Talk:Viking metal/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jacedc (talk · contribs) 18:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This article looks really well-written. I'd be happy to take on this review. Jacedc (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, normally what I like to do is fix minor things myself, but often times what ends up happening is I get tired of toggling back and forth between edit mode and preview mode. Additionally, some things that I would consider minor have turned out to need some clarification in the past, so don't be surprised if you see minor things in my review.


 * Lead section

That's it for the lead. Other sections to come. Jacedc (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅  20:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * &sect; Sonic traits
 * This article looks great so far. Very educational. More sections to follow. :) Jacedc (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, let me know if these corrections seem very minor. If you'd rather me just go through and copyedit myself I can do that, too, but normally these things spawn discussion. It all depends on the editor, so just let me know. Jacedc (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This section is ✅  20:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This section is ✅  20:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * &sect; Thematic and lyrical focus
 * The above are ✅  20:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The above are ✅  20:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done, this was a typo.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 05:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done, this was a typo.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 05:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅  20:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅  20:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅  20:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * &sect; Influence from sea shanties and popular media
 * ✅ I think they are now. Per the Manual of Style, logical quotation is to be utilized on Wikipedia.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 05:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You would be correct. I found a few cases when I first reviewed the article where it didn't follow that, but AFAIK it's okay now.  14:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I think they are now. Per the Manual of Style, logical quotation is to be utilized on Wikipedia.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 05:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You would be correct. I found a few cases when I first reviewed the article where it didn't follow that, but AFAIK it's okay now.  14:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I think they are now. Per the Manual of Style, logical quotation is to be utilized on Wikipedia.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 05:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You would be correct. I found a few cases when I first reviewed the article where it didn't follow that, but AFAIK it's okay now.  14:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You would be correct. I found a few cases when I first reviewed the article where it didn't follow that, but AFAIK it's okay now.  14:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)




 * I'm waiting for you to finish your review before I start making changes. Thank you for taking this on.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 02:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, not a problem. I will probably have more notes later on today. I only made corrections yesterday because I wasn't quite up to reading anything with a critical eye, but now that I know you're waiting on me I'll try to move quicker. :)  14:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * &sect; Precursors&#58; 1970s to mid-1980s


 * &sect; Viking metal&#58; Late-1980s – present
 * ✅ Done within article prose. I think it's okay to duplicate links across different citations/references, as the reader may be singling out a particular reference without referring to the first instance of the publication.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 05:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, citations are exempt. I was talking about article links.  14:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done within article prose. I think it's okay to duplicate links across different citations/references, as the reader may be singling out a particular reference without referring to the first instance of the publication.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 05:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, citations are exempt. I was talking about article links.  14:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Woops
 * ✅ I think this was a leftover from some edits. Fixed.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 05:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Woops
 * ✅ I think this was a leftover from some edits. Fixed.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 05:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I think this was a leftover from some edits. Fixed.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 05:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I think this was a leftover from some edits. Fixed.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 05:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)



More to come later. 16:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * &sect; Spread outside the Nordic countries

Alright, the prose has been completely reviewed. 18:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Could the shortened footnotes use s? It'd be a lot easier to navigate the sources. A bit of work, but I'd be happy to help if need be. Take a look at xx (album) or Breaking Benjamin as a general guideline. Take note of the   and   scheme for those references that don't have an author or date specified (where x would be a, b, c, d, etc.) Again, I'd help to do this, but I don't want to just go do it unilaterally. It'd probably be best to do it in a sandbox then move it back over to the article space once done.
 * (cont'd). Instead of going through each source as is, I would like if I could start a sandbox project in converting all of the references to use sfns and s. Editors are allowed to use whatever sourcing method they like, so this is only a suggestion and will not prevent the article from passing the review. I just need the go-ahead and I'll do it myself. The reason I'm willing to do it myself is so that I can review each of the sources for reliability as I go. I'm fairly certain everything's okay, but it'll give me a chance to be more thorough while simultaneously making the article better. Feel free to give thoughts on this.   18:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll let you go ahead and do the conversion, since you are willing to take that on.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 05:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, cool.  14:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the template parameters which list more than three items use flatlist?  19:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are referring to here. Could you please elaborate?-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 05:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant infobox parameters. For instance, "Sylistic origins", "Typical instruments", etc. I believe these should use flatlists, though I could be wrong.  14:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 16:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Source review
 * I'm currently unable to find evidence for the reliability of metalforjesus.com I noticed the article describes the author as a journalist, though I can't find anything on the person. There's no about page on the website or any indication of a publisher. It personally looks like a self-made website to me. Clarification on this?
 * The website Metal for Jesus is a website run and published by Johannes Jonsson. Yes, it is self-published, but qualifies as a reliable source per WP:SPS because: 1) Johannes Jonsson has written for HM, as well as worked for that publication in editorial capacities; 2) he is an active figure in the Nordic Christian metal scene, such as organizing concerts and events, running a Christian metal community, and releasing compilation albums; 3) he headed the creation of The Metal Bible, which is a New Testament that also includes testimonies from numerous heavy metal artists where they discuss their thoughts on God and the Bible; 4) his website and work on the Metal Bible have been discussed in academic publications dealing with Christian metal.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 20:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's good for me. Thanks for the clarification. Sorry for taking a while to get back on this, but I should have some more comments and/or be able to get more work done here shortly.  16:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * More to come later. I've started re-configuring the sources here.
 * The Deena Weinstein reference points to this book, but I can see the authors are Donna Weston and Andy Bennett. Deena Weinstein and Donna Weston sound similar, I suppose, so is the latter just a pseudonym, or were the authors confused when the source was cited?  16:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahh, hang on a minute. The authors of the book are listed as the editors in the citation. Is Deena Weinstein the author of just a particular passage in the book?  16:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the book is an anthology for which Weinstein wrote an article.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 18:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the clarification!  17:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The statement Also according to Weinstein ...  is cited to Mulvany 2000, but a ctrl+F in the source shows no results for "Weinstein". This is the second time a source has no mention of Deena Weinstein despite being attributed to her, so I'm assuming there must be a mix up in the way the sources were arranged. Need clarification on this, please.  16:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ The citation was wrong, fixed now.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 18:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, my sincerest apologies for taking so long, but I have finally converted all references to sfns. I've been pretty busy with school since the end of the summer, so that's what made it take so long. At any rate, I've finished the source review, and it all checks out. This is a very good article, and I believe it deserves to pass. Congratulations! 00:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you put a lot of work into this!-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 04:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! Likewise! :)  06:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)