Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indestructible (Disturbed album)/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 00:26, 31 January 2009.

Indestructible (Disturbed album)

 * ''Nominator(s): User:Dude527, User:Timmeh, Prophaniti, Revrant, DisturbedTim90
 * previous FAC (00:25, 11 October 2008)

All of the above parties of myself, Timmeh, Prophaniti, Revrant, and DisturbedTim90 would like to nominate this article for a Featured Article status, for a second time, because we believe it is ready. The article meets the FA nomination requirements, and has come a long way since its creation. We believe it to be an example of a great, complete music article. It has gone through extensive editing since its last Featured Article nomination, and has been expanded. We believe it is ready to be a Featured Article, and so we nominate it for a second time. -- The Guy complain edits 02:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Efe
 * "The album features two songs that were written by Disturbed before their first album, The Sickness, but were never previously featured on an album, titled "Perfect Insanity" and "Divide"." It reads like the title of the album is "Perfect Insanity" and/or "Divide". --Efe (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Re-structured to say, " The album features two songs, titled "Perfect Insanity" and "Divide", that were written by Disturbed before their first album, The Sickness, debuted, but were never previously featured on an album. -- The Guy complain edits 03:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Better. Now clear. --Efe (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "including relationships that did not work out" Is there any proper word/single word other than work out? --Efe (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't think of anything more solid, so I eliminated completely the "did not work out," in favor for the simple, straightforward, "negative relationships." -- The Guy complain edits 03:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What does the source says? --Efe (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is a direct quote from the lead singer of band David Draiman, and it says, "I’ve had really bad relationships that I’ve been in and out of. They’ve left their mark." -- The Guy complain edits 03:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why dont you quote "bad relationships"? --Efe (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. -- The Guy complain edits 04:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "a motorcycle accident he was in" Same through with the above comment. "He was in" could be tighten. --Efe (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed it to "a motorcycle accident that he was involved with." -- The Guy complain edits 03:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the lead, there is no mention of the critical reviews. --Efe (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to mention critic scores, "It was received fairly poorly, earning a score of 57% on review-aggregating website Metacritic, based on six reviews, but still managed to peak number-one on the Billboard 200 in its first week, making it Disturbed's third consecutive number-one debut on the Billboard 200, which had only been achieved by five rock bands prior." -- The Guy complain edits 03:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per comprehensiveness concerns. Just looking at reviews, it relies solely on reviews that are accessible by the Internet. Now, web references are perfectly fine (not to mention convenient), but according to Metacritic, the album was reviewed by major publications such as Billboard and Q, which are not referenced in the article. I'm sure Mojo and Spin probably reviewed it too. These publications have more critical weight than IGN.com, About.com, and PopMatters. Additionally, the wholesale absence of print sources (aside from one, which is a booklet for the CD) makes me wonder what other useful sources might have been excluded. For example, has a musician magazine like Guitar World or Modern Drummer done a feature on the album? If so, these sorts of articles are invaluable because they analyze and discuss the nuts and bots of the music, from composition to equipment. See what else you can dig up, either by asking other Wiki editors, visiting a library, or by procuring magazine back issue yourselves. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Just to reinforce the above concerns, I happened on this article. Even then (not even knowing that it was at FAC) I thought that the Reception section was skimpy, considering the relatively mainstream appeal of the album. Just a simple Google search reveals this from Abort, this from Rolling Stone, this from The Music Magazine and this from Mix. Surely you could expand the section from that sample of links. There are definitely more out there, and as Wesley was talking about, we haven't even gotten to the print reviews. There is definitely some work needed in terms of comprehensiveness. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't feel the printed source concerns could be satisfied in a timely matter, or even at all. For one, I don't know if the album was even featured in any magazines.  Another thing, if I found out it was, I would have to research magazines for good sources.  After said research, I'd have to pin-point what issue the album was featured in, then I would have to chance upon that issue.  The chance of this happening for one magazine, let alone more than that, are slim.  If this process is going to fail just because it doesn't contain printed sources, well I simply can't satisfy that in a timely fashion, if at all.  One of the other nominators may have some magazines (but I doubt it, or they would have used information from there by now), and I'll check, but I still can't guarantee that anything will be found.  