Talk:Chinese Democracy/GA1

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Retrohead (talk · contribs) 17:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to review the most expensive rock album in history that reached mythical proportions. Comments to follow soon.--Retrohead (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First reading

Ok, the most obvious thing that I see from first look is that the lead is desperately short, and does not summarize the entire article. Please expand it and remove all cites from there because the lead should not contain exclusive information (cites should be featured in the body).
Why is there an audio sample in the track listing? As far as I know, they should be featured if a certain song is discussed in the article.
Can you find informarion such as second week sales in the US, or sales bu the end of 2008 in the US or worldwide? I think that section is not entirely researched.
Chart positions on promos and singles does not belong in the album article. "Chinese Democracy" has an article of its own and its position should be there.
Please take a look at Justice for All on how to organise the chart section. Refs are next to the chart name and move the year in the first field.
Not to open a genre debate, but I don't think that the opinion of Dizzy Reed should count as a reliable source. Suggest leaving only hard rock in the infobox because only Rolling Stone explicitly labeled the album as hard rock, unlike The Observer, which says GN'R mimicked Trent Raznor.
You should definitely rearrange the critical reception because it is bloated with quotes. Please summarize some of the reviews, and avoid citing every single reviewer.

So far, I've expanded the lead & fixed the citations, expanded information on second week and year end sales, removed promos & singles & fixed the refs on the charts section, added an extra source to the Industrial Rock genre and removed Nu-metal, trimmed down the critical reception section, expanded the music section to discuss some of the songs on the album including the title track. Let me know what else can be done. RF23 (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second reading

I've noticed many "&" in the lead, which aren't encyclopedical. Please check if the rest of the article has more.
Check the formatting on the references from Blabbermouth (it should be under "publisher" with the first letter only being capitalized). Also, please check refs 10, 47, 100 because the article titles shouldn't be all in capital letters.
The charts are usually alphabetically sorted, not by position.
What is the particular use of the audio sample? Does it demonstrates something?
Can you also remove the references from the infobox and elaborate on recording and music in the article's body?
The critical reception should definitely be expanded. There are many reviews on this album and you can try paraphrasing some of them.
The song titles should be in quote marks, not italicized. There are many errors of this kind in the music section.
How is "Oh My God" related to the album's music when the song is not on the album? I see this is largely disscussed there, but I think it belongs to the background,
Can you search for the album's lyrics? Also, I prefer to describe the songs per the track listing.
I'd avoid structures like "current [or former] Guns N' Roses members" because they seem to frequently change over the years and will require regular update.
Also check the overlinking issue in the article. I see you've got Axl Rose linked several times in the body.
There are wiki templates for Discogs and Metacritic from the exrernal links section.
What's the purpose of the alternative cover in the infobox? I haven't seen it being disscussed in the article.

I've cleaned up most of the mechanical stuff mentioned. I'm not sure what else to to with the critical reception section, first it was bloated now it needs expanding, I honestly have no clue how to summarize most reviews without using direct quotes. The audio sample demonstrates the shift in style the band took with the album's lead single. Not sure what you mean by "can you search for the albums lyrics". Sometime in the next few days here I'm gonna make one final big push in expanding the article, I plan on mostly expanding the music & recording sections to mention things like the 15 studios, other albums recorded concurrently to CD (CD 2, the remix album), and some other stuff. RF23 (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can help with the reviews. Regarding the lyrics, I wanted to know if there is interpretation or inspiration (song's backround) on the tracks that are not discussed in the music section.--Retrohead (talk) 08:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third reading

I've noticed that you have several dead links in the references. Check the external links on this page's box (top right) for details. The dead links are in red, and the ones which change domain are in green.
I don't see summaries on the reviews by The Guardian, Mojo, Pitchfork Media, Q, and some others listed in the reception box for details. When you're doing these, please avoid quoting the authors (unless it's something amusing or witty) because the sections reads like a quotefarm.
You haven't addressed the issues with the non-free media. Why is the alternative cover needed for and what does the sample demonstrate (I don't see "Chinese Democracy" disscussed anywhere in the article)?
It isn't a GA criteria, but you really need to work on the reference formatting. Duff McKagan, Axl Rose and Sebastian Bach have only the first letter capitalized (refs 44, 118, 135). Second thing, Blabbermouth should be Blabbermouth.net, billboard.com and billboard.biz should be Billboard, etc. And you have ref 162 unformatted.

I tweaked the article a bit more now. Still working on the refs. Unfortunately, several dead links aren't archived anywhere. Not sure what the protocol is for that, whether it's to leave as is, tag with a deadlink tag, or remove. Removed the alternate art as I couldn't find a ref talking about the alternate covers, expanded on the sample in it's description box to validate it's existence. Infobox refs are gone now as well.RF23 (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can you find some other sources that report the same information? I wouldn't have made an issue if there were two or three dead links, but having over 20 dead links in a potential GA doesn't seem right.--Retrohead (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that tool isn't entirely accurate, it doesn't seem to account for dead URL's present in the article that are archived. But I'm looking into alt. sources right now to get that part fixed up. I'm also considering merging the recording and delays section into one single "recording and delays" section, but I'd like to get some input on that before I do. RF23 (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are the dead links I checked myself: 2, 35, 37, 119, 120, 155.
Why do you have quotes in references such as 46 and 64?
Ref 112 is not properly formatted. If you don't know the author, drop it. Also, the "website" field should be filled with The Sun.
Blabbermouth.net should be placed in the "publisher" field. Also check refs such as 40, 104, 138, for capital letters in the titles.
You still haven't corrected the charts as explained above. About the proposed merging of the recording and delays sections, I wouldn't do it because those sections are already large enough.

