Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)/archive6


 * 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 User:Ian Rose 10:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC).

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

 * Nominator(s): Red marquis (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... Actually, I am renominating this page because the last time I tried to get this FACd, it was closed due to inactivity. Sorry about that but I've been busy. We all have to go about the business of living and making a living and can't be expected to monitor a page on Wikipedia everyday while waiting for input from the FAC reviewing committee. I'm trying to do my best to see this through so please extend me some leeway. Being a basement-dwelling nerd whose whole social life revolves around Wikipedia is a costly hobby and I'm not prepared to commit anymore than the bare minimum to said lifestyle. I've committed more than enough to this one article.

On to business, I have rewritten the article to remove the POV and conjecture noted in the previous nomination. I hope this is more satisfactory.

Red marquis (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Have you received permission to nominate this before the 2 weeks cool-down period was up? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Dammit. I forgot about that. Great, I have to wait another 2 weeks. This whole process is getting to be ridiculous. How many more times does this article have to be nominated before it goes through? -Red marquis (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well you're making it too easy on yourself, Red. You've been around FAC long enough to know the process. Even if you'd asked permission, I'd have to balance the lack of commentary on the last FAC (generally a reason to permit early renomination) vs. your apparent lack of interest in that nomination. You can commit all you like to an article's development, but you have to commit to a review you initiate. A few days away is one thing, 18 is another. Now I don't actually get a kick out of smacking people with the rule book, can you convince me you'll stick with it this time? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm here again. And I see this nomination hasn't been retracted. Let's get it on. I'll be here again tomorrow. -Red marquis (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm still here and waiting. This basement is starting to get claustrophobic. -Red marquis (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello? -Red marquis (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm still here. If no one's going to review this article, let's close the nomination so I can begin the 2 week cool off period. -Red marquis (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is rather long article, so forgive me if I do it in pieces. What I have read so far seems very solid.  Some comments (and I am not a Manson fan, though I have had some incidental contact with the music industry so I may be able to follow the bouncing ball along here)


 * Lede:
 * " recorded in several undisclosed locations, including Death Valley and Laurel Canyon" undisclosed at the time of recording, of release, or not at all?


 * This line was taken from an article that came out at the time of recording. But the information was never released after the album came out. -Red marquis (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Then it would certainly be known to the fans, and would there be a need for the band to repeat itself? I've had some experience with music fans and fan boards, though I am not active on any today.  They tend to know stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Background etc.
 * "opportunists looking to fill their churches or to get elected [during the US presidential election of 2000]" I think rather than the presidential election, you may mean the 2000 elections in general. Surely they were not all running for president?


 * Good point. Perhaps, [...during the US general election of 2000] is better? -Red marquis (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would simply say "2000 U.S. elections", and I guess a link to the presidential election is OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What on earth is a cultural observer?


 * Admittedly, I pilfered that phrase from the article it's linked to.
 * I'd change it. It sounds much too imprecise and new age to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "The committee heard testimony from cultural observers, professors and mental-health professionals (including William Bennett and the Archbishop of Denver, Charles J. Chaput)" The implication is that both men are mental health professionals, Suggest you break up the parenthetical and put each where he belongs in the list of categories of witnesses.


 * Upon second glance, I agree. Rephrased thusly, "...heard testimony from "cultural observers" (such as William Bennett and the Archbishop of Denver, Charles J. Chaput), professors and mental-health professionals."


 * "with everyone " perhaps "with all members"


 * Changed as suggested.


 * "In contrast, his sessions with Ramirez were less demanding while they experimented with absinthe" While I understand what is meant, I'm not sure I like the "while". That makes for a messy cause and effect.  Suggest a modest rephrase.


 * Replaced "while" with "as"


 * "The band visited Death Valley a number of times" I thought you said part of it was recorded there? Both in the lede and just above here


 * The next sentence should clarify that statement. From what I gathered in reading their interviews, they went there to draw inspiration. However, since they were there already, went ahead and recorded samples of ambient noises that they experimented with later, in the studio. The results were then used in the songs to generate an extra layer of atmosphere.


 * " via satellite at a current-events convention" perhaps "at" should be "to" as he was not there.


 * "to" does sound more clear.