Still, though, I can understand the Reception section being rather skimpy, and I will work to expand it, but I'm not making any promises for printed sources, just because of the research and resources I'd have to do/utilize in order to first locate which magazine it was featured in, then find a copy.  It doesn't help that I personally live in a rural area, which is self-explanatory.  Please just cut the article some slack on that one. -- The Guy  complain edits 04:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest withdrawing the FAC until you can do more research into print sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for a few more opinions, and, if the other nominators agree (as I am not the only nominator, just the only one who has been online in the past 4 hours or so), we will then withdraw. -- The Guy complain edits 04:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure if this is what you wanted, WesleyDodds, but I found this from Billboard. I realize it's not much, but at least it's something from Billboard. About Rolling Stone and The Music Magazine, I've heard that Rolling Stone reviews aren't very good, and also this thing from The Music Magazine appears to only be talking the song "Indestructible", but not the whole album. Sorry, Dabomb87. And like Dude527 (AKA "The Guy") said, it would be quite difficult to find printed reviews of the album, especially because it has been several months since the album's release. If anyone can find them, please tell us.-- Al max  999  14:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, school work is going to pull me away from this nomination for a few hours. I hope one of the other nominators logs on. If not, I'll be back. -- The Guy complain edits 05:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the Rolling Stone reviews are good is a matter of taste (I'm personally not a fan of the magazine). however, as the foremost music magazine in the United States, their opinion has stronger critical weight that all of the online sources cited in the article. My general point is that by ignoring print sources, the editors have ignored important critical commentary because they aren't available on the web. Without an attempt to seek out print sources, this article is not comprehensive. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What I provided may or may not be helpful to your research. The point I was merely trying to get across is that there is more out there. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's okay that you were trying to help, Dabomb87, I don't mind it at all. And if print sources are all that's needed to make the article comprehensive, then it would be great if some editors here helped to find some. Considering Disturbed is my favorite band, I would do everything in my power to help promote this article to FA status. Unfortunately, I would have trouble finding such print sources. Sorry, but that is one thing that I cannot easily do to improve the article. And on the side, I'm very busy with schoolwork (like "The Guy"), so it would be immensely hard to find the time to look for certain issues of magazines that review the album. I can easily find online sources (as WesleyDodds mentioned, they are convenient :) ), but print sources are, unfortunately, not something that I can easily find.-- Al max  999  03:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree with that, as already stated. If print sources are to define this article's comprehensiveness, then that's a pity, because all of them available would likely have been a June or July issue of a magazine, off shelves, etc.  Those sources are, theoretically, going to become harder and harder to find with each passing day.  I have looked, as promised, and can't find any from any friends, my local library carries none, and I've even looked online for scans, to no avail.  I would look a lot harder, but, as pointed out by Almax999, school work and "real life" comes as priority.  I am usually at school and, if not, I'm doing homework, or it is the weekend.  There are those rare occurrences of me not having school work, or neglecting to do it, but even now, I'm having a difficult time in finding the time to even re-write the Reception section, which would take no more than a half-hour.  I right now have that half-hour, but I'm doing an essay for school tomorrow, and so can't focus on the article.  I'm not saying that this is an excuse if the article is below-par, I just mean to point out that any errors or issues found on a week day that are significant will probably not be tended to by me until the week end.  This article as it is now, is just progress over the last six months, because I have a busy life and a slow working pace.  I still don't know where those other nominators are, either.  Might as well count them out, because they haven't shown up yet, over twenty-four hours into the process.  Anyways, sorry for getting personal.  I notice that the FA nom page says, "If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it."  I don't know if nothing can generally be done about this comprehensiveness issue, but nothing can be done by me, the nominator.  I'd just like to note this; I'd have to go far out of my way. -- The Guy  complain edits 04:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've done an exhaustive search in regard to print publications, unfortunately I cannot find any evidence to suggest that the some of the magazines have reviewed any Disturbed album. I have discovered Q Magazine is on Metacritic, which can be used as a source for the review in question, though Metacritic itself cannot be used as a review source or ratings device, and thus the review can be added to the article, this is also true for Billboard, as it can be directly sourced.


