Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Hope Is Gone/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:18, 24 January 2009.

All Hope Is Gone

 * Nominator(s):  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  |  black  ngold29  |  Gary King

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I beleive it meets all the FA criteria and has gone through a GA process and a recent Peer Review.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  14:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Refs 25, 26, 33 and 41 are dead links. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The two remaining dead links actually work even though they are reported as dead. Gary King  ( talk ) 15:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.411mania.com/
 * http://www.thrashhits.com/2008/08/album-slipknot-all-hope-is-gone/
 * See below, but I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/news/article/0,,4758918,00.html
 * My main concern would be using a retailers site to discuss BLP issues. As long as it isn't being sourced for anything controversial, this should be okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not sure where the question of reliability can come in to a source which has an interview with one of the band members. Obviously you couldn't just use ANY site that claims it's an interview with a band member but this is an established site, I don't think its reliability is questionable.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  17:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.metalhammer.co.uk/
 * http://www.webcitation.org/5aYydJpQI
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The following references refer to these sources:


 * http://www.411mania.com/
 * http://www.thrashhits.com/2008/08/album-slipknot-all-hope-is-gone/
 * http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/news/article/0,,4758918,00.html
 * This is Artistdirect.
 * http://www.metalhammer.co.uk/
 * A magazine, Metal Hammer
 * http://www.webcitation.org/5aYydJpQI
 * I don't think that was the correct URL; it's from a newspaper, The Arizona Republic. Fixed.
 * http://www.metalhammer.co.uk/
 * A magazine, Metal Hammer
 * http://www.webcitation.org/5aYydJpQI
 * I don't think that was the correct URL; it's from a newspaper, The Arizona Republic. Fixed.
 * http://www.webcitation.org/5aYydJpQI
 * I don't think that was the correct URL; it's from a newspaper, The Arizona Republic. Fixed.
 * I don't think that was the correct URL; it's from a newspaper, The Arizona Republic. Fixed.

