Talk:Eyes of the Insane/Archive 1

GA nomination
I've put this article on hold. Here are some changes to be made:
 * There appear to be a few fields missing from the infobox.
 * I added the track listing, though I cannot find where the song was recorded - "Christ Illusion" was cut at two studios, and I don't know which one they recorded the song at. As concerns singles, I'll try finding the info - it's much harder going than the usual pop songs. LuciferMorgan 08:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's fine if the recording studio/date isn't there; that information is often hard to find or just unavailable, and I wouldn't consider it a major aspect. The one I noticed was missing was the songwriter(s) though. ShadowHalo 08:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The infobox I copied must not have had that field (damn), but I've fixed that. LuciferMorgan 09:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Grammy-winning" should not be included in the lead sentence per WP:NPOV.
 * I disagree. From the lead of Hollaback Girl, an FA you wrote; "The song was released in 2005 as the album's third single, and it proved to be one of the biggest successes of the year." Of course what you wrote there is factual and I think it's inclusion is correct, the same as the fact this song won a Grammy. LuciferMorgan 08:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be included in the lead, yes. But not in the lead sentence. Opening articles with "X is a Grammy-nominated producer" or "Y is a Grammy-winning album" is POV. Information on awards or nominations should go later in the lead (and the way it's set up, the first mention is redundant since it's mentioned in the third paragraph). ShadowHalo 08:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That argument makes more sense now you've elaborated, so I've corrected it. LuciferMorgan 08:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The one-sentence paragraph in the lead should be expanded into two sentences or merged into the second paragraph.
 * There's no paragraph/section on the actual music or structure of the song, though some of the reviews do appear to provide some information on it (I would consider music to be a "major aspect" of a song).
 * This is the one I'm not sure how to approach. Can you kindly tell me where / how the reviews appear to provide some of the info? Also, how can I create such a section without virtually killing the "Receptance" section? LuciferMorgan 09:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it only needs to address the topic, not necessarily go into detail. I would recommend including instrumentation and song structure, which you can generally take from the credits and lyrics in the liner notes.  If any sheet music is available, you can use that.  The reviews note a tempo change and a change in the riff, so you could move that to the paragraph.  ShadowHalo 09:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There should be a descriptive caption for the song sample.
 * There are some smart quotes (’) in the article; please replace any smart quotes with regular ones (').
 * Will do. That's what pasting from MS Word does :) LuciferMorgan 08:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Could only find one instance. Can you be more specific as to where the other ones are so I can correct this? LuciferMorgan 08:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There were two in the second paragraph of the Origins section. I went ahead took care of them for you.  ShadowHalo 08:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there an image of the music video available that doesn't have a watermark? If not, that's fine; that certainly won't keep this from being a GA.
 * I'll see if I can fix this after the GA etc. since I think the article has more pressing matters. I think it has the watermark for a reason though since it was posted online exclusively on that website at first (I've now added that info). LuciferMorgan 09:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Eyes of the Insane"' should be "Eyes of the Insane"'s.
 * I corrected one instance of this. Any other instances? LuciferMorgan 09:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that was the only one. ShadowHalo 09:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Overall, a good read. ShadowHalo 01:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you keep this one on hold for the full 7? I wouldn't want it failed while I'm addressing the concerns. LuciferMorgan 09:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, sure... But there's only one objection left, so it's very unlikely that I'd have any reason to fail it.  ShadowHalo 09:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I need advice on how to address your last objection per the reasons under the objection. LuciferMorgan 09:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I missed that comment. ShadowHalo 09:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, we're all only human. LuciferMorgan 10:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Has your last concern been addressed or is more work needed? LuciferMorgan 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Since the section is small, you may want to consider merging it into "Origins" and calling it "Background and composition" or something, but it's GA material.  ShadowHalo 21:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your comments, and I'm sorry we initially came into contact via a dispute (chart tables). Good luck at FAC (despite my oppose). LuciferMorgan 01:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, though the FAC was closed. I'm hoping to have WP:LoCE take a look at the article and then resubmit it.  Keep up the good work.  ShadowHalo 02:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Crap I've missed the peer review
Duh.
 * ...then Hanneman and King create > ...which is followed by Hanneman and King creating.
 * Image:Eyesoftheinsane.JPG contains a watermark, and thus is inappropriate for Wikipedia use.
 * Not really. The video premiered on MP3.com, and thus is rather appropriate for use actually. LuciferMorgan 17:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Images with watermarks are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia and are often put for deletion. In case the copyright holder prefers the copyright to be attributable, a mare mention of the site on the image description page would be enough. Honestly it's nothing a paint-job can't fix. Michael as 10 16:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * All image captions containing sentences require periods per WP:MOS.
 * I cannot find this in the WP:MOS If you can I'd appreciate you yo quote it.
 * Sure — "Complete sentences in captions should always end in a period (or other appropriate punctuation). If the caption is not a complete sentence, it generally should not have a period at the end". Michael as 10 16:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename the "Notes" section to "References".
 * Notes and References are two different things in my opinion - "Notes" are for inline citations, while "References" is to name a source used frequently in an article.
 * "Notes" is normally used on articles where the cited books or websites are described lengthly on a separate section. Here a full description is provided right there. Michael as 10 16:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * King disagreed, deeming the song - No point in linking Kerry King here.
 * ...represent Slayer from ninth album > ...represent Slayer from their ninth album.
 * Write something about the musical structure in the music sample description and maybe what critics thought about it.
 * It's personal preference as to what is added to music samples. Personally I'm specifically opposed to descriptions in a sample as I find it tacky and also it's all relative to one's interpretation how a sample sounds. LuciferMorgan 17:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ...49th annual Grammy Awards - ends with "ceremony".
 * Eternal Pyre isn't a single.
 * It has one song - that is not an EP as far as I am concerned. LuciferMorgan 15:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it was released as an EP, and promoted as one. Christ Illusion article has it as an EP. Previous single was "Bloodline" and the one before that "God Send Death". M3tal H3ad 03:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Any refs for the singles? I can't find them on any websites. LuciferMorgan 05:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ...well received > ...well-received/...received well. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 12:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

FA star?
Is it appropriate to add the star before the article has been promoted? Perhaps this was a mistake? Nathanalex 21:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been promoted, but the bot hasn't got around to archiving the page. LuciferMorgan 21:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Check Goings-on. LuciferMorgan 21:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, now don't I look stupid! Congratulations. Nathanalex 21:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's real appreciated. I wouldn't worry about looking "stupid" - when someone congratulated me I was as confused as you were earlier. LuciferMorgan 22:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)