Wikipedia:Peer review/Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good!/archive1

Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good!

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because in the past PRing has been quite helpful, and I am trying to get the album to GA quality. I have made major revisions to it since I started working on it, from when it used to look like this this.

Thanks, Bruce Campbell (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)(talk)[reply]

GreatOrangePumpkin comments

RELEASE AND PROMOTION: and stayed with the band upto the recording should be "up to"

If I find something more, I'll tell you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jappalang

Media

File:Last Rites-Loved to Death demo sample.ogg
What is the significance of this media? To qualify for fair use on Wikipedia, all ten criteria of WP:NFCC must be fulfilled. Specifically, what contextual significance of this sample is there? Where in the article is there critical commentary about the music sample and how does listening to this sample help readers understand the commentary? This purpose should be explained on the image page as part of the Fair use rationale.

File:500px Killing(Remastered).jpg, File:Combat KIMB.jpg
Choose one of the two to qualify as identifying art, but unless there is substantial critical commentary on the other that requires the image to help readers understand it, the other image should go. How it aids the critical commentary should be explained as part of the Fair use rationale on the image page.

File:Combat KIMB.jpg
Fails WP:CITE#IMAGE. Where was this image obtained? Furthermore, who is the copyright owner?

Sources

I am not going to comment on contents because frankly, there is a lot of problems with the sources used as follow (it would not help to comment on the content if they have to be removed):

The lyrics page on megadeth.rockmetal.art.pl should not be linked per WP:LINKVIO; it is a copyright violation, reprinting the entire song lyrics without permission and not in fair use (with critical commentary).

The same goes for the interview (which is not published by the site); it is a copyright violation, transcribed from a copyrighted publication. If the article is to be referred, find and cite the actual publication.

http://www.bravewords.com/news/142370 does not back up "After unsuccessfully searching for a vocalist for nearly six months, Mustaine decided to handle lead vocal duties himself, while also serving as the band's primary lyricist, main songwriter, and co-lead and rhythm guitarist." More precisely, the page does not state that Mustaine made the decision, or that it was done after a 6-month unsuccessful search for a vocalist.

How does sputnik.com, a "community-driven music site where our users write and submit album reviews and more" qualify as a reliable source?[1]

Friedalive.com should not be linked to: it provides unauthorised rips of the records and thus falls foul of WP:LINKVIO. Furthermore, what makes it a reliable source?

What makes vinylrecords.ch, avaxhome.ws, tartareandesire.com, metalstorm.net, Opendb.net reliable sources?

How are Mveers, a user on a community site,[2] and blogger Demonicmatta of blogspot.com recognised experts on the subject?

Why are deadtree sources ignored? Google books show 116 results. There should be a few gems among them that provide information such as "sales of 30,000 according to Relativity Entertainments' president Barry Kobrin, and SPIN's less than enamoured reception of the album. Look through the results. There should be more on Proquest and other news archive sites as well.

Please refer to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches on how reliable sources can be determined. Jappalang (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]