 * Concept
 * "This religion" I don't think you should start the paragraph that way as the religion was introduced in the middle of the previous paragraph, not at its start. Perhaps "Holy Wood's religion"


 * How about, "Known as "celebritarianism",[50] Holy Wood's religion parallels Christianity."?-Red marquis (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not move the celebrationism into the previous paragraph to the first mention, and start with "Holy Wood's religion …" I like starting paragraphs with flat, definitive statements.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Themes
 * "Drawing similarities between the Cold War period of 1960s America and the 1990s, Manson uses allegories from that decade" Which decade?


 * The 60's. I'll rephrase it as "Manson uses allegories from the former decade". I'm not sure if that will be clearer though. I think people might confuse "former" to also mean the 90's since it ended more than a decade ago. -Red marquis (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "earlier"?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "It was the first piece of music blamed for inciting violence" That is a terribly broad statement. There have been riots at the classical music performances, e.g. the Rite of Spring.


 * Hmmm... actually that line was an opinion made by Manson in an interview. I don't know why it's phrased to sound like a fact. Rephrase as such, "Manson believes it was the first piece of music blamed for inciting violence:" -Red marquis (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough, signaling enough doubt to the reader to get by.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking into this article. I was about to give up yet again. I'll look into your comments in the coming week and make all the necessary changes to perfect this article. -Red marquis (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I will try to get more comments to you shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Some more:

Resuming


 * Composition
 * "The 1969 Rolling Stones album Let It Bleed (another source of inspiration) was written in the same house where Manson wrote Holy Wood." This was presumably intentional on Manson's part? By the way, I thought the album was written by the whole band?  I checked footnote 26 (as of the version of 0752 on 11 October) but I find that link is dead.  You rely fairly heavily on that source so you need to find another version or replace it.  You may want to be proactive and run the deadlinks checker.  You're going to get a source review before promotion is considered (if you get that far, I'm only one person)


 * How do you run the deadlinks checker again? I forgot how. It's been a while. -Red marquis (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * here. I think it's linked on the peer review page but oddly, not on the FAC.  I think one of the coordinators mentioned he tried to add it to the toolbox but the toolbox is difficult to edit.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Most of the songs have three or four parts" that is, the songs can be subdivided into 3 or 4 parts, or there are 3 or 4 singing voices?
 * The review excerpts that follow Manson's statement re art rock seem a bit out of place and more to bolster Manson's statement than anything else. Are there dissenting views, and is this the place for that discussion?
 * Discussion of album title: Is it worth mentioning that "in the valley of the shadow of death" is, with a slight change, from the 23rd Psalm?
 * ""GodEatGod" follows Adam as he meditates in the desert." I would precede with "The first track," and put a comma after GodEatGod. Jesus did something similar btw, didn't he? Have comparisons been drawn? Just a suggestion because of the biblical shout outs.
 * "with a sample of Don Gardiner's" I think you should link to sample, at least to a definition. I know what it is, others may not.
 * " assassinations of Jesus Christ" hmm. How is it an assassination?
 * Promotion
 * Bridging back to the last chronological section, I don't see anything about post-production work.
 * Release
 * "On the evening of November 14, 2000, Manson, Ramirez, and John 5 took a break from the tour to celebrate the album with a brief invitation-only acoustic set " This was, in other words, an album release party. I would characterize it as such.  Also, when did the album leak?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And the remainder


 * Release
 * "The third single was released on September 3, 2001 in the UK and October 6 2001 in the US." I guess the obvious question is, was there a delay in release due to 9/11?
 * Cover
 * "the Disney World logo of the 1960s" Walt Disney World did not open until 1972.
 * "The cover was controversial; some copies were issued with a cardboard sleeve featuring an alternative cover, " suggest the second "cover" be changed to "design".
 * Formats
 * Can some mention be made of iTunes?
 * Tour
 * Governor and representative should probably be capitalized, as they are used as titles.


 * Which is it? In one of the reviews/copyedits (I forgot which one) I was told it should be lowercase.
 * My understanding of the MOS is that when used as a title, i.e., Governor John Smith, it's capped, when used otherwise, like "the Kansas governor, John Smith", it is lower case. I can't refer you to a specific point as the MOS is voluminous. Look around.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I also note there seems to be no template stating that this is a FAC on the article talk page. That's a bit unusual. Can you say why?


 * I'll await your responses.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: I won't be able to work on the article this week. I'll be back next week. Please hold off on closing it. Thanks. Red marquis (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Closing comment -- This one not only disappeared from my watchlist due to inactivity, but also for some reason from WP:FACL... Anyway, as neither the article nor the review has seen any interest for over two weeks, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Pls do not renominate before actioning outstanding comments and awaiting the usual two-week break after archiving. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.