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

The article was kept 13:49, 4 April 2007.

---

Heavy metal music[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Messages left at Metal and Music genres. LuciferMorgan 17:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this because;

1. The article fails criterion 1. c. LuciferMorgan 09:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've only closely read the lead, which definitely needs an expansion, and skimmed through the rest. The lead suggests that the article may need a copyedit, as it starts out with a long, winding snake, and continues with an awkward "Out of heavy metal various subgenres later evolved". The two introductory grafs of the Characteristics section need help. Gzkn 12:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — I am very familiar with this article for I have done a complete translation from English to French to use on the French Wikipedia. I have read all of it in depth and have looked through some of the book sources. I think it would be clearer if LuciferMorgan gave us greater description of how the article fails criterion 1C. Is it the verifiability, the reliable sources, or is it simply the fact that information could be considered factually inaccurate? Thanks in advance for clarifying that. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 16:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's verifiability and that uncited information could be considered factually inaccurate. Also POV is prevalent - Dio being "legendary" is a debatable opinion, and fails NPOV when uncited for example. The sources used for citations in the article so far seem reliable, but there is a lot of uncited info. LuciferMorgan 17:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Okay this is definitely clearer ^^ Thanks. I'll see if I can help the article a bit by checking for uncited POV for example, it's not too hard... :) Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 18:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cites could benefit from using citeweb - some don't have retrieval dates. There's also some embedded links in the article - if they're reliable sources which verify a point, convert them to inline citation, though if not, rid of them. LuciferMorgan 09:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fails criteria 3 Fair use image Image:CNINJA.jpg does not contribute substantially to the text.
• Comment I've been meaning to work on this article in-depth for over a year, but I've always had other projects that I was more interested in completing. Simply put, this article is over two years out of date regarding current FA criteria and is missing vital contributions like inline citations, soundclips, and free images. An example of what needs to be done with this article is punk rock, which underwent an FAR not too long ago and came out vastly improved. I'm going to devote more of my time to this article to bring it up to code, but I'm going to need help. Lots of it. WesleyDodds 09:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should agree on a structure in advance, and then farm out sub sections to different editors. I'll volunteer for black and doom metal; was that age the time, and have the t-shirts, vinyl and posters to prove it, though luckly not the tats. Can also look after sound files if suggestions are made on talk. Ceoil 00:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm most interested in early heavy metal (Yes, Zeppelin is metal. Of course we also have to mention revisionist tendencies to place Sabbath as the first "true" metal band) and New Wave of British Heavy Metal. I can help with the alternative/nu metal section, which is mostly in need of keeping out bias. I'm also keen on structuring the article. It's basically there, but we should probably make it more like punk rock, a rock genre similar in scope, breadth and longevity. WesleyDodds 01:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, Zeppelin. - Otherwise agree, but structure should be laid out on talk and agreed before overhaul. You work on this, I'll work on that. Ceoil 01:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the page again we really need someone to focus on arranging and cleaning up the "Characteristics" section. Much of the expansion has occured in the last month or so, and it's become messy and unwieldy. WesleyDodds 03:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scissors needed. Ceoil 10:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start on ce and standardizing ref style after y'all do a couple more days work. Article filled with typos: obviously "Led Zeppelin" should be "Lead Zeppelin," "nu metal" must be "new metal" (unless when it's Yiddish metal, of course), and who ever heard of an oyster with an umlaut?! Öy, zoso much work to do on this one.—DCGeist 19:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is becoming difficult. See the talk page for more info. WesleyDodds 08:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So, without trying to sound like I'm being critical, everyone is in disagreement over various aspects of heavy metal's evolution? LuciferMorgan 17:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more that there's some differing interpretations among various editors that we're nevertheless willing to discuss and work out, except for one editor who is forcefully pushing his POV (incidentally, he's got a temp ban right now). WesleyDodds 04:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that editor is Deathrocker, I'd just work without him. He's had a good few bans for enforcing his opinion, and if he's messing with you and the other editors efforts to keep this article's status, then report him to ANI. Nobody needs him trying to help them with an article. LuciferMorgan 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments The first image in the Chords section is completely bombing out the article on my laptop screen, wrapping to about a screen and a half; the others are fine. Section heading "The term "heavy metal" " needs WP:MSH attention. All footnotes (particularly blue linked URLs) need to be expanded to include full biblio info; if you all get to a point where the article looks salvageable, I can help with that—lots of work needed on ref formatting. I saw problems with dashes and hyphens in Related styles section and Thrash metal section; be sure to review WP:DASH. Are songs and albums supposed to be italicized? If so, consistency is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only albums are supposed to be italicized, eg. Ride the Lightning. Songs are supposed to be like eg; "Enter Sandman". LuciferMorgan 22:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Some definite problems here: An FA with a "disputed" tag on it, and a ((fact)) in the lead. Inadequate citations, and questionable sources like http://www.dinosaurrockguitar.com/ . I believe it's salvageable, but it's below par for an FA at the moment and needs work. --kingboyk 00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amongst editors of the article there's been debate over having Encyclopaedia Metallum as an external link in this article. Now most editors have been urging to keep the link, but since users submit all the info to the website I think the link fails reliability, and I think it should be removed. What does everyone else think? LuciferMorgan 09:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Status. How are we doing here? Should this be moved down? Marskell 12:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c).

