
  • I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages!

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I feel that the prose is fine but if others agree with your sentiments, I'll do as you suggest and make a request for a copyedit. I've made some changes as per your suggestions.
    • I've split the first sentence into two. It's supposed to be a continuation of the opening block quote and I do feel that it would be rather odd to jump from Black Sabbath to Polka Tulk without any preceding explanation so now the article uses the name Black Sabbath one more time. That's five time in the one paragraph. Something that I was trying to avoid but I digress.
    • I think it's quite obvious that the name referred to in this second (now third) sentence is the very same name that ends the previous sentence. If that's not enough, there's also the name repeated again as the title of the film in this sentence. Nonetheless, I've added the word latter as per your suggestion.
    • Massive is the word used in the reference cited. It's now in quotation marks. I was not aware that exponent is a difficult word to read but I've change it.
    • Doom metal is a subgenre as indicated in the sentence. It was wikilink in the lead section and I guess it should be wikilinked again here. I do not see a need to strike out "in particular" since that's what the sentence is stating: that they are being credited as pioneers of one subgenre in particular and not all the others. I've moved the expression to the end of the sentence though. --Bardin (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It is common for articles to be copyedited several times before coming to FA in preparation. A good example are two of my last FACs, which were both quickly nominated to FA status because they had been copyedited several times already by editors new to the text. Indeed, what you see as OK, others might not - the main reason is probably because you wrote most of the text, and so it will naturally look fine to yourself. As for whether or not others agree, I'm not sure if you're suggesting that my concern alone isn't enough for you? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Okay, I understand now. No worries. --Bardin (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment

Not half-bad. I'm ready to copy-edit this if you want in a couple of days (after major content/sourcing issues, if any, have been dealt with; copy-editing is really the last step). One thing I really dislike though: could you delete those ginormous quotes at the beginning of the Sabbath and Peaceville three sections?? Such large text copying could be construed as copy-vio (not sure), big blockquotes are not supposed to be at the beginning of sections, they are not being said by anybody famous (to spark interest in a reader) and, lastly, there's nothing special or unique about what is being said to warrant inclusion in blockquote form. Just incorporate the text in the quotes into Wikipedia text-form, and it'll vastly improve readability. indopug (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Done and please feel free to copy-edit this when you can. --Bardin (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments You've done all my work for me, justifying all your sources for other reviewers to read and decide on their own. The only problem is you've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates. That's it! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - I'm not sure I'll oppose on this point alone, but I certainly won't support - the block quotes at the beginning of sections should be removed, with any relevant bits placed into the article text normally. As an example of why, the quote in the "Peaceville Three" section effectively replaces Wikipedia's neutral point of view on the origins of Gothic metal with the viewpoint of a particular author. Whether that viewpoint is controversial or not, it is inappropriate to use his words instead of Wikipedia's neutral, encyclopedic tone. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • This is a valid point. I believe it's simply bad practice to start a section with a blockquote. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Done. --Bardin (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Cut down on the detail given to Black Sabbath. All we need in the article is that gothic metal bands draw specific influence from the band. We don't need to go into detail about how the band helped create heavy metal as a whole (that's what Black Sabbath and Heavy metal music are for). You might want to move the musical characteristics section before the History. I've found this works very well in establishing a genre in the reader's minds and setting up the rest of the article. Compare to the FA Grunge music, which is the current model for articles on subgenres of larger rock subgenres (grunge as a form of alternative rock, compared to gothic metal as a form of heavy metal). Also, given this is an genre article, you don't need to talk about every gothic metal band. The grunge article barely mentions Alice in Chains, and doesn't mention Hole at all in the prose, because there's really no need to when the main topic is the genre as a whole. Keep focused on the major points. You could definitely shift a lot of the detail to the band articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    • I've made some changes to the Black Sabbath paragraph. They are not actually in the article because of any influence they might have on gothic metal bands - I'm not aware of any such influence, quite frankly. They are there as a precursor rather than a point of origin, i.e. the relationship between goth and metal before goth metal existed. Nobody as far as I know has provided a historical overview of gothic metal the way that one can find about heavy metal music, grunge or punk rock. There are no books - at least, not in English - that is specifically on gothic metal and only gothic metal while there are plenty of books devoted to those three other genres. In the absence of such sources, I adopted the approach of highlighting the main bands in the genre. There are six bands discussed in the origins section; I can't dismissed any one of them otherwise the article