Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Master of Puppets/archive3


 * 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2015.

Master of Puppets

 * Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Metallica's third studio album, often cited as their musical peak. I think it is well researched and hope it satisfies the FA criteria.--Retrohead (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Media check - all OK
 * File:Metallica_-_Master_of_Puppets_cover.jpg - OK (fair-use within policy)
 * File:Metallica_-_Master_of_Puppets.ogg - length OK, please add a short specific purpose of use (which aspects of the song are illustrated?)
 * Additionally, this song sample has a second problem with "minimal usage", as the song is already extensively covered in a second article. Multiple usages for the same purpose in separate articles are generally discouraged (WP:NFC). Suggestion: could you use a different song as sample of the album's style to avoid this issue?
 * I removed it from the song article, and added a more specific rationale for its use.
 * OK thanks. Not really a big fan of this strict rule myself (for all cases), but it's the current handling within WP:NFC. GJ


 * File:Metallica_(1986)_Welcome_Home_(Sanitarium)_sample.ogg - length OK, needs a more specific "purpose of use", see point 2.
 * File:Kirk Hammett playing.jpg - I suggest to replace this one with a different image: 1) the original Flickr link is no longer available 2) the original uploader, while uploading in good faith, had several of their uploads removed for copyright reasons. Considering the image looks somewhat professional and has Photoshop changes in its EXIF, it would be better to use a different image. It's not an outright copyvio, but the image's history is unclear.
 * I could not find other images showing the band performing something from this album, so if it's not a flagrant copyright violation, I'd prefer to keep it.
 * After reasonable research, let's keep the image then (I couldn't find a similar version as well, thanks for double-checking). GJ
 * Bonus question: probably obvious and just my lack of knowledge, but how do you know that Hammett is performing "Master of Puppets" (and not a different song) here, as stated in the caption?
 * I've seen this show on YouTube, and this is an angle from "Master of Puppets".
 * I knew it was something obvious :) - have updated the description to include that detail. GJ

(ec) Some clarification and cleanup needed, but nothing unsolvable. GermanJoe (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Update (some points struck) Could you expand/specify the "purpose of use" for the second sample as well please? Aside from that minor point all media should be gtg. GermanJoe (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, added a more specific explanation for the use of the "Welcome Home (Sanitarium)" sample.--Retrohead (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, have updated the header status (all OK). GermanJoe (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments from Tomica
 * The pictures have alt, good
 * Ok, noted.


 * There are no redirects
 * Noted, tnx.


 * There is 1 dead link and some others that need to be fixed
 * Yes, this was a case at the GA review. You need to be a user on Classic Rock in order to enter their website.


 * Okay, the lead it's kinda confusing. Although it's grammatically totally fine, usually we follow the format; general info, composition, critical reception, commercial performance, singles, tour... Do you think you can re-arrange it?
 * Now it is background–composition–critical reception–commercial performance–touring


 * Metallica embarked on a five-month tour of the US in support of Ozzy Osbourne. → This got me confused... do you mean with a support from Ozzy Ozbourne? And does the tour have a name?
 * They were supporting Ozzy. The tour was called Damage, Inc. Tour, mentioned in the 'Touring' section.


 * Background and recording:
 * already entitled Master of Puppets ---> already is redundant
 * The word "already" implies to the reader that the album title was given before the songs were completed.
 * after the end of each quote sentence u need to provide a reference — Tom (T2ME) 19:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, you've thought of Hammett's statement. Done.--Retrohead (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments from —  ₳aron
 * You could use a flat list for the producers in the Info box so that they are bulleted.
 * Flat list added.


 * album released on a major label. → album to be released on a major label.
 * I used only released because it is finished action. To be released would indicate that the album is about to be released.


 * Master of Puppets is the band's → Master of Puppets was the band's
 * Corrected.


 * the Billboard 200 and → the Billboard 200 album chart and
 * I think it's safe to assume that an album would chart on an album chart.


 * and became → and it became
 * It is dropped in the second clause because it is part of a sentence that refers to the album.