I've been citing a lot of things. I should be done with that in about a week. Then we'll format all the references. WesleyDodds 14:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that another full week is needed, I'm moving it down to keep it on pace. Keep everybody informed. Marskell 08:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Work is ongoing and a consensus amongst editors has develpoed (with a notable exception). The majority of the required info has been added, but the article needs a thorough copyedit, and the refs need to be cleaned up. Ceoil 20:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is the accuracy of the article still disputed or the tag unneeded? LuciferMorgan 00:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can do without it. Deathrocker was the one who put it up anyway (I don't even think he properly explained why in the first place). WesleyDodds 04:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus is it's unneeded, take it off. Deathrocker should've explained adequately his reasons for the tag in the first place. LuciferMorgan 14:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All music files need to follow Wikipedia:Music samples. Some don't - when adding them please make sure it's allowed under the guidelines :) LuciferMorgan 16:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you let me know which ones are a problem. Ceoil 22:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I should be done with citing and working out the bare bones of the History section by tomorrow. After that I'll be moving to the Characteristics section. Advice on sound samples to use for critical commentary are appreciated, as are reliable published sources on the genre's musical traits. WesleyDodds 02:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and for those with knowledge of the genre think we're missing anything important, please mention it. I know for sure we still need to mention AC/DC and Guns 'n Roses, two very important and popular bands. WesleyDodds 02:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be out of town and away from a computer for a few days, so things might slow down a bit. WesleyDodds 07:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Ah, now Deathrocker is claiming I'm "raping" the article because of sourced material I worked into the "Mainstream dominance" section. I do think the material I've added is superior and better referenced than what Deathrocker keeps reverting to, and since he's also being uncivil about it, I'm going to just follow LuciferMorgan's advice and ignore him. WesleyDodds 21:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this is close to keep, openions welcome. Ceoil 00:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status: Can people tighten up there comments here? Is this a keeper or what? Marskell 10:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has under gone substantial changes and over 90 inline citations provided, sections added, rewritten etc. Goodwork guys, too bad there was certain "obstacles". M3tal H3ad 13:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per M3tal H3ad. Ceoil 16:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now, but I think this is doable.
  • Is this the way the book punctuates this direct quote? "With their diseases and orgasm drugs and their sexless parasite life forms — Heavy Metal People of Uranus wrapped in cool blue mist of vaporized bank notes — And the Insect People of Minraud with metal music."

