The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

...And Justice for All (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the fourth Metallica studio album, a masterwork of technical thrash and musically, one of their finest hours. I've been working on this article back and forth a year, and think it is ready for a FA candidature at its present state. I'm sure it would be an interesting read for those who will review it.--Retrohead (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by L1A1 FAL[edit]

Source check

Note: for the purpose of clarity, all citation numbers are given as of this revision, unless otherwise noted--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Cites 1, 2 & 3 are all from the band website. Generally, I'm not sure that's supposed to be used as a source, but since its just for release dates for the singles (as opposed to something more controversial like sales numbers or something), I doubt it would be a problem
• Cite 8 will need fixed, it just goes to a blank page
• Cite 14, the BBC review, just goes to a blank page
• Cite 19, 500 greatest metal albums on Google books, is a dead link
• Cite 28, Disco, Punk, New Wave, Heavy Metal, and More: Music in the 1970s and 1980s on Google books. Is there a page view option for this?
• Cite 33 goes to CD Universe to cite a review from Q. Is there any other way to verify the Q review?
• Cite 34 should probably have an "in German" language tag
• Cite 35 will need an archived page since link no longer works right
• Cite 37 and 72 seem to be the same; they should be merged
• Cite 40 original url redirects to the page (at a different url). Perhaps update to the new URL?
• Cite 43 if this one is referring to a print article, then disregard this comment, but if there is an online article, its missing the url
• Cite 59, Canadian charts citation, is a dead link

A few other little things here and there, like a few format things to fix, or make more consistent

I've addressed all of your concerns L1A1 FAL, except for replacing the reviews by BBC Music and Q magazine. I think the BBC website is undergoing a reconstruction at the moment, and I'll update the url as soon as I can; as for Q, I don't have the September 1988 edition of the journal, so I went using CD Universal as a reference, which quotes the Q column.--Retrohead (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got for now. I'll keep an eye on this and pop in if I have any comments about the sources or anything else--L1A1 FAL (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have made some edits on this page in the past, including (from what I can tell) one fairly large edit involving putting a quote into prose. However, I do not believe that I would be considered a "major contributor" to the article, therefore, I feel comfortable in offering my support for this article for featured status. If anyone feels the need to raise issue with my minor level of involvement with the article, then please dismiss my opinion.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by LuciferMorgan[edit]

Album was certified gold by the British Phonographic Industry in 2013, which isn't mentioned in the article. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added it in the certification table. Thanks for the reminder.--Retrohead (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth adding to the "Commercial performance" section as well. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it done.--Retrohead (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The album's front cover is mentioned in the introduction, but nowhere else? A glaring omission this is, because there can be nothing in the lead which isn't discussed later on in the article. Lead's meant to summarise, not have exclusive information. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it adequate to add it to the background? It's too tiny to have a section of its own, and none of the other sections seems like a good fit to it.--Retrohead (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could do, I guess. If you tie it in with the revealing of the album title etc. at the end of that section. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've shaken the order of the sentences a bit in order to avoid being repetitive with the prose in the lead.--Retrohead (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was still an awful lot of repetition from the lead to the article body, so I reworked the material to reduce the problem. Binksternet (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nikkimaria[edit]

Media review

• File:Metallica_-_And_Justice_for_All.ogg: purpose of use should be expanded. Lyrical meaning can be conveyed with lyrics without the inclusion of a sample, so you need to be able to justify why a sample should be here. Same with File:Metallica_-_One.ogg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've filled a more detailed rationale for both samples. I suppose the images are fine too.--Retrohead (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Parsecboy[edit]

• "...released on August 25 1988 on Elektra Records" - shouldn't it be by Elektra? I don't know if this is a grammatical idiosyncrasy of the area, but it seems to me that since Elektra is the label that released the album, "by" is the correct preposition. (I note that "by" is used in the lower in the body)

Corrected. It was "by" until a month ago, but must have been changed to "on" during the copyediting.

• The background section seems like it's trying to cram too much into a single paragraph - I'd probably split the chronological bits into their own paragraph and treat the record label stuff separately. It also left me with the question of when the decision to go with Phonogram over Q Prime was made.

The thing is the record deal is part of the chronology. If I put it into another paragraph, the prose would jump chronologically backwards.

Well, right, in that it was an event, but it's more relevant to the question of who would release the album rather than when it would be written and recorded. Thematically it's a separate issue. I'd also assume that the contract wrangling started shortly after Master of Puppets was released in 1986 and their previous contract expired, which of course predates Hetfield's broken wrist (can we get a month and year for that, by the way?), Newsted the band, etc. It would make more sense to discuss the label bidding, then address the specific issues that affected the production of the album.

• Only use first names the first time an individual is introduced - I noticed Newsted was repeatedly referred to by his full name, for instance.

I've reduced the names and attributed their roles in the their first mentioning in the text.

• Relatedly: "...credited as written by Burton and played by Metallica's bassist at the time, Jason Newsted" - we already know that Newsted was the new bassist, and that he replaced Burton. I'd trim it to "credited as written by Burton and played by Newsted."

Surprised I haven't noticed this so far. Fixed, regardless.