would be in breach of a neutral point of view. Two bands are each highlighted in the subsequent sections followed by three bands in the final section. I just wanted to give the article some balance otherwise one might question why this band and not that one. If I remove the band details from the article, the historical overview would probably be shrunk to just two or three paragraphs and I don't think that would be right. The characteristic section is similarly short because of the lack of sources that are directly or specifically concerned about the subject; it's a common problem for heavy metal genres that have not attracted the attention of the English writing academics. After all, this is a genre that's big in Europe but little known in the US or UK. Anyhow, I reckon the article is better off starting with the historical overview and leaving the characteristic section to fill the blanks. I feel the lead should already help to set up what the genre more or less is in the mind of the reader. --Bardin (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
You should probably remove discussion of Black Sabbath from the article entirely, then. The article is pretty sizable (110 kb) and there are no subarticles that can help rationalize that size, so you're going to need to take a logn hard look at the article and figure out what needs to go. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
It's actually 99 kb and that's only with all the samples, images and the large number of references. Remove all that and the readable prose is only 37.9 kb. That's actually shorter than many other featured articles. Heavy metal music is 93.8 kb with a readable prose of 54.8 kb. Megadeth is 87.1 with a readable prose of 44.8. Eurovision Song Contest is 68.1 kb and 40.4 kb. Punk rock is a whopping 129 kb with a readable prose of 72.3 kb. Bob Dylan is even larger at 139.kb with a readable prose of 78.kb. The large gap between the article size and readable prose in the Bob Dylan, punk rock and this gothic metal article is due to the large number of references: over 200 in each. Compare that to the smaller gap in the Eurovision Song Contest with its 53 references. Both heavy metal music and punk rock exceeds the recommended maximum article size limit of 10,000 words. This gothic metal article only has around 6,400 words. So I do not think this Gothic metal article is too long. If anything, I believe the characteristic section can use some more expansion if only further sources can be found for support. The Black Sabbath info is in the article because it is relevant. That's why the heavy metal music article begins with the Yardbirds and the Kinks. That's why there's 10 paragraphs in the "pre-history" section of punk rock. People find these sort of things to be relevant. Gavin Baddeley saw fit to begin his discussion of gothic metal with Black Sabbath and other precursors before moving onto the actual gothic metal bands. I do not think his approach is unique or unusual. Heck, even the short Allmusic guide entry on gothic metal adopts the same approach. --Bardin (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The thing with the heavy metal and punk articles is that clear links have been drawn by various sources about the origins of these genres, and thus it is necessary to write about them. While obviously you wouldn't have much metal without Black Sabbath, the detail does seem very unnecessary in this article. As this is a subgenre page, it's already a given that it emerged as a form of metal. It basically comes across as, "Black Sabbath was pretty dark, and there were these other goth-y forms of music, and then gothic metal came along". Start with the direct roots of the genre, instead of trying to document the varying uses of the word "gothic". The article needs to stay focused. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand how you got that impression but it seems pretty clear to me that Black Sabbath is not mentioned in the gothic metal article merely because they were dark or the first heavy metal band. They are there because commentators have described them as precursors to the gothic metal genre. King Diamond, Celtic Frost and Danzig are all described there too as precursors but not Deep Purple, Motorhead or Metallica. The bands there are not mentioned without reason. It's not a documentation of the varying use of the word gothic. It's a documentation of the relationship between gothic music and heavy metal music before the emergence of gothic metal. I do not know how to make it any more clearer that the section entitled precursors is about bands that have been identified by commentators as precursors in the same way that garage rock has been identified by other commentators as precursors to punk and the Kinks & Yardbirds have been identified by other commentators as precursors to heavy metal. This isn't original research. For the Black Sabbath info, the commentators are Gavin Baddeley, Dave Thompson & to a lesser extent Barry Hoskyns. --Bardin (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
That whole first paragraph about Sabbath is unnecessarily long. Why is it important that some consider them a precursor to death/doom? Stuff like that. My main point is that the article is at times unnecessarily detailed, and would benefit from some trimming. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. Perhaps you're reading it wrong. I ese nothing in that paragraph about them being a precursor to death/doom. The first two sentences are not about Black Sabbath. The third sentence states that some have identified Black Sabbath's debut album as the first 'goth rock' album. The fourth sentence provides an explanation for this identification. The fifth sentence provides a couple more viewpoints from other commentators drawing a connection between the band and goth rock. The last sentence notes that the band has been credited as pioneers of the doom metal subgenre in particular from which some of the earliest gothic metal bands came from and also notes that they derived their name from a gothic horror film. That's it. I do not think that is unnecessarily long and if you disagree, I'm sorry but I can't help you. --Bardin (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)