I looked up the quote and changed to the correct dashes as presented in Burroughs' text. WesleyDodds 11:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "And" supposed to be capped? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-checks- Yep. WesleyDodds 21:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • This redirects: and Sunn 0))) to two )) parens only
  • I saw some inconsistency in emdashes, changed one, pls check. Most have no spaces around them, some have spaces on both sides, some have spaces on one side.
  • Reliable source ?? http://www.dinosaurrockguitar.com/home.shtml It's used a lot, pls tell us why it's reliable.
  • Unformatted references throughout. All websources need publisher and last access date at minimum, author and publication date where available. Blue-linked URLs need to be expanded to include complete info, and it's not at all clear how some of these sources are reliable.
    • Ultimate-Guitar.com How is it reliable? http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/columns/junkyard/the_devils_horns_a_rock_and_roll_symbol.html
    • Motley Crue - Zeppelin & Sabbath influences
    • Ratt - Rolling Stone attributing Sabbath & Zeppelin influences
    • Bobby Dall, Poison bassist citing Sabbath and Led Zeppelin
    • Blackie Lawless citing original heavy metal band Cream as influence
    • Mick Mars - Jeff Beck Group influenced
    • Metal-Rules.com
• SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That last bit was the subject of an edit dispute. I wrote a different version using different references (shown on the talk page), but a user kept changing to the version now on the page. I left it as is for now to see what others thought, but this seems like good enough feedback to change it back to what I wrote. WesleyDodds 22:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with dashes and redirects have been fixed, and websource info has been completed as far as possible. Most of the questionable refs have been replaced with more reliable sources, however we probably need to find an alternative to dinosaurrockguitar.com for the "Musical language" section. Ceoil 00:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now all those dinosaurrockguitar.com references are in one subsection. I'm going to review the book sources later for the same information that the links provide. If we can't find anything, I'd say it would just be fine to remove the subsection. WesleyDodds 00:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are still some incomplete footnotes in the 80s; also, pending reliable sources on dinosaurrock etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the section with all the dinosaurockguitar.com references. They were largely there to support a central point that wasn't itself referenced in the first place (that certain scales are used with regularity). There's a few sources that we might be able to cite noting the use of those scale (a casual listen to the music will reveal those scales are used, but naturally we need to cite someone stating those scales are used for veracity), but I won't be able to review them anytime soon. Until we find a reliable, concrete source verifying that information, i'm fine just removing the section for now. WesleyDodds 23:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I struck my oppose; the only reason I'm not entering a Keep is I haven't had time to read the entire article, but I don't see any major problems. Nice work !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The only thing I have concerns about are some content disputes that have come up on the talk page. I'm not sure any of them will make sense to someone not knowledgable about the subject, but those should be considered since this page can be prone to some arguments. Personally I try to rely on the primary book sources listed for the final word on certain debates whenever possible. WesleyDodds 06:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now this is the main concern because (as demonstrated on the talk page), a user is objecting about the material in the "Black metal" section. I tried to reference the same material with a more reliable source, but I was reverted and the user has made comments on the heavy metal talk page and my own which do not assume I am acting in good faith. I would really hate to drag this out longer, and I don't want to start a revert back-and-forth, so some third-party opinions would be welcomed. WesleyDodds 11:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Heartening to see some intellectual depth to a popular music article, complete with notational examples. I'm concerned about the number of fair-use audio examples: WP has tightened its policy beyond what the common law insists on; this is because WP articles should be freely copiable throughout the world, which partially militates against fair use. Are all of the many audio exceprts absolutely irreplaceable? Has someone checked with the fair-use people? Specifically, WP:FU says: "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible." There are nine excerpts. "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text)"—The musical/lyrical features of the excerpts I quickly looked at are not referred to specifically in the surrounding text. This would be safer. Tony 22:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of some of that. WesleyDodds 23:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work boys, especially Wesley - have to say I'm glad I nominated it given the improvement. LuciferMorgan 16:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was always planning to fix this one up, it's just I always had more pressing interests. I'll be glad once we're done here and I can focus on articles about bands that look like characters from Tim Burton films. WesleyDodds 21:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.