Talk:Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)/GA3

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

Reviewer: Seegoon (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've made some modifications to comply with your review comments, what do you think? -Red marquis (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have anymore suggestions on what I need to improve? -Red marquis (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've provided a load more feedback for you here. Criterion 2b is displaying as Pending for reasons beyond my ken, but I've entered some thoughts there. I look forward to seeing future development here. Seegoon (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've made new changes to comply. However, I can't do anything about the issues in 2a. Regarding the first issue, I didn't put the current sales figure quote in there. The person who did assured me the source is reliable although it is ultimately up for you as the reviewer to decide. It's also impossible to locate the current sales figures since the RIAA and Interscope seem to have forgotten that this album exist. Regarding the second issue, I believe that video is lost and now only exist in the band's Lest We Forget album.

Regarding the 6a and 6b issues, I admit I only scanned that poster. If I violated any copyright law, I'll voluntarily removed it. The article also cannot use any of the mercury icons on Commons, Marilyn Manson's version is a highly stylized variation inside a roundel. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any other imagery relating to this album in Commons besides the album cover. -Red marquis (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Btw, do you have any suggestions what I need to modify in order to pass Featured Article status? -Red marquis (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a handful of things left, but nothing major.
 * Ref #27: Revolver needs piping and italicising.
 * Ref #30: Kerrang! needs italicising.
 * Ref #37: need to use first = and last = and to fix the broken date formatting.
 * Refs #42 and #49: don't need an access date.
 * Sorry, I was wrong about #49 – I'm not sure what I was getting at there.
 * Refs #92, #94 and #99 need combining and cite web-ing
 * Ref #97: DiS shouldn't be italicised.
 * Are refs #100 and #101 the same thing?
 * Ref #111 is a bit ambiguous – what am I looking at here?
 * Ref #113 is still odd.
 * Refs #126 and #136 shouldn't have italicised allmusics.
 * Refs #75, #77 and #121 have square bracket issues which could be solved by using   tags.
 * Ref #56 wikilinks specific terms inside the article title, which is a bit counter-intuitive.
 * You've replaced the em dashes in personnel with hyphens, not en dashes; you want – instead of - or —. Stupid as it sounds.
 * The 'Singles' table appears to be broken, albeit to a very minor extent.
 * The Billboard review might actually be available on their website (instead of linking to Metacritic) – they've had a redesign and broken an assload of links.

Now, regarding content and what might need improving to get that gold star. There are a few sources which you use which may not stand up to scrutiny; Amazon and Rate Your Music are probably not of high enough quality. Perhaps the releases themselves, cited with cite album-notes, would be better. They may also want page numbers at every given turn; i.e. refs #55, #56, #23, #30, #35, and so on. Content-wise, you're in very good shape. It's well-written, balanced and neutral. They may well be unimpressed with the rationale for the poster, mind you. Personally, I think it's fine to use, and as I'm reviewing this by myself, I'll complain no further about it. But as a pre-warning, they may take issue.

As an aside, although this article did need some extra spit and shine, 's fail of the previous GA was brutal. He's just subjected me to an equally brusque summary execution, so don't take it to heart. He doesn't seem interested in helping articles reach GA; more interested in showing off his trophy cabinet of very good GAs of very shitty pop albums. I'll get off my soapbox now. Seegoon (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll start working on fixing the remaining problems. -Red marquis (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've finished fixing the ref errors. Check to see if I missed any. Btw, I don't get what you meant by the Singles table being broken. It looks perfectly fine to me. Please clarify. Thanks again for reviewing this page. -Red marquis (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's missing a bottom border for the second column. Probably just a Firefox quirk. No biggie. I've struck the things you've addressed, for clarity's sake. I've gone ahead and passed the article – it's in great shape. As I said, one or two things may stymie this at FAC, but at least you've been forewarned. Congratulations! It'd be prudent of you to go out and review someone else's GAN, but you're under no obligation to do so. Seegoon (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Alas, I'll be too busy getting this article up to FAC snuff and then doing the same for other albums. Also, I think I'll need more experience writing GA and FAC articles before I can qualify to review someone else's work. Thanks, however. -Red marquis (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)