 * certified platinum. It was certified 6× platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in 2003 for shipping six million copies in the United States. → certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and it has since been certified six-times platinum denoting shipments of more than six million copies in the United States.
 * and has been → and it has been
 * It is dropped in the second clause because it is part of a sentence that refers to the album.


 * and is one of the most influential heavy metal albums → and is has become one of the most influential heavy metal albums.
 * the meaning of both alternatives is the same, the second one is just a bit wordier.


 * The cover was designed → The album's artwork was designed
 * Artwork and cover art are synonyms. I opted to use a more diverse vocabulary, although both term are used throughout the article.


 * What was Ozzy Osbourne doing? Solo tour, group tour? If so, what tour?
 * Ozzy was touring with a band of his own (not with Black Sabbath). The sources I looked in doesn't mention the name of his tour, just the name of Metallica's— Damage, Inc. Tour.


 * Metallica honored the album's twentieth anniversary in 2006 by playing it in its entirety. → Where?
 * The tour is explained in detail in the 'Live performances'. I don't think listing various countries in the lead would make it read as a summary of the entire article.
 * Saying in a world tour or something similar won't hurt. It's not a complete sentence. —  ₳aron  23:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok, world tour can be added.--Retrohead (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

These are just things I picked up on from the Lead alone. Also, neither the Commercial performance section nor the Chart table mention of or includes it's peaked of number 19 on the Billboard Hard Rock album chart. There's a lot of white space once you get to the Personnel, Charts and Certifications. I'd make Personnel two columns, and move the Certifications table up into the Charts section, re-naming it Charts and certifications, with both as sub-sections. 09:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * These suggestions are a mere case of editorial preference. Another editor might suggest bringing the sections back to the older state based on WP:MOS-ALBUM. I appreciate your overall input and time, but the points above were addressed by a two copyeditors and reverting the prose back to its "verbose" character might hurt the nomination.--Retrohead (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because two copyeditors did it one way, doesn't mean it's the "right" way. As such, I believe how it is right now is hurting it. It's not about personal editorial style, it's about the management of content and structure, and it's nothing that hasn't been suggested to me before. —  ₳aron  23:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments from Earthh
 * album released on a major label. → album to be released on a major label.
 * Doesn't "to be released" suggests that the album is about to be released? The album was released 30 years ago (finished action), and released only is grammatically correct, I believe.
 * In this instance no, it doesn't.


 * album to be certified platinum. It was certified 6× platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in 2003 for shipping six million copies in the United States. → album to be certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). It has since been certified six-times platinum denoting shipments of over six million copies in the United States.
 * Don't you think it is more appropriate to feature the year (2003) instead of the undetermined "since"?
 * Since we're talking about the lead, details like year of certification goes in the article's body.


 * and is one of the most influential heavy metal albums. → and has become one of the most influential heavy metal albums.
 * Done.


 * I would split Personnel in two columns and rename it Credits and personnel.
 * There are three sub-sections there, which one should go where?
 * I would remove them, anything like this is good.


 * I would also move Certifications to Charts, renaming the section Charts and certifications.
 * WP:ALBUM/CERT suggests these information to be placed in independent sections.
 * In case the album has achieved multiple certifications. Here the info relating charts and certifications can be put together.


 * There's a very inconsistent use of publishers; either use them for all or none.
 * The book citation should necessary feature its publisher, as for the other links (websites, online magazines/news) I've omitted the publisher and kept only the author and work fields.
 * I see at FN46 Billboard (Nielsen Business Media), and then in the following source the publisher is omitted. According to cite web, the publisher parameter should not be used for magazines and newspapers.

It's a fairly strong article,, but isn't FA-worthy yet. Best of luck improving the article.--Earthh (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the verifiability policy, you should cite sources clearly and precisely, specifying page or section (see Help:References and page numbers). I suggest that you use shortened footnotes that link to a shortened reference in a list with a separate reference list with full citations (WP:SRF).

Closing comment -- I'm afraid this nom has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.