Talk:Defeated Sanity

Defeated Sanity has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 1, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Metal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Defeated Sanity/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Unfinished "attempted" review.

Overall looks pretty good. In good conscience, however, it would be an insult to the genre to outright pass a metal article that lacked needed umlauts. I've fixed the missing ones in the band member name. Please copyedit and proofread, then contact me for a second review. Durova^Charge! 19:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... Canniba loki 02:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can the second review begin or the article failed? It doesn't seem that anything has happened to this article in a month plus. Wizardman 14:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The candidate withdrew on the 27th of January. This probably could have been prevented. — Realist² 05:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination has been restarted, could the new reviewer continue below this post, rather than start GA2. Thank you. — Realist² 06:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will take over review of this article and start fresh. H1nkles (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
I've done some fixes, it is ok for GA but will need more work to advance

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
It's still a little light on content.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
No images, big need for this article but not enough to fail it since GA criteria states "wherever possible images should be included." In discussing this with editor I am assured that no free images exist currently.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
An image will need to be added, prose work done but it is sufficient currently to pass.H1nkles (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Lead

First paragraph in the lead is a stub and should either be expanded or combined with other paragraphs.
- Done.
Same for the last paragraph in the lead. H1nkles (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Canniba loki 01:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding History

Writing is good.
- Thanks ;)
Wikilink Imperious Malevolence even if it is a red link, you wikilink Necrophagist so to be consistent you should link the other band as well.
- Done.
Is there any info on why the band members left? That would help expand the article a bit. H1nkles (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately not.

Regarding Prelude to the tragedy

With such a large quote you need to put it in block quotes. See MOS for how to do this.
- Done using <blockquote></blockquote>
Last paragraph is one sentence, either expand or combine with the paragraph above to remove stub.
- Done, combined in a unique para.
Check your tense through this section, at points you are in the past tense and then you move to the present. Since the album came out in 2004 you should stay in the past tense. H1nkles (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, I ask a user to help me with this.
  - Done. Canniba loki 00:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Psalms of the Moribund

Again the quote needs to be block quoted per MOS.
- Done too.
You should put quote marks around the names of the magazines that reviewed the albums - this would apply to the previous subsection as well.
- Done.
There are some minor prose issues that are enough to warrant a prose review of the article. I fixed one small thing at the end of this subsection but you should go through it and make sure the prose is all clean. H1nkles (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I will see this better.
  - Done. Canniba loki 00:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Members, tables, timeline

This all looks good, very organized, colorful and informative.

Woohoo! Canniba loki 22:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding References

I like accessdates w/in 3-4 months of my review. Please fix the ones from August, they're a little far out.
- Done, all "very well" updated now.
The reference to the MySpace blog is a questionable one. Can you support the credibility of this citation? I usually look with suspicion on blogs in general as they are primarily opinion-based. Please support the use of this citation here and if your argument makes sense I'll go with it.
- The (MySpace) blog entry was wrote by the band as a press release statement. Anyway, I replace it with another reference. Canniba loki 01:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding overall review

The article is descent, please address the issues listed above.
Prose could use a little work.
Per GA criteria there should be a photo if possible. I think a photo should be available that would meet Fair Use standards. This should at least be explored and if nothing is available then please explain that here.
- I have the albums covers, but they don't add nothing relevant to article.
The article could be expanded but I think it covers just barely enough of the subject so I won't fail it for lack of information. That said it could really use some more information on what the band is doing now (it sounds from the article that they've been searching for band members for over a year). What happened that caused the other members to quit? Do they have any tour dates or another studio album planned for 2009?
- Updated. Canniba loki 03:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take care of these things and it should pass. I'll put the article on hold for one week until 2/5/09 and then take a look at your progress. Thanks for the interesting read. H1nkles (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second review

The article is improved. I will pass it but it does need a bit more work.

Don't italicize websites in the references. Per WP:CITE only journals, newspapers, books and magazines are italicized. This will need to be fixed.

I'm not that put the sites in italic, the template does this automatically with the field |work=.

Replace |work= with |publisher= that will do it. H1nkles (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

|work=Blabbermouth.net & |publisher=Roadrunner Records Canniba loki 04:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please work on an image, something must be out there that can be added.

Of course, I will try to send an e-mail to the band.

It's a shame the timeline had to be removed.

I fully agree with you.

That said I will pass it as a GA if you will fix these few things. Congratulations and it was a pleasure to work with you on this review. H1nkles (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Canniba loki 04:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline chart

Per Wikipedia:Colours#Using_colours_in_articles there should be another identifier for the instruments besides the colors. Otto4711 (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline was removed. Canniba loki 02:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable sources

I have to question a couple of sources in this article:

What makes Diabolical Conquest a reliable source? How are they notable, and why is their review of note? I question their reliability, especially since they don't even exist anymore.
- I also question why we need such a long quote from them; the first sentence seems reasonable, but the second seems excessive.
Same question for Lords of Metal. How are they notable, and a reliable source?
Same for Teeth of the Divine.
Same for Chronicles of Chaos.

None of these reviews look to be from reliable sources, and I question their inclusion in this article. If other editors can support their inclusion, please explain why any of these sources should be included. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Defeated Sanity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081201173344/http://www.unboundzine.com/defeatedsanity.html to http://www.unboundzine.com/defeatedsanity.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Defeated Sanity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]