Talk:Grindcore/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Comments
The article is quite good. However, there are some issues that could be improved.
 * The historic development of grindcore isn't clear. Were there different subgenres in Europe and America during the 1990s?
 * What happened after the 1990s? The section on 2000 isn't presenting this division anymore and has much fewer bands.
 * Can you possibly make a statistic to show the development of grindcore bands over time?
 * In the legacy section are several very short sections. Can you flesh them out?
 * Personally, I would be delighted if I could listen to some more examples. You can use template:External media to link to online versions. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

First response
Hi; glad you think the article is decent; sorry I haven't begun responding earlier (was visiting my family).
 * With regard to the Europe/U.S. split: There's not a firm stylistic division to the ways grindcore developed on separate continents; the paragraphs were broken up for organizational reasons. American grindcore has a somewhat distinct flavor, and "cybergrind" developed there (as remarked upon in the article), but to say more than this would violate WP:SYN.
 * I would prefer a merger of these sections(that's a suggestion not an order) and possibly a remark about stylistic differences between the different continents and why they exist/ed. Grindcore seems to have developed out of a fusion of different genres into different subgenres. So there's interest on how grindcore was first defined and then how the subgenres historically developed and are still developing. If there's a real break between decades, so be it, otherwise introduce other chapters for the narrative. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As to the 21st century, again, without violating WP:SYN we can't comment on why there are fewer bands and a less distinct split between Europe and the U.S. It's possible that fewer bands formed, or just that the period is less well-documented at present.
 * OK, you might discuss the problems of sources about grindcore in an own chapter. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I understand the question about the statistic. Do you mean with regard to sales, number of groups, stylistic changes, or something else?
 * Any useful statistic to show the development. As you pointed out, band numbers are problematic but sales could solve the problem to give the reader a clue about the development of popularity. The numbers of bands or subgenres may help to assess how much creative development there is. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the legacy section is somewhat paratactic. I'll try to tackle this problem.
 * I'll see what I can do about sound samples. There was one there that was removed for inadequate rationale. I'm still familiarizing myself with the copyright issues, and that's delayed the process. Aryder779 (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't have to care about copyright with Template:External media because you're linking. Youtube for example is a good source. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ELNEVER = Use only "youtube.com/earacherecords"  C  anniba loki  21:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, we will take care of this. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Organization of the article
Currently the eras of grindcore are defined according to the activity of the band Napalm Death. The band's official homepage states they're still active. Thus there can't be any post-Napalm death era. For this reason a totally new system for the history of grindcore must be introduced. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A totally new system?
 * There is a "post-Napalm Death era", because we're in the period subsequent to Napalm Death's emergence. Punk rock still exists, that doesn't make post-punk a nonsense term. According to Wiktionary, the prefix "post-" means "after, later." A section of the page discusses grindcore later than Napalm Death's initial impact. All the sources attest that Napalm Death invented the term and established grindcore in its most widely recognized form. Therefore, it is logical to divide things up according to their nearest predecessors and inspirations, on the one hand, and later groups who followed them, on the other. The only ways to organize things are by chronology, by geography, or perhaps by subgenres. Previously, geographical and chronological markers were included, but you objected on the grounds that the significance in distinctions between European grindcore and American grindcore, or '80s and '90s grindcore, were not spelled out. To which I would reply that any attempt to do this would necessarily be a generalization, would probably be reductive, and wouldn't be supported by the sources. Aryder779 (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, but the section post Napalm Death is compareably long. Can it be broken into smaller sections without commiting WP:OR? Wandalstouring (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur. It can be broken up without violating OR or SYN, based on continent or decade (easily verifiable empirical facts). In the past, you've expressed some reservations because it's difficult to make generalizations about the exact distinctions between '80s and '90s grind or Euro and American grind. I'll try to deal with this in the most elegant fashion I can. Aryder779 (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've since tried to work around this problem by a division according to UK, American, and European variants, with an additional paragraph covering more recent events. I'm doing the best I can, and I hope it's becoming clear how messy the history is, and how difficult it is to establish a clear continuity without violating WP:SYN. Aryder779 (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the new organization because it has a timeline and geographic locations. However, does this mean that grindcore was dead in the UK after the 80s or is this a history about British bands initiating a brushfire that spreads around th world and becomes prominent at different decades? Wandalstouring (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right that new grindcore groups stop appearing in the UK; the original groups still exist, but the style seems to emigrate to North America and continental Europe. I've implied this in the intro paragraph, but in the absence of a definitive source stating that grindcore stopped developing in Britain, we can't write that directly. Aryder779 (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Remaining problems
The lead is too short. try to make it a summary of the whole article content. Especially any reference to the legacy section is missing.

In Lyrics you start with Napalm Death's lyrics. Try to explain grindcore lyrics in general and go to examples like ND afterwards.

