Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Peer review

[edit] Peer review

[edit] List of thrash metal bands

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been working on this article since late 2007, starting off by adding thrash albums to the various bands present in the list. In March 2008, I started adding cited entries to various bands, summarizing their impact on the thrash metal scene. I think this list has the potential of becoming an FL candidate. Hence I would like the editors here to review this list, so that any flaws or shortcomings present can be addressed. Any feedback, however, would be much appreciated. Thank You, Welt^anschaunng 12:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Great user name! Interesting list and I will be the first to admit I know little about the topic, although I know some of the bands. Here are some thoughts / suggestions for improvement:

• The bold text in the lead is not supposed to also be wikilinked per the MOS (so link thrash metal elsewhere) or rewrite the first sentence, perhaps something like This list of thrash metal bands includes bands that have played thrash metal at some point during their career, sorted as per the country of their origin. See WP:LEAD
• Per WP:MOS#Images, don't sandwich text between two images
• The band name Sodom is a dab link
• Perhaps give the country of origin for each notable band mentioned in the lead (US bands noted already)

The next comments are more my questions than definite "must do" suggestions. I have helped write three WP:FL, but on state parks and Pennsylvania counties, so I am not as familiar with music FL criteria. Still here are my thoughts.

• I like using sortable lists as they allow the reader to sort by the column they are interested in. For this list I wonder if it would help to have the default listing still be by country, but also be sortable by other information.
• I also note that many of the entries are nothing more than a link to the band name - for FLC my guess is that they will want approximately equal information on each list entry. Currently some bands have a nice description and an album listing, while others have nothing but the name.
• So I would have perhaps five columns: country of origin, name, description, Thrash albums, and perhaps some sort of date. The first four items are given for some bands already. The date could be their first album or their years of activity. I would not sort the comments, and perhaps not their albums - if you did then it would sort by the name of their first album.
• Two more suggestions: a model article is always useful, so see if you can find one to follow and for ideas. I would also look at WP:FLC to get some ideas of what the reviewrs there are looking for nowadays.
• You may find it easier to have two sortable lists: USA and rest of the world.
• My concern is that as it is, FLC may ask why "Hobbs' Angel of Death" gets a description and album listing, but not the other four Australian thrash metal bands.

Hope this helps, obviously a lot of work so far, but I think more is needed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for writing the review! I have fixed the major points you raised.

I am trying to model the list as per the list of Telecaster players. There are very few featured music lists, and most are discography type lists. I think tables are not suitable for these type of lists, as the snippets doesn't seem to gel well with it. I toyed with the idea, but settled on this format on recommendation of another user.

Yeah, its not complete. I don't plan to take it to wp:FL anytime soon though.

As for the sorting, well it was alphabetical earlier, but there was an issue over the improper use of flagicons in the list. If you have a look at other band lists, you'll get an idea. I used country-wise sorting partly to address the nationality issue which was raised for retaining flagicons. I could revert back to the previous sorting format, if that's a problem. And yeah, the "years active" info seems a good idea.

PS - my name has a typo, I presume you are German or interested in Germany! Welt^anschaunng 19:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

After I did this review, I was asked to review List of folk metal bands, which does use a sortable table and some of the things suggested here, plus others I did not think of. Again, it is your call, but it may give you some ideas. The thing about FLC is that I think they will want each of the entries in the list to have about the same amount of information. It may be seen as POV to single out one or two bands per country. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

PS I speak Germann and have lived inn Germanny inn the past, but I hadnn't nnoticed a typo ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Folk metal

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have dramatically expanded this article to what I believe is a rather high standard with photos, music samples and most importantly, references throughout the article for each and every point made. I would particularly like to receive some feedback on the sentence flow of the article and whether it can be improved further.

Thanks, Bardin (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Folk metal/archive1.

[edit] Black Majesty

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, quite simply, I wish to find out what else I can do to improve the article's quality.

Thanks, Inf666 (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

[edit] Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Rightyho, some comments on where to go from here...

• Expand the lead, take a look at WP:LEAD for advice. A single sentence simply isn't sufficient.
• As per the warning templates at the top of the page, references are needed for this article to be anything other than a B-class article.
• Minor manual of style issues such as the use of an en-dash to separate years (so, in the infobox, you should have 2002–present, not 2002 - Present...)
• The article suffers a little from assuming that the reader is completely commensurate with the musical genre. I'm not, and find phrases like "hair metal" a bit confusing.
• The subsection "Black Majesty" needs to be expanded and preferably renamed, it's a bit odd having the name of the article as also the name of a subsection of the article.

That's about it for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Six Feet Under (band)

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I believe that it's about time for a death metal band of such respectability and signifigance to get up to GA status. I've rewritten the page pretty much from scrap, and already it is much more informative and detailed. Thanks, Dark Executioner (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] M3tal H3ad

It's got a long way until it reaches GA, first thing i notice; *1995−1997

Six Feet Under released their first album on - this is the first sentence of the history section. How was the band formed?, how did they meet?, who are the members of the band?, who plays what?, how did they get signed?

• Add reviews from the albums, include the summary line of the review and the general reaction to the album
• It contains POV such as "stands out as an impressive track on this release."

The main thing is the article lacks detail and just covers what the band released, and original research of the style of the song. M3tal H3ad (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, but still working on the POV stuff. Thanks! Dark Executioner (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skeletor2112

Good to see you focus in on an article! This one does need a bit of work, but it's a great way to become familiar with the GA/FA process.

