Wikipedia:Peer review/Slipknot (band)/archive4
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer review/Slipknot (band))
November 11, 2006 Review here
March 14, 2007 Review here
December 23, 2007 Review here
I'd like somebody to give a review of this article. I have spent the past few days working on this article and I submitted it as good article nominee, which it achieved. Ultimately I would like this article to be a featured article and I would like some peer response and input on how either me or other editors could get this article up to that standard. Rezter (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
J Milburn
[edit]Well, I've found a few minutes, and, as promised at WP:HMM, here's my review.
- "The band underwent many line up changes before releasing their highly successful début album Slipknot in 1999, during the recording process of which; guitarist Jim Root replaced Josh Brainard, which was the final line up change of the band." That sentence is rather clumsy- perhaps it would be better to say something like "The band underwent many line up changes before releasing their highly successful début album Slipknot in 1999, before reaching the final lineup of _______________ during the album's recording."
- "Since which the band have released a further 2 albums and are expected to release a 4th album in 2008." Perhaps name the albums, so as not to lean towards recent events? Also, perhaps "since which time" instead of "since which"?
- More information about the pre-formation Slipknot would be good if it is available- it's currently just a list of names. What did they do? Could it be bulked out enough for its own subsection? At the moment, the freestanding paragraph looks a little out of place, especially as single sentence paragraphs are frowned upon.
- Grammatically, the sentence is a little odd (I'm not going to say it is wrong, as I probably don't understand semi-colons as well as I should) I would phrase it as "Early formations of a band were beginning to form as early as 1992 with the core band members, Shawn Crahan, Anders Colsefini and Paul Gray, enlisting the help of guitarists Donnie Steele and Quan "Meld" Nong." Also, repeating the word 'form' twice jarrs a tad.
- "The band continued to develop their vision of what the band would be," Perhaps "The members continued to develop their vision of what the band would be,"?
- "band Sipknot after" Why is that italicised?
- "after their song"- after which song? Maybe "after their song of the same name"
- "(which subsequently evolved in to (sic) which appears on their début album)" Song name in speech marks.
- "until they thought the band was ready" Repetition ruins this line. Perhaps 'until their music was fully developed.'
- "By this time the band had a lot"- By what time?
- "to make a recording," I'd delink that, looks like over-linking to me.
- "local studio, SR Audio with Sean McMahon." You need to close the parenthesis with a comma after 'Audio'
- "April 4th Slipknot"- I'd add the year, and then link both the date and the year.
- "to realise again" I'm British too, but this is an American topic, so the spelling should be American- 'realize'.
- "released Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. on Halloween." More details about the release- date and year (on top of the fact you say it is Halloween) and label.
- Is that considered the band's debut album, or an EP? Perhaps you could make that clear?
- Why are all the references clumped at the end of the paragraph? Doing that kind of defeats the point of footnotes.
- I've just noticed the complex heading hierarchy you are using. I would personally remove the sub-sub-sub headings- ('first recordings and live performances', 'more changes and growing popularity', etc) compare to other featured articles on similar topics (Slayer, Nightwish, Tool (band)...) and you'll see that most articles don't do that.
- Actually, now that I have said that, I see that it would probably be best to rename the first history subsection to 'Early years (pre-1998)' so you can bulk that first lonely line into a paragraph and put that as the first paragraph in the section.
- To give an idea about what those two above changes look like, I have implemented them in my sandbox if you want to take a look.
- "being heard by the right people" That isn't NPOV. Say who these people are, not that they are 'the [adjective] people'.
- "By the summer of 1997 Slipknot went back to the studio, they were constantly honing their craft and writing new material and they were writing music which required more vocal melody." Again, seems a little POV, plus, seasons vary by nationality. Try- "By mid-1997, Slipknot had returned to the studio having developed new material requiring more vocal melody." As that is still rather subjective, a reference is definitely needed.
- "band Stone Sour, this" Link? Also, a full stop would be better than a comma.
- "The gap on percussion was the filled by Greg "Cuddles" Welts who was to become the first and only member to be fired from the band, again there was a spot free on percussion it was filled by Chris Fehn." Another clumsy sentence- try "The gap on percussion was th filled by Greg "Cuddles" Welts, who subsequently became the first and only member to be fired from the band. He was replaced Chris Fehn." More details on the firing would be nice, too.
- What does "attained numbers" mean? That's not a phrase I am familiar with.
- Again, it would be better to put the citations after the facts, rather than at the end of the paragraphs.
Right, I will have to finish this review another time. Overall, the article looks to be well researched and have excellent potential, but needs to be tweaked at a structural level, and needs a thorough copy-edit. I can see this article reaching featured level with a little more work, and if this review gets a couple of editors having a good sift through the article, I suspect that it won't take too much more work. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review, LaraLove did a copy-edit of the article and I have adjusted the article along with some of your recommendation's. I would like to see what you make of the rest of the article if you ever have time to finish your review. Rezter (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Found some more time, so I will finish the review now.
- "In July 2001, Q magazine named Slipknot as one of the "50 Heaviest Albums of All Time"." I would call the magazine Q instead of Q magazine, as that is the accepted title. Also, the magazine name should be in italics.