Gary King ( talk ) 16:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Left the two out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Media review - All media have sufficient fair use rationales, verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, date formatting in citations is inconsistent (samples: All Hope Is Gone is #1!!", Sparkart, 2008-09-03, http://www.webcitation.org/5aYydJpQI, retrieved on 3 September 2008 has lower case retrieved, and two different date formats).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Commented at User_talk:SandyGeorgia Gary King  ( talk ) 01:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I also fixed that one disambiguation link yesterday.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  15:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the "Sales and impact" section is small in comparison to the other sections. I would recommend making it a subsection of the "Critical reception" section.
 * Well sales and impact don't really relate to how critics review the album.... plus that section will more than likely be expanded as the album grows.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  17:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As it stands currently, I believe that section is too small to stand by itself, regardless of whether it'll grow in the future. It's ultimately up to the editors, and I wouldn't oppose this FA nomination solely because of that, but I would strongly recommend making it a sub-section of another section until you are able to expand it. -- The Guy complain edits 20:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Beginning on April 1, 2008, Slipknot's official website displayed splash teasers to promote All Hope Is Gone. Ten teaser trailers were released." I think these two sentences in the "Promotion" section can be combined, perhaps, "Beginning April 1, 2008, Slipknot's official website displayed ten splash teasers to promote All Hope Is Gone."
 * Done.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  17:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Remove the word "official" from sentences, example of this; "Beginning on April 1, 2008, Slipknot's official website displayed splash teasers to promote All Hope Is Gone." If it is Slipknot's website, it is official, is it not?
 * Done.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  17:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Change the word "CD" into "Compact disc" throughout the article.
 * Done.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  17:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dates should be specified; there are some dates that have no year, for example: August 16. August 16, when? 2012?  This needs to be specified.
 * I think I got them all.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  17:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Currently, the lead does not reflect these sections: Promotion, Musical themes, Lyrical themes, and Critical reception. The lead also states some information not contained in the article about the band members' side projects. The lead section should be a comprehensive overview of the article as a whole, that is, it should summarize the main points of each section of the article. No information that's in the lead should not be in the article. -- The Guy  complain edits 05:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the intro.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  17:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * One more thing I notice: there is information regarding the debut and release of the first two singles, but not the third. You could debate that the third isn't as significant, being released after the album, but I believe info should be added about it regardless. -- The Guy complain edits 20:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  13:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, 1a. This has the makings of a great album article, but unfortunately the prose has a long way to go. It needs a thorough treatment by an effective copyeditor. The following is a brief sample from just the lead and first section. It is not comprehensive; there are too many issues currently to delineate here.
 * "... the first of any of Slipknot's albums to do so." Why not, "the first Slipknot album to do so"?
 * "... and their first album that was released by a major label to be recorded in their home state of Iowa." Unsure what this means. Are you saying that some albums were on a major label but not recorded in Iowa, and some were recorded in Iowa but not on a major label? I'm not sure why we're interconnecting these.
 * "Before the album's launch, Slipknot released a series of promotional images and audio samples from the album through various websites, including photographs of their new masks on Spinner.com, which received over eight million hits on the first day." This needs to be split up. Also, we need some context for their "new masks" for the uninitiated.
 * "The album has been considered one of the band's most eclectic-sounding albums..." Grammar.
 * You mix "the album " and "the album " in places.
 * "Drummer Joey Jordison explains..." No, this should be past tense.
 * "Bassist Paul Gray explained that they decided to do this because Los Angeles ..." Grammar.
 * There's a lot of the band "revealing" things which is an odd word choice considering they're revealing mundane things like going home to visit children. Normally people "reveal" things like inventing time travel.
 * "Complimenting Fortman's ear for tone, Jordison explained that he considers All Hope Is Gone to be the band's best album, sonically." As opposed to.. visually?
 * "Unlike previous releases, all nine band members were involved in the album's writing process, writing over 30 songs." Grammar.
 * "When questioned about the process, vocalist Taylor explained that the process..." Same grammatical problem is cropping up everywhere with repeating nouns: album-album, writing-writing, etc.
 * "Some members of the group separated themselves from the band to write tracks." Meaning what? They left the room? They moved to China?
 * -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments I've just started reading the article and here's some issues I've found that should be addressed:
 * Reorganize the lead slightly. Discuss the production of the album before the chart success (you can pretty much just switch around large chunks of the first and second paragraphs). I'm not sure you have to be so detailed about the formats in the lead; In Rainbows, for instance isn't. Try and summarize more.
 * Remember that in American English the name Slipknot and terms like "the band" or "The group" are singular; I see some instances where the terms are referred to in the plural ("They", "Their", "Were")
 * There's a lot of redundant wording. Examples include "When questioned about the process, vocalist Taylor explained that the process did not occur without conflict" and "Because Slipknot's band members appeared unmasked when performing with their side projects, it was rumored that Slipknot would be recording and touring All Hope Is Gone unmasked".
 * The retrieval dates in the citations are inconsistently formatted. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Minor thing: "eight million hits on its first day" is a bit confusing. For example, what is a "hit?"  And on what first day did it receive its eight million hits?  On the first day of Christmas?  That should be clarified.  The entire sentence should be cut in favor of something like, "The page was accessed by eight million people on the first day it was available" (Don't use that, it doesn't have the best grammar, but use it as an example of what should be done). -- The Guy  complain edits 04:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, I'm going to have to Oppose this Featured Article nomination. The article certainly has a lot of potential, but right now, it isn't in shape.  Its prose is weak, and, overall, it just needs too much work to be done in the time allotted to us for this nomination.  Laser Brain has illustrated many examples of the errors in this article, and I concur.  These issues can be fixed, but I doubt it will be in a timely matter.  So, I oppose this nomination, and advise the nominators to put more effort into the article, compare it to other current music album FA articles, and re-submit it for nomination when it is ready. -- The Guy  complain edits 04:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.