 * I have personally contacted the publications in question in regard to reviews or articles regarding Disturbed centered around or after the release of Indestructible, I have also contacted the publications of Guitar World and Modern Drummer in order to discover more recent articles featuring the band.


 * I should let it be known that the Rolling Stone is a print publication, and is featured in the article, though given it has shown abysmal fact checking in two instances in regard to a Disturbed album and failed to give an actual review of their first, they should not be weighted above other sources simply for their namesake. Revrant (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I do agree with Revrant, but I know that, regardless, name sakes' will be held in higher regard than others in general, and not in a case-to-case manner, like they should. Nothing we can do about that.  But anyways, as another nominator has shown up, and has maybe found some things that can be done to tie up this loose end, can we discuss other parts of the article?  In other words, is comprehensiveness the only issue, and you wouldn't oppose this if it wasn't an issue? -- The Guy  complain edits 01:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You'd still need to track down the issue the Q review was published in, in order to determine the name of the reviewer and thus cite the source correctly. To clarify, my point isn't that there aren't enough print sources; my point is that by relying solely on web resources, the article topic has not been properly researched. I'm not convinced that the topic has been adequately researched yet. Do more research, and then you can bring this back to FAC. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a print source, it is not relying solely on web sources, The Rolling Stone and comments on the style of the album from The Rolling Stone are directly quoted, please do not use such exaggerative language. I will also contact Q Magazine in regard to more than a summary, as it is now apparent you wish for us to quote these editors, not simply feature and source the reviews, and that is impossible without physically buying the magazines in question or as I hope, the magazine willingly giving this specific back issue review excerpt. Revrant (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an addendum, while searching for information I stumbled upon an editor attempting to hurt the nomination outside of the nomination page, thankfully the information presented that would hurt the nomination may now be used to it's benefit as I contact the magazines in question in regard to their articles featuring the band and the album. Unfortunately I cannot link the information present given Wikipedia has decided to blacklist the link among all official pages, which is absolutely not helpful to this FAC process. Revrant (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm saying when you cite a source you need to cite the author, which in these cases means actually tracking down who the author is because Metacritic does not list who it is. To do so, the most straightfoward way is to find the issue in question. I don't know what you're referring to about "attempting to hurt the nomination", but you did respond to a comment on my talk page where NSR77 was merely pointing out that not enough research has been done even though the sources can be found quite easily and why that's why this FAC needs to to be withdrawn. Unless you can find the sources and fill out the article in time, which would be definitely preferrable, but there seems to be some resistance to do so from editors. I'm saying right here, in plain language: this article needs more research. Do it, or withdrawl the nomination, because right now the article clearly fails the comprehensiveness criteria of the Featured Article Criteria. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which meant you wanted quotations about the music rather than just the reviews, which I misunderstood. Well keeping it off of the page, away from prying eyes, and suggesting it be shutdown immediately is rather damaging language on that editor's behalf, though it's not of importance.


 * I may not be able to do so in time, the resistance comes from the fact that the people in question would have to physically buy the back issues from the source, or eBay, and the time required to do that is rather long, the nomination may fail simply because there is no time to respond to this issue. Revrant (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I understand your predicatement (I am also very busy at the moment), but this is where the concept of the wiki comes into play. The great thing about Wikipedia (besides the fact that it is free and anyone can edit) is that—especially for the English Wikipedia—there are always going to be editors who can help with something. Cull the collaborative power of the wiki to achive your goal. Ask around at relevant Wikiprojects for users who have access to print magazines or any sources that could help. Disturbed seems to be reasonably popular, I'm sure that somebody has material. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, as much as I love Disturbed and would love to have a featured article about them, this may need to be withdrawn from FAC, as WesleyDodds has said several times earlier. But, like "The Guy" asked, Is comprehensiveness the only issue here? If the article was comprehensive, would you support it rather than oppose it? If that is true, then as soon as someone is able to resolve this issue the article may be brought back here on a later date (unless someone resolves the issue now). That's a good question, "The Guy", as I was wondering about that too.-- Al max  999  04:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I did some digging, and I find that these may help. These four issues of different magazines; Revolver, Metal Hammer, Guitar World, and Drum! feature interviews with three of the four members separately, and one of the band altogether, apparently. As of finding this, I am trying to contact the publisher of this media, and I am also posting around on various sites. -- The Guy complain edits 19:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I found the July 2008 Revolver magazine article archived in their database. Could this be used? -- The Guy  complain edits 19:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And here is the Guitar World August 2008 article on Dan Donegan. -- The Guy complain edits 20:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's all simply excellent, I had such trouble browsing their site I never bothered, those would be superb for inclusion in the reception section should Wesley agree. Revrant (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I searched Google.com for certain keywords. Was simple enough, I guess, but couldn't find the other two articles.  On that note, the one from Revolver magazine wouldn't be very useful for this article, would it?  It only depicts the band traveling to Kuwait for Operation MySpace, and doesn't refer to the album even once. -- The Guy  complain edits 01:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -
 * What makes http://www.everyhit.com/ a reliable source?