- This may be a little rich coming from me (I overuse them) but you continually use commas in a way which I do not think is correct. For instance, this line really hits me- "The band had created a huge fan base and the expectations for their follow up album were great, Slipknot went back in to the studio in early 2001 to work on a new album." Why is that comma there? It seems to be two separate sentences- it should be treated as such, or perhaps just stick an 'and' in there. In any case, the sentence is a little vague.
- "In the same year Slipknot released their second visual output with the released of their DVD Disasterpieces." Reference?
- "2002 also saw the first serious musical projects outside of Slipknot." Make it clear that this means side projects of the members. As it reads now, you mean any serious musical project at all, whether related to Slipknot or not.
- "their band Stone Sour" Link?
- I'd lose the accents on 'début'. They don't seem to be needed in English- [1].
- "Root, Taylor, and Gray also contributed to the album. In 2006, Root and Taylor once again returned with Stone Sour releasing their second album Come What(ever) May. Jordison drummed for several bands while on tour including; Ministry (2006-2007) and Korn (2007). He also produced 3 Inches of Blood's third album Fire Up the Blades which was released in early 2007. Later in the year Crahan revealed a new side project in the form of Dirty Little Rabbits." That whole section is horribly unreferenced.
- "Slipknot are known for their often chaotic and energetic live shows" Reference?
- ""[are] not generally quotable on a family website"," According to whom?
- "The band is known for its attention-grabbing image." Reference?
- "The members wear matching uniform jumpsuits and homemade masks." Ditto.
- "The masks have been subject of much criticism, generally thought of as a gimmick to try sell their product." Reference? If you are hoping to get this to featured article, everything is going to need to be well referenced.
- "several band members" Repetition of this phrase needs to be dealt with.
- Section title- "Band Members"- decap 'Members'.
- References in regards to dates and numbers would be good.
Right, I have now gone through the whole thing. I am happy to continue with general comments (for instance, I really would reccomend not just sticking all the paragraph's references at the end of it) if you like. J Milburn (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK I have looked over review and here's what I've done/think.
- Done
- Done
- Sourced
- Done
- Done
- Done
- Sourced
- Sourced
- Done
- Done
- Done
- A lot of criticism comes from supposedly "true" metal fans. I can't be sure of what is considered a reliable source for this, I have added one from Urban Dictionary
- Done
- Done
- Could you be more specific?
- I have actually order two new books [2] and [3] on top of the one I already have [4]. Once I get both of these two books I intend to resource as much as possible. I was thinking of using a system similar to the one used on the U2#References article were they list the books and foot note each statement with a page number. Do you think this is a good system or do you know of a better one. Thansk again for your help. Rezter (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Today I received my two new books and I have resourced the majority of the "pre-1998" section and a few misc sources throughout the article. The only thing I haven't addressed on your list is "References in regards to dates and numbers would be good." which I don't completely understand so could you be more specific please? Rezter (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Urban dictionary is not a good source, at all- I'd remove that. I like that system of citing books in footnotes. Sorry about the number and dates thing- I was working down the article, and so it was obvious to me (at the time) that I was referring to the discography section. Sorry about that, I was probably rushing to finish. In any case, I was referring to the release dates and the sales figures in the discography section. I'll have a quick glance over the article now. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- The very first paragraph in the article is a single line- why not just make that part of the next paragraph?
- Sorry- I have just realised that the number of albums sold (or, at least, the certifications) are cited.
- I wouldn't bold the awards they have won- I would just tack "(winner)" on the end.
- Yeah, just to repeat now I have seen it in the context of the article, the new reference system looks great.
- Great to see the number of footnotes in use, as well as the fact that they cite the specific fact rather than the paragraph- the article is now looking great, but I haven't reread the prose yet.
- Sorry, I've just realised I misinterpreted my own comment too- no wonder you did! By 'dates and numbers', I meant the dates which the members were part of the band, and the numbers which the members have on their jumpsuits.
Well, I have not gone over it in as much detail as I did last time, but it is looking far better, and certainly doesn't seem far from being ready for FAC. Good work. J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
By request, I've reviewed the article. As a copy-editor, I went ahead and took care of that along the way. In my changes, I removed the album cover image. Fair use only applies to such images in the article specific to the album.
Some additions I feel should be made include:
- Did they have any musical influences?
- Why was Welts fired?
- When did they sign to Roadrunner Records?
- The article states "mixed reviews", but does not include any negative reviews. Rather than two good reviews, one positive, one negative.
- Has there been any controversy with any of their songs or performances?
References should not be placed mid-sentence. It should come immediately following punctuation, no spaces before, no punctuation after. Also, it isn't necessary for the lead to be referenced as it is a summary of the article and any information should be referenced there. If the reference that I moved to the infobox that was reverted is going to stay in the lead, it needs to be moved to the end of the sentence.
If you're going for GA, you may want to discuss changes made by the reviewer on the talk page before reverting them. Drop a line on my talk page if you have any questions. Lara❤Love 21:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your help with this article.
- I could try find sources which state the artist's musical influences if you think that it will make the article better. Do you maybe have an example of an article that has this so I could have more of an idea of format and structure.
- I have added why Welts was fired.
- I'm having trouble finding out the exact date that they signed to Roadrunner records.
- I have removed the "mixed reviews" section as most reviews are positive.
- The only incident I have heard of is this: [5] personally I don't think it's worth mentioning as that is the only story I have heard of.
- Thanks once again for all your help and any more suggestions are always welcome. Rezter (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)