• Watch your tenses - there's an odd mix of past and present tense when it should generally be past tense. For instance, ""was written by German poet Paul Gerhardt, but is erroneously attributed to Burton" - it should be "but was erroneously" - another example: Borivoj Krgin's review of the album "it is the most ideal album he has heard" - should be "was the most ideal album he had heard"

Corrected this too.

• Also check for passive voice - "Clink was fired", "Metallica's music was considered", etc.

Checked. There was another issue as whether the band was referred in third person plural or singular, but found no such omissions in the current state.

• Why bother to include the Nielsen sales figures if they're incomplete?

For reader's curiosity, I believe. They aren't obligatory, but it won't hurt to have them.

• There are several duplicate links in the article - there's a script you can install that helps you find them (you can get the code here if you don't already have it - it's the first line). Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parsecboy, I don't have that script available, but found three repeatedly-linked words which I've corrected. However, I might be missing some, and your assistance would be more than welcomed.--Retrohead (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is add importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js'); // [[User:Ucucha/duplinks]] to your common.js subpage, and it adds a button in your toolbox when you're on an article. It's rather useful. Parsecboy (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, understood. Those were all of the duplicate links.

• One other point I noticed today - the Metallica article characterizes Newsted's treatment during the production of this album as "hazing" - if that's correct, it should definitely be included here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe that is not the issue, despite the band's page being FA. The current band members stated numerous times that information is not true.

Fair enough. Maybe the band's page ought to be fixed though, so they're in agreement. Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SNUGGUMS[edit]

• Support looks much better now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Spike Wilbury[edit]

Tentative Support pending a few items I'd like to see addressed as follows:

• In the lead you mention it was released as a vinyl disc, but surely that wasn't the only format? It's a bit confusing because you mention vinyl in the lead, and the next mention of format is of a CD single in the Production section. I can't find any other mention of the release formats.

I've mentioned it in the article's body as well. The point in the lead was to notify that the album was released on two discs after being initially released on one. The singles are not necessarily connected with this sentence.

• "...And Justice for All was Metallica's first studio album to feature bassist Jason Newsted after the death of Cliff Burton in 1986." I think the "studio album" vs EP lingo might confuse or escape some people. Do you think it would be more reader-friendly to write "first full-length studio album" or something similar so they don't get to the next sentence and think, "Isn't an EP a studio album?"

Agree. Even I was confused by this terminology when I started editing Wikipedia, and it could be not quite understandable for readers that aren't much into music. Fixed, regardless.

• "Rasmussen was initially unavailable for the planned start at January 1, 1988" Can we write "on January 1, 1988"? Sounds more natural, I think.
• "But things did not work out as planned, and three weeks later Rasmussen became available after Ulrich gave him a call." I think you could lose the leading "but" and still have the same meaning.

Corrected per suggestion.

• The Music section is really good; I think you capture the important things about the composition and such. The sections on Newsted's contributions are quite interesting to me as I've listened the album many times and always wondered why the bass is so lost in the mix. I'm listening to "One" right now and you would never think they even recorded a bass part.

Thanks for the kind words. Despite the sound omissions, I still think it captures Metallica at their best.

• "McIver noted that the band's main lyricist, James Hetfield, wrote about topics that he has not addressed before, such as his revolt against The Establishment." Maybe "had not addressed before"?

Also fixed.

• Track Listing... what's the deal with the collapsible boxes? Is that a thing now? I don't like them.

All I know is that there were few discussion about whether the bonus track should be hidden or not, but honestly, I haven't paid much attention to that debate. It's the same to me, so if you suggest un-hiding the extra tracks, will do.

Good job. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• One other comment I noticed while going through the article again: "During the World Magnetic Tour in 2009, 'The Shortest Straw' made its way back into the setlist after a 12-year absence, and has subsequently become a permanent fixture in the band's setlist." The "permanent fixture" statement doesn't seem to be present in the cited source. What is your source for that? I'm also wary of making statements like this because if they ever drop it from the set list, someone has to remember to go update this. In fact, I looked up a random set list of theirs from 2012 and "The Shortest Straw" isn't on it. It can't very well be a "permanent fixture" in that case. How do you feel about rewriting that section a bit so it doesn't require so much ongoing attention? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I usually use setlist.fm as a starting point for information like that (check number 61). The song was sporadically performed from 2009 onward, so agree, it's definitely not a set-fixture. As for these live performances statistics, I remember that some IP user updated information the very next day after Metallica debuted "The Frayed Ends of Sanity" in May this year. This is highly visited article, so incorporating coverage about live performances won't be an issue, I believe.--Retrohead (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, ok. Well, it's not a dealbreaker. I've struck my "tentative" above and am fully supporting the nomination. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nergal[edit]

• Conditional support pending finishing the suggestions from other reviewers. Compositionally the article looks great. I was a bit surprised so see a lack of image. The ones that come to mind are: Burotn, Newstead, Ulrich, and a better zoom of the 4 of them than the pic at the bottom (from the 2000s?). Also, I think that you should cover the list of video albums where the songs were featured, especially the Metallica Through the Never. Nergaal (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment Nergaal. The lack of images is because Commons doesn't have illustrations from the period the album was released, and partially because I'm not knowledgeable with Wikipedia's policy for uploading non-free content. The picture form the 'Live performances' is from 1989, but since I'm not computer savvy, I can't crop it for a closer view.--Retrohead (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.