Reliable sources is a problem. note 2: What does this make a reliable source? Direct referencing to the magazines would be OK with links where the content can be viewed online.
 * note 3: point out it's from havoc records, not just a relatively blank link.
 * note 4: needs a new reference because it's a dead link
 * note 5: Same as note 3
 * note 15: dead link needs replacement
 * note 36: what makes this blog a reliable source?
 * note 38: can you refer to their original source?
 * note 39: needs replacement
 * note 41: How's that a source?
 * note 49: dead link needs to be replaced
 * note 52: is a dead link and needs to be replaced
 * note 53: what makes this a reliable source?
 * note 54: same as note 53
 * note 55: same as note 53
 * note 61: same as note 53
 * note 62: same as note 53
 * note 67: what makes this a reliable source?
 * note 69: same as note 53
 * note 72: is a dead link and needs to be replaced
 * note 75: same as note 53
 * note 81: what makes this a reliable source?
 * note 82: what makes this a reliable source?
 * note 84: links didn't work. what makes this a reliable source?
 * note 92: same as note 53
 * note 93: what makes this a reliable source?
 * note 94: same as note 53
 * note 96: is a dead link

Please fix these issues. Afterwards I'll take care of MOS. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've deleted many of the dead links, some of which are redundant or support dispensable information I have deleted. A few of the others I will replace later. However, 1) some of the links that you say are dead work fine for me. 2) You seem to have doubts as to whether Allmusic is a reliable source. It definitely is. Allmusic has a paid staff. 3) At one point you criticize the inclusion of Earache's blog as a reliable source; I think this is fine, because it's from Digby Pearson (a recognized authority) and authorized by Earache. 4) I think that I have resolved most of these problems. If there are remaining dead links or sources you think are questionable, please let me know. Aryder779 (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You seemed to also have a problem with using the RIAA searchable database as a source for sales, which I also don't think is a problem. I think the RIAA is a reliable source. I understand that its database status makes it unusual for Wikipedia, but I think it's fully in the spirit of WP:RELIABLE to refer to such an official source. Aryder779 (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you link to the saerch result instead of the search mask of the database? Wandalstouring (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tried. This doesn't seem to be possible. Aryder779 (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've deleted the dead links you identified, and replaced them when possible, and deleted the information they backed up when it didn't seem possible to replace the source. Let me know if there are remaining problems. Aryder779 (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

GA on hold
This appears to be an orphaned review, seeing as how it's been one month since any comments were posted to it. The way I see the article in its present state, it is overall good, with the exception of a poor lead section, which fails to properly summarize it. Please see WP:LEAD for tips on improving this section. One thing that jumps out is the sentence in the lead, "The style was founded and named by Napalm Death in Britain,...", but when you read the history that's down in the second section, so saying that Napalm Death "founded" the style doesn't seem the most accurate here. The lead should also mention more about some of the influences in other music as well ('legacy' section).

As another note, perhaps one of the images used below could be put into the infobox? The infobox itself could use a little sprucing up, and an image would help here.

Here's how the article matches up against the six GA criteria:


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I will leave this article on hold until June 2, 2009. If the lead isn't improved by then, it will be failed and removed from WP:GAN. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw the request for additional comments on the GA page. I see that the lead still has a citation needed note. I'm also concerned about organization revolving around Napalm Death, but I have fewer qualms about that than others seem to; perhaps I've seen an edited version.  Another way to deal with the organization would be as "Early years: the Napalm Death era"; Genre development; Influence on other genres.
 * The article just stops. There seems to be no summation.  Perhaps the last section of development should actually be "legacy: Influence on other genres." ????  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Auntieruth: 1) There is not a "citation needed" note in the lead. 2) I don't think Napalm Death receive undue weight in any way, because they are always covered prominently in sources on grindcore, as the acknowledged creators of the style. The article has indeed evolved quite a bit in response to comments. 3) I'm unsure how to "sum up" a genre which continues to exist, particularly without resorting to original research. The last section *is* in fact legacy ... are you suggesting a change to its title? That's an interesting idea. Maybe I'll do that.
 * Thanks for your input. Aryder779 (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up to 1): I see you must have been referring to the "citation needed" tag in the beginning of the characteristics section. That had escaped my notice. I don't think it was ever really necessary because the sources appear subsequently and it's an intro sentence, but I've added a citation there nonetheless. Aryder779 (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tackled the lead; I think it does a pretty good job summarizing the article now. Aryder779 (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The changes look good. The article is now a GA. Nice work! Dr. Cash (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Updates
I've tried to respond to most of your suggestions, and agree that they improve the article. Thanks for the tip on external sound links. Aryder779 (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Are there other divisions for grindcore than only the Napalm Death era? I expressed some doubts about a history based on decades that doesn't explicitly point out that there are differences between the decades. If there are no differences other than a pre ND-, ND- and post ND- era I'm fine.


 * There are subgenre distinctions, discussed in the body of the text, but not readily identifiable breaks with regard to decade or geography. Aryder779 (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Legacy section is very difficult to read. I asked you to flesh out the sections, not to merge them because I believe the merger makes it even more difficult to read. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about this. I'll try to address it. Aryder779 (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)