Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)/archive2


 * 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 03:26, 27 May 2011.

Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)

 * Nominator(s): Red marquis (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... After 9 months of hard work, several peer reviews, a GA certification, some more hard work and peer reviews, I believe this article may be as close as it can get to being FA quality. I spared no quarter in detailing this album. I hope this would be sufficient to pass this time around. Red marquis (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved Comments
 * I don't usually do album FACs because I suck at them, but several things jumped out at me in the first paragraph that suggest you may want help from a MOS-savvy copyeditor here. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "industrial rock/metal": it's "industrial metal" in the linked article. See WP:SLASH; generally, avoid slashes unless the sources insist that the phrase is written with the slash.
 * "glam rock-inspired": a judgment call, but I'd recommend "glam-rock-inspired". (And btw, "inspired" is sometimes seen as a waffly word. If something could be described as "glam rock and X", then say that.)
 * "as "a declaration of war."": as "a declaration of war". See WP:LQ. - Dank (push to talk) 12:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Made changes. Please see if they work better. -Red marquis (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that works. Just a suggestion ... I'm saying that if that's what I'm seeing in the first paragraph, then before this is done, it will probably need more copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - while improvements have been made since its first nomination, I still feel this article needs further work before it meets the FA criteria. Here are some examples of specific concerns:
 * WP:MOS edits needed - wikilinking issues, inappropriate bracketing of ellipses, dash/hyphen issues, etc
 * Like what. please elaborate.
 * Citations should be in numerical order, and at least some of them could be bundled
 * I was hoping the bots would take care of this.
 * Some copy-editing is needed for clarity and flow. For example: "Dave Sardy was drafted in to co-produce the album"; "dead celebrities are venerated into saints"; "It explored this theme by taking a critical look into the American public's cultural obsession with firearms, death and fame and its ramifications on the Columbine tragedy.[1] In particular, it focused on what Manson saw as their root causes"; etc
 * I can see how the first one could be confusing but I don't see how the other two are unclear. How could I fix it?
 * The article as a whole seems a bit quote-heavy
 * File:Harris_and_Klebold_Time_Magazine_covers.jpg does not have a FUR for this article; same with File:Sens._Hatch_and_Lieberman_at_the_Senate_Committee_on_Commerce,_Science_and_Transportation_hearing.jpg
 * I've made some changes. Check to see if they are acceptable.

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Multiple inconsistencies in reference formatting.
 * Specify. I've followed all the rules that I know of with regards to this. What did I get wrong?

Comment: on the last issue (refs formats), I've looked at the first column of the refs, and found:
 * A confusing, possibly incomplete date "2000-11" in ref 2
 * It's a monthly magazine. That's pretty much it: November 2000. I was told to pick one date format.
 * Non-italicized "NME" in ref 3
 * Great catch. I missed this one. Fixed.
 * Hyphens rather than dashes in page ranges, refs 29 and 41
 * All fixed.

This was a fairly cursory check and there may be similar issues; I've not looked at the other 2 columns, where similar issues might arise. It's tedious, I know, but every ref needs to be checked out thoroughly. Brianboulton (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Any other issues? -Red marquis (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting that you check the other two columns with great care, looking for the sorts of things that I found. I'm sorry I don't have time to do this for you. Brianboulton (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I already took care of the reference issues you pointed out. I have provelt. Made everything a cinch. -Red marquis (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose because of the inappropriate usage of non-free content. I am not opposing on a "technicality" or anything here, this article really is not in line with our guidelines or policy. I have already removed two images which lacked even an attempt at a rationale for this use. The music samples contain useless, copy-pasted rationales without making clear what article they are meant for, File:Marilyn Manson tarot cards.png contains ten separate non-free images (the fact they happen to be in one file is not really relevant...) while File:Marilyn Manson in Bishop regalia.jpg shows a publicity photograph used, apparently, to "illustrate relevant imagery to the album"; neither the photograph nor the imagery are discussed in the section. J Milburn (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And now two unwarranted magazine covers have been added to the article after just changing the title of the rationale. The fact this was a cover story is mentioned in passing. That does not mean that we need to see two covers. J Milburn (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * They are not unwarranted. And they have been there long before I changed the title. You just deleted it. The fact the two appeared on Time twice was a critical component of his counter-criticism. Also, the title of the rationale is negligible. Columbine and its aftermath occurred during the Rock is Dead Tour, he addressed the issue in Holy Wood which means the image could appear in both articles. I have written a better rationale since the revision you're linking to and I have removed the delete tag. -Red marquis (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's further justification: According to Non-free content ~ acceptable use, a copyrighted image can be used if 1.) Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary or 2.) Images that are themselves subject of commentary.


 * They are. -Red marquis (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To address some more of the concerns you pointed out; 1. Useless music sample rationales? How are they useless or copy pasted? That's all the form asked from me when I uploaded the files. 2. I've moved the bishop regalia picture to the section that discusses it. 3. I've removed the tarot cards. Is there anything else that I need to gut? -Red marquis (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What the? Why is this being closed already? -Red marquis (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.