The only dead links left in the article are now tagged with the Dead Link tags, and I'm working on finding replacements for them. I removed the quote from one of the refs, it's in the other one because it's a print source, since there isn't a website to click on to check info from the citation. I cleaned up the capitalization in the refs. Still working on the chart section and more ref formatting. RF23 (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a ref foermatting problem in the second paragraph of "Delays". Also, can you expand the lead a little bit with information about the recording and the numerous delays?
I thought the genre issue was cleared some weeks ago. Nu metal isn't explicitelly supported by any reference. An author being reminded of Nine Inch Nails doesn't really counts as nu metal.
Can you incorporate alternative text on the images used in the article for non-screen readers?

I expanded the lead to include more info on the recording and delays. The nu-metal genre was added back in by an editor who initially added it in the first place, I don't really want to start an edit war over it. Industrial rock genre is supported more by multiple songs on the album being described as industrial in the reviews & info about them. I don't see the ref formatting problem you were talking about, maybe I'm just looking right past it? I'll put the ALt text on my list of to-do's (I actually have a word file keeping track of this, which is kind of insane.)

Also, I have a question regarding the songwriting credits. The credits from the booklet vary greatly from the actual registered credits (via the American society of composers authors and publishers site's search.) For example, The song Chinese Democracy's credited to Rose and Freese in the album booklet, but it's registered writers on ASCAP are Rose, Freese, Eric Caudieux, Caram Castanzo, Robin Finck, Dizzy Reed, Tommy Stinson, Paul Tobias as well as a separate listing for Marco Bellatrami. Album booklets are notoriously inaccurate, and ASCAP lists the people actually registered as song writers via their respective publishing & royalty companies. Should I keep the section as is, essentially providing false or incomplete information, add another part explaining the registered composers or replace what's there with the info from Ascap? RF23 (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I usually go with the album's liner notes for credits and personnel, but if you think they are inaccurate, go with the ASCAP. I have the CD with the booklet, and must say, I find it incredibly messy to list different personnel for every track on the album.--Retrohead (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys. Just wanted to clear it up that nu metal was covered by refs, the only thing is that there's only one reviewer who says so. He has two articles mentioning it [1] and [2]. The second one seems to have some stronger support, but the only place they mention it in the first one was when they talked about "Better". I seem to trust this, but what do you guys think? DannyMusicEditor (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FasterLouder.com is an Australian blog, which describes itself as "the premier destination for online music debate and discovery with a uniquely Australian perspective". Secondly (this is just my personal opinion), Chinese Democracy doesn't sound anything like nu metal, or bands like Linkin Park or Limp Bizkit. It doesn't feature rap verses, sampling, or electronic-based instrumentation. Sure, it has some industrial influences (though I think industrial metal could be removed as well), but I think listing nu metal is misleading.--Retrohead (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I noticed some electronics scattered around here and there, but you're right, it's certainly not the most prevalent thing happening here. "Better" and "Shackler's Revenge" seem like they're good examples of what the reviewer was trying to assert (to me). If there's that little of it here, I suppose we could remove it, if all of you agree on that. Oh, wait, it's a blog? I thought they had a professional review there...but then again, that nu metal was mentioned before the interview with Dizzy Reed. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the final word to Ringerfan23. I know it's hard to believe, but that's how the website describes itself. You have a point, nu metal can be heard here and there, but it doesn't seem like the album's definitive genre.--Retrohead (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be included because the album's so diverse that 'hard rock' doesn't really define it well enough. Personally, Scraped is the song that really comes to mind in regards to numetal with the opening vocals and Buckethead-yness of the guitars. Shackler's is another one, too. I've always pegged nu-metal as a kind of 'it's an aggressive hard rock but with experimenting around with different genres' thing, and with the grunge influences & heavy amount of synths mixed with the hard rock & electronic bits, I guess the album could be described as having bits of numetal in it. If it's sourced I don't see the point in removing it, even if I don't completely agree with it. It's pretty subjective, like how Sebastian Bach described Sorry as "doom metal". Also, I'm trying to find a good reference to sum up the songs that don't really fit in the 'hard rock/industrial/electronic/numetal" vibe like the piano ballads such as Street of Dreams and This I Love.RF23 (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Music" section

Something sounds wrong with that section's heading. It seems somehow....inadequate. Something more specific, like style or composition or something like that. I'm in no way a reviewer, but I want to help, and when I returned from vacation, I saw that this album was being reviewed already, and I went straight on looking at what could be fixed. And this section was the first thing that really popped out at me. It makes me feel like it's of a lesser quality, which is not what GAs are about. In addition, we need to expand on the genre classification for that section. For example, just saying it's nu metal with a citation doesn't mean that makes for good quality. End of rant, please consider. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input Danny, I'm sure your note will be considered by the nominator.--Retrohead (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm closing the review. I believe that a fresh evaluation is needed because the article was significantly expanded since this review started. It went from 70k bytes of information to over a 100k as of this day. While it is broad in its coverage and neutral, it fails the stability criteria.--Retrohead (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The stability criteria is "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." The article did not change significantly from day to day because of an edit war or content dispute, it was expanded. RF23 (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd nominate it again and see what another reviewer thinks, Ringer. If you don't wish to re-nominate, I'd be glad to. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a bit more work and a little bit of time before re-nominating.RF23 (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.