Talk:The Crucified

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Crucified was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: April 10, 2008

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Heavy Metal      (Rated B-Class) Heavy metal Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, an attempt to improve articles related to heavy metal music. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details on the projects. B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject Christian Metal     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of the Christian Metal WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Christian Metal and its related articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. WikiProject Biography     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

[edit] Notability

It's obvious that considerable work has gone into this (and related) articles, but unfortunately the result is not good. The main problem is one of notability, and I've added a tag suggesting that more third party references are needed to substantiate what is being said. Having the vocalist's autobiography as the main source is not satisfactory. Johnfos (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've withdrawn the nom. The book is the only source available. I think the tag could at least be taken off. It is a well written and factual article. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 19:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there are sources that are being overlooked here, like this one:

• van Pelt, Doug (2005). The Crucified Interview 2005 (interview with Mark Salomon). HM. Retrieved on 2007-08-10.

-- Johnfos (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I used that one. HM Magazine is the only other website that talks with Mark Salomon and it is about Stavesacre 99% of the time. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 21:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, you have used that one. My mistake. Look, in the absence of other editor input, maybe the best thing to do is get a WP:3O on the question of notability and whether the tag should be removed. Johnfos (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'll ask Dihydrogen Monoxide. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 22:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Good choice. Diggy is an editor whose opinion I value. Johnfos (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too. He's a great editor.^[1] —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 23:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

{{fact}}. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I have to give my opinion here, eh? Well, it seems notable to me. They've released some albums, and they've appeared in HM. I tried a few other sites; nothing on Rolling Stone, or on news.com.au. NME might have some; I'm not in the mood to go through hall those. Maybe you'll be lucky. I dunno. But IMO they're "notable"... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, nothing of substance on NME. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 19:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination

After taking a look at the article, I'd say it's pretty good, but there's still some pretty sizeable flaws with it, which I hope can be addressed:

• The biggest problem is the lack of sources. Not only is the article based almost exclusively on a single source (except for two in-line citations), but that one source is written by one of the members of the group. I can see this has been discussed above, but it remains the Achilles' heel of the article, and is reason enough for the article to fail its GA nomination. I don't know if this is something that is fixable, or if the article is doomed from the get go, but it's definitely a problem. That said, even though I'm going to fail the nomination, below are some more suggestions I have.
• Another problem I see with the article is it's scope. Specifically, the article is primarily a historical/biographical account, albeit with two lists tacked on to the end (members and discography). Surely, there's much more that could be said about the band? What about their sound? Their live performances? The group dynamic? Their influence? Their influenceS? Any controversies? Major awards? etc. I'm not saying all that needs to be in there, but the article should ideally go into more detail then "X happened. Then Y happened. After that, Z happened."
• The lead is very short. Per WP:Lead, the lead should summarize the article's major points. In a way, this is linked to the above criticism: the lead is so short simply because there isn't much to the article to summarize.
• "The band broke up in 1994 due to personal indifferences." Don't you mean "differences"? I don't think people can have personally indifferences. Same with "Johnson was fired from the band due to personal indifferences."
• I think it's important to mention in the lead that they are a Christian band.
• "As the band members started to struggle with their Christian faith, the members started to not get along with each other as well as they used to." is a pretty awkward sentence.
• The discography section is formatted more like a discography list, rather than a discography section. See WP:Album on how to write a section. (i.e. without the boxes, bullet points instead).

So, those are my suggestions of how to improve the article and how to get it to GA status. Unfortunately, I fear the first point might be insurmountable, but I hope not. Please feel free to drop me a line with any questions or concerns you might have regarding my review. Additionally, if you feel my review to be in error, you can always have the review reassessed at WP:GAR. Good luck! Drewcifer (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)