• The first sentence of the article should clearly assert what the article is about, so that someone unfamiliar with SFU can understand. Somthing like:

Six Feet Under are an American death metal band originally formed as a side project.... ect.

• Check out some examples at BurningClean's GA examples page: User:Burningclean/article examples/heavy metal and try to emulate the form, structure, and formal tone of those articles.

• It's gonna need quite a few more references and citations. Anytime somthing critical of the band is stated, good or bad, it needs a citation. We can't insert our opinions, even if somthing is widely accepted in the metal community,(like Metallica sucks now, ect) without a cite.

• Like M3tal H3ad said above, its good to use quotes from professional reviewers, like Allmusic.com, or Blabbermouth.net For example, in the first paragraph, the line "However, the grooves and the distinctness of Chris Barnes' vocals were praised in reviews." should be accompanied by a citation that has a favorable review of Barnes' vocal style.

• There are a few key points to try and hit with info on releases - release date(looks like most are there), critical response(a quote from a professional review is good), touring in support of that album(what bands, where, ect), chart positions(check out billboard.com), then any notable points, like controversies, band member changes, stand out tracks/hit songs, ect. Again, take a look at BurningClean's list, most of those articles include stuff like this for album release info.

• Sentences like "Generally, this album received good reviews, though some disliked the band for it." use "weasel words", which should be avoided.

• Even though the band has a acronym, its still best to use their full name in the article (Six Feet Under instead of SFU), but you can't say it everytime, so saying stuff like "the band" or "the group" mixed in breaks it up a bit.

• Stuff like " The musicianship has also been improved; the guitar solo on "Waiting for Decay" is impressive, and even the drumming on "It Never Dies" is better than anything SFU had tried before." is not neutral... anything that asserts an opinion should come from a noted reviewer, with a citiation, ect. I know it is hard at first, especially when you are a big fan of the subject. Leaving out descriptive words is imperitive -neutrality is one of the most important aspects of article elevation.

• The 2006-2008 section includes some single-sentence paragraphs, those should be merged into one single paragraph.

• Once the article gets moving, it might be good to add a "Musical style" section, which uses references to describe the band's sound. Again, see BurningClean's list of metal article examples.

Good luck, and let me know if you need clarification or help with anything! \m/ Skeletor2112 (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've received the most benefit from your advice, Skeletor. You're really patient with helping me with this thing and I appreciate it. \m/ I'm still working on making the article more neutral in tone, however. Dark Executioner (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Burningclean

I would have basically stated everything these guys have but there are some other things I noticed.

• The section titles, instead of years, could you list album names etc. just like most band articles. After the titles, if they aren't super long, then you could put the years in parenthese.
• The citations should be formated. Here is what it should look like:
  • <ref name="(name of ref)">{{cite web| author=(author) |date=(when it was written or posted, should be in format of [[yyyy-mm-dd]]) |url=(web address) |title=(title of article) |publisher=(name of website you got it from) |accessdate=(when you added the source, should be same format as date)}}</ref>
• Some pictures would be nice. Make sure they are free use.

—Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 22:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, but I would still like help on formatting some of the sources, if they have not been done already. Dark Executioner (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tenacious D

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been GA for a while, and I feel that a bit of an injection of new blood could kick it into FA.

Thanks, Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I learned a lot about the band and enjoyed this article. It nees some polish to get to FA. I am not sure this really needs a peer review as much as just looking at the previous FAC comments and taking them seriously, but here goes:

• Since the article has been through FAC four times, I would go through all of those comments as carefully as possible as make sure they had all been addressed. I would also treat the comments as examples and look for similar problems throughout the article. Examples of unaddressed issues from FACs:
  • Still lots of very short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and choppy writing.
  • Why did Gass initially feel threatened by Black?
  • Per WP:LEAD, all material in the lead should be in the article: the lead still says they formed the group in LA in 1994, the article does not say this explicitly.
• I would also be very careful to only include material on Tenacious D in the article, currently there is a fair amount of stuff on the solo work of the two members that just does not belong here. Two examples, one OK, one not: Mentioning Jack Black's involvement in King Kong interfering with Tenacious D's plans / work is fine; Black has starred in a number of films himself including High Fidelity, School of Rock... is not. I think even here it would be OK to say that they had each appeared in films, some together, but keep the focus of the article on Tenacious D. Another example - Gass and Black's solo appearances in other group's music videos have nothing to do with the band.
• Some things make no sense.
  • For example: Black and Gass, at the time respectively aged 16 and 24, met in Edinburgh, Scotland during the Edinburgh Fringe. Both were members of the Los Angeles-based theatre troupe, The Actors' Gang[5][6] which was performing Tim Robbins' play Carnage.[7] So they met in Edinburgh, but they were already in an LA theatre troupe? Which is it? Also, when did they meet (year and month)? Put things into context - how long after they met did they form the group?
  • Another example: The soundtrack was released just over a week earlier, on November 14, and reached number eight on the Billboard 200 in the U.S.,[33] number twenty-four in the UK,[34] and number fifty-seven in the US.[35] Did the album reach #8 or #57 in the US? If these are different charts, clarify.
• There is some repetition of material. Since they have only made two albums and an EP (with 4 singles) and the albums, EP and most of the singles are already discussed above, having a separate discography section seems silly - just link to their discography list under See also.
• Ref 63 (City Hall Lyrics) does not list full information (publisher, date accessed, etc.). I also am not sure this meets WP:RS.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point about the charts. I have fixed the discog page so I'll link to that. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see how that error crept in. I think someone mistook the single POD for the album Pick of Destiny. That's sorted. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)