 * Otherwise, the sources used look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Note I'm not weighing in on the printed source debate above, but I can understand the objectors concerns. It's always good to consult ALL the available sources, not just online ones.) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I used that site only because when I was browsing other articles, one that was a Featured Article used that to cite some of its singles. I noticed that it had the ones I needed, so I used it.  But that's irrelevant; I have no idea what makes it reliable according to policies. -- The Guy  complain edits 04:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It has been used in some of the older FAs, but I haven't yet seen anything that shows it's reliable (i.e. has a fact checking system, etc.). Please see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Almax999 -
 * Does the Irish Albums Chart need a source?
 * I noticed that the other charts are sourced, but does this chart need a source? I'm a bit of a newbie when it comes to what needs to be sourced :). I tried searching for the chart, but couldn't find it online.-- Al max  999  06:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good eye. I will remove that information until I can find a proper reference for it. -- The Guy  complain edits 19:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3 - The use of fair use media needs to be worked out.
 * File:Standard Indestructible Disturbed artwork.JPG - This image, because it contains cover art, needs a fair use rationale. I do not believe, however, that its use can be justified since we are already using the album cover. This violates WP:NFCC "minimal use".
 * File:Limited Edition Disturbed Indestructible.JPG - This image, because it contains cover art, needs a fair use rationale. I do not believe, however, that its use can be justified since we are already using the album cover. This violates WP:NFCC "minimal use".
 * Reply comment for two previous comments: Those photographs, meant to depict only the packages as a whole, and not the artwork solely, are used by that template. I took them, specifically for that template, which gives an in-depth analysis of the different versions of the album, and thus, the photographs themselves.  The one for the standard edition of the album would not suffice for the limited edition picture as well, as these are different packages altogether.  Ultimately, these images are not meant to depict the artwork, but the package as a whole.  So I believe that, should I put a fair use rationale in, they would be perfectly in line.  One thing that I would like to point out: Halo 3 uses a similar template; those don't use fair use rationales, though.  Why do ours need to? -- The Guy  complain edits 01:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion continues at Possibly unfree images/2009 January 29. Note that Halo 3 did not receive an image review - I don't think those images are legitimate, either. Awadewit (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * File:PerfectInsanityDisturbedcomparisons.ogg - The article does not discuss the differences between these two versions - we need some critical commentary to justify this clip.
 * File:DivideDisturbedcomparisons.ogg - The article does not discuss the differences between these two versions - we need some critical commentary to justify this clip. What makes early the late versions different?
 * We really need to describe the differences in the article? Wouldn't that constitute original research, as we have no references to verify said differences?  Not to mention, differences are actually so minimal that it'd seem trivial to say "during the chorus of the early version of 'Perfect Insanity', lead singer David Draiman is silent during certain parts of the chorus, whereas in the modern version, he says 'I think I'm losing my mind, I think I'm losing my mind!' during these previous silences."  I really think just saying that the two songs were demos for their debut release is critical enough analysis in-article, with the sound samples being used to clearly depict what that means. -- The Guy  complain edits 01:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is no "critical commentary" available to describe the differences, we cannot justify inclusion of the audio clips, especially since the differences are as minimal as you say. Note that WP:NFC states "Music clips may be used to identify a musical style, group, or iconic piece of music when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the copyright holder." - We need commentary in the article if we are going to have the clips. Awadewit (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully we can resolve these issues quickly. Awadewit (talk) 00:57, 29 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.