Talk:Portrait of an American Family/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miss Sarita (talk · contribs) 20:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Miss me? ;-) Always wanted to learn a little more about Marilyn Manson. I've actually already started looking this over and suddenly had a lot of spare time on my hands this weekend. This will be complete by Sunday evening. — Miss Sarita 20:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

After 12 years on this site, I can still literally count all the awesome editors I've come across using one hand. So, yeah, you were missed. ;-) I understand if it takes longer than usual to review, since this is actually the largest article currently nominated at WP:GAN#Albums. But the way this album was recorded and its history (band members being fired mid-recording; "Dope Hat"→"Sweet Dreams", etc.) meant I had to delve – as concisely as possible – into the band's formative years. So it's bulkier than the average album article. Take your time. ;) And thanks a lot for doing this. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Infobox

• You know me and my nitpicky ways: the only thing I can say about this section is that it has been advised on the infobox's template that for the |studio= parameter, words like "studios" should be dropped. There's only one here (Criteria Studios). But this is just a suggestion and not a requirement to pass the article.

Removed. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead

• Second paragraph, second sentence: "...produced by Roli Mosimann in Criteria Studios..." or "...produced by Roli Mosimann at Criteria Studios..."?
• Second paragraph, third sentence: Link for assistant producer redirects to film producer.

Changed both. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Background

• First paragraph: Is "Marilyn Manson and the Spooky Kids" the all-inclusive title of the band? If so, this should be considered a singular term and should be followed with "was" instead of "were".
• First paragraph: "...retained for just two performances..." I don't really see a reference point that would indicate that two performances is a small number (although most people who are familiar with the basics and popularity of the band are well aware that two performances is a small amount).
• First paragraph: Zsa Zsa Speck link redirects to Marilyn Manson (band). Consider removing link?
• I would unlink terms like "butchered" and "working".

Done all. Zsa Zsa Speck was sneakily redirected while this was waiting in the nomination queue. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Recording

• First paragraph: "However, the band were unhappy..." should be "However, the band was unhappy..."

Whoops. Changed. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Composition and style

• Second paragraph: I feel like Ref 34 (LouderSound article) cites this entire sentence. Perhaps consider removing Ref 30 (Stereogum article)?
• Consider unlinking words like "cable television", "physician", and "suicide".

Done. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Release and promotion

• Consider unlinking words like "ban", "New Year's Eve", "powdered sugar", "light fluid", and "spoke".

Done. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Refs

• Ref 30a (Stereogum article): Not exactly seeing where this ref cites "The Rowing Song" and that the opening song of the album is a direct adaptation. Also, see my gripe about Ref 31 below. (Side note: This article's first paragraph had me literally laughing out loud! "This was not a good idea.")
• Ref 31 (The Independent article): Doesn't really add anything to this piece of information. Maybe keep Ref 30a as is, and find a ref that directly labels "The Rowing Song" as the "creepy tunnel monologue" from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

I couldn't find a reference confirming the poem's actual title (I'd assume that in the original novel it simply appears as prose, I doubt Dahl took the time to announce it's title). I've replaced The Independent source, and rephrased the prose to match what's covered in the new source. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ref 66 (Billboard article): I don't feel this one is necessary here. Ref 65 (Bustle article) covers it.

Removed. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Still seeing this ref here. I mean, you can use it to reinforce the information of this sentence if you wish, but that is up to you. I also didn't intend to insinuate that you needed to unlink Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory in that particular sentence either, just FYI. I apologize for not being more clear. — Miss Sarita 03:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry @Miss Sarita: it seems I confused even myself on this one—I forgot to remove the source in the midst of unlinking Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory from the 'Release and promotion' section (my re-write of ref's 30a and 31 above now sees that movie being linked to in 'Composition and style'). I've removed the ref now. Apologies for the confusion. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ref 68 (Album of the Year score): Seeing a score of 53 here, not 55.

They added a third review just recently. I've updated. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ref 73 (Guitar World slideshow): Active and archived links are not letting me view slideshow to find cited info.

Guitar World are being horrible. I was having the same problem, until I reluctantly agreed to their GDPR notice. Then – you guessed it – the slideshow suddenly started working. Maybe you can do the same, or try using a different browser? Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ref 83 (BPI certifications): Perhaps bundle with or add https://www.bpi.co.uk/brit-certified/award-levels/? to bolster claim that 60,000+ unit sales equating to Silver certification...?

Added. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

General

• Earwig's Copyvio Tool's flags resulted from quotes. This is good.

• Checklinks is good.

Overall

Review is complete. The refs citing information from The Long Hard Road Out of Hell and CD liner notes are obviously items I can't verify for myself, but judging by the amount of Marilyn Manson-related articles you have worked on and taken to high levels of quality, I think it's fair to say I trust your judgement. :-) Once again, a wonderfully written and sourced article that was incredibly easy (and fun) to get through. I understand that you are busy on weekends, so please, take your time to take on my nitpicking. I'd also like to mention that if one of my gripes is something you disagree with, and involves a misunderstanding on my part (which is highly likely most of the time), a simple and rational explanation is all it should take to persuade me. :-) — Miss Sarita 20:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking the time to review the article, @Miss Sarita: I really appreciate the effort. I've done everything you asked for above, with the exception of the Guitar World ref. Let me know if you still can't get that to work and I'll remove it. Thanks again. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: Just had one little comment/response regarding Ref 66 above, but as my comment suggests, this isn't necessary for a pass/fail. I only wanted to clarify myself in case you wanted to change it. This article is good. So, a pass it is. Congratulations on another GA! And as usual, it's been such a pleasure working with you! :-) — Miss Sarita 03:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Checklist

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: