Talk:Surgical Steel (album)

Removed Deaf Sparrow review
I removed the recently-added review from Deaf Sparrow, because it doesn't appear to pass WP:RS or WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. The site doesn't appear to list their staff, and the only reference to the site from a reliable source was this CBC article, which doesn't seem to be enough to satisfy having a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If it can be demonstrated to pass those criteria, it can be re-added. WT:ALBUM would be a good place to start to see if it can be recognised as a reliable source. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Genre
Alright, so before this devolves into an edit war, I'm reverting back to the original version of the page, and the change from "Melodic death metal" to "death metal" can be discussed here. It should not be changed back until consensus is gained here.

Personally, I'm not sure if the use of "melodic" from the Decibel review is enough to use "melodic death metal". I don't have that issue of Decibel, so I don't know the exact quote being used. If someone can type out the relevant portion of the review, it would be helpful.

Looking at the other reviews in the article, none of them explicitly refer to "melodic death metal", so this would be the only source that does, which makes me think that sticking to just "death metal" would probably be best, as it is explicitly used by multiple other reviews. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I copied the quote from the October issue of Terrorizer. I don't have the Decibel magazine either, but if the citation in the "Critical reception" is true, the reviewer says that the second half is "more melodic and riff-driven". He doesn't explicitly says it is a melodic death metal album, so this is basically interpreting the source our way. But even if we assume that the Decibel journalist really meant it was melodic death metal, that is a sub-genre of death metal, which is clearly cited by Kemp →‎ "bloody great death metal album".--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Any comments by the editor who reverted my edits?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, death metal seems very inaccurate for this album. Melodic death metal/thrash metal is what it sounds like by my personal listening, but I guess that goes against the whole original research rule they had here and I believed in the source it said "melodic death metal" than death metal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Skin (talk • contribs) 03:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly, Wikipedia doesn't approve opinions by its editors. As for the "melodic death metal" vs "death metal" debate, the first option can't be verified because we don't have the link to the Decibel issue. But regardless, if we assume that the cite is correct, it is still against WP:POV because we are highlighting what seems to be a minority opinion.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 07:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, without a direct quote from the Decibel issue that clearly states "melodic death metal", and with several sources using just "death metal", I think changing it to "death metal" is the way to go for now. But if more sources can be provided explicitly stating "melodic death metal", it can always be changed back. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't have a strong opinion about how it's listed on the genre tag, but I have the Decibel review in front of me and it says, "'Unfit for Human Consumption,' likewise, obliterates the need for Arch Enemy post-Wages of Sin. This is melodic death metal, with Steer's solo winding into and out of my blown mind like that icky bug from The Wrath of Khan." Emphasis on "death metal" is in the original, implying that yeah, it's melodic, but it's still death metal. Digestion (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Also sounds like it's only referring to one song as "melodic", which I don't think is enough for the infobox. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

One-sided reviews
I understand that many of the reviews for this album have been positive, but in the interest of providing an unbiased source I think it would be good to include some of the more negative reviews that say something more than how great this record is after ~15 years. Another thing that should be mentioned is that the reviews that have been mentioned on the page seem heavily paraphrased in a way that would lead someone to think positively of the album before deciding to purchase in a fashion similar to advertisement. A source for a bit more critical of a review might be: http://www.metalinjection.net/reviews/album-review-carcass-surgical-steel, however I don't want to include it without a bit more consensus on the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techpriest (talk • contribs) 09:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)