Wikipedia:Featured article review/Iron Maiden/archive1

Review commentary

 *  No original author identifiable, messages left at Bio, Metal Music, and Music. Sandy 17:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Message left for PopUpPirate. Sandy 04:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This must be such an old FA I could not find out, when it became FAC. My main problem is the total lack of inline citations. Some further problems are:
 * The toooo long lead (7 paragraphs).
 * The 5 external links in the lead, which are also not linked in the recommended way.
 * The "Iron Maiden in popular culture" section which is listy.--Yannismarou 17:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Very few inline citations (which ideally should be converted to cite.php), doesn't conform to WP:LAYOUT, listy pop culture, lead has too much detail and is too long rather than being a compelling summary of the article, weasly uncited statements ("The album was generally seen as having dark, brooding songs that seemed more melancholy and introspective than usual."), and more weasly uncited statements ("In February 1999, Bayley left the band, apparently by mutual consent. The main reason for his departure was his inconsistent onstage performance - Blaze's voice was not up to the rigours of a full-on Maiden tour."). Needs a rewrite and citations. Sandy 18:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It was promoted a little over a year ago, around 10 August 2006. I've fixed the link to the discussion in the featured template if anyone would like to see it. While I'm here, I'll mention that the images claiming fair use need rationale.  Pagra shtak  04:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Lack of inline citations are indeed a problem (1. c.). As a Maiden fan, I can tell a mile off most of this info has been taken from Mick Wall's official biography of the band called "Run to the Hills" - if anyone owns this and wants to help keep this article's FA status, then dust this book off the shelf and start citing. The critical comments on each album which Sandy has picked up on are also taken from Mick Wall's book (the author's own opinions). The lead needs a compelling rewrite indeed. The "Iron Maiden in popular culture" section is a trivia section in disguise which needs rewriting (1. a.). Also, the article fails to discuss Iron Maiden's legacy which means it isn't comprehensive - as someone who has done the odd music interview or two for a metal website, I can personally attest that when the discussion of influences pops up it's Iron Maiden that pops up the most. LuciferMorgan 09:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Further comment - I've converted some of the links into inline citations. Others need converting, but the problem is they either lead to dead links, or the content has changed. I'm trying to use the Wayback Machine, but it is currently experiencing technical difficulties - I'll get back onto this once it's up and running again. Could someone blanket the article with citation requests? If this isn't possible, could someone paste the article at my sandbox, and then blanket it with citation requests so that once the requests are fulfilled criterion 1. c. will hopefully be met. I'll have a go at converting the listy "Iron Maiden in popular culture" section into prose also, but any other 1. a. violations I'm ill equipped to deal with. Would this popular culture section be better entitled "Legacy", yes or no? LuciferMorgan 16:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I added some cite tags, but I always hate to blanket an article with cite tags, because it's hard to tell (without having the sources) if one citation might cover an entire paragraph, or if citations are needed for individual facts. I hit individual facts within paragraphs, and the end of the paragraph when I didn't find a particularly ORish statement within the paragraph.  I only did a few sections:  I'll wait to see if that works for you.  Renaming popular culture to legacy sounds good to me.  I wouldn't object to one book as a source if you make an attempt to verify any extraordinary claims with other sources.  For example, if a book about a music group says "this is the best rock group that ever existed", I'd sure want to see another source saying the same thing :-) Sandy 17:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for your time Sandy, it's very much appreciated. I currently have a few things to do (life prohibits serious Wiki work), but since FAR is usually open 2 weeks this shouldn't be a problem. If you wished to blanket with citation requests, you could have pasted the article in my sandbox. I'll leave another comment when I've done further work upon the article - this one is utterly riddled with weasly statements, it's like reading a press release in parts! LuciferMorgan 17:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you'd prefer, grab a copy of my tagged version for your sandbox, and then revert my tags. No problem; whatever makes it easier for you to do the work.  On the other hand, putting them right in the article may motivate others to help.  Sandy 17:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll leave them in the article, as indeed it may motivate others to help - needs a ton of cites, so it'd help, but if I got to it solo then so be it. Could someone give a serious look at the links I converted in order to make sure I did them correctly? Two cites are emerging slightly different under the "Notes" section. LuciferMorgan 17:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand the question, as I didn't see a problem. Sandy 21:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Check the refs under the "Notes" section, namely 4 and 5. Between the URL and the last accessed info there seems to be a gap, which I'm trying to rectify, can you notice it now? Can you help? LuciferMorgan 22:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried a small change (punctuation inside ref URL), but there's still a space. I find it happens, don't know why, don't worry about it.  Sandy 22:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't the only page with the problem, this bug should be reported in bugzilla. Michaelas10 12:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(UTC)
 * Sandy, is there a reason you changed the "Notes" section so surnames come first and Christian names last? Is there a Wiki policy on this? I'm just curious. Are there any other comments you may have? LuciferMorgan 16:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed them to a bibliographic style that will make it easier to locate the reference that agrees with a footnote, alphabetically. I don't know that there's a Wiki policy; it's per citation style guides.  APA style guide,  MLA style guide,  AMA citation style.  Without alphabetical references, it's hard for the reader to find a book that corresponds to a particular inline footnote.  Does this cause a problem, or do I need to be educated about another style?  Sandy 16:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't you let just the surnames? The reader can see the full name in "References". In "Notes" it is not necessary. I would also suggest to try to incoroporate most of the links of the "See also" section in the main prose.--Yannismarou 19:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I must have misunderstood your question. I suppose surname alone works fine.  Sandy 19:30, 12 October 2006


 * I was merely curious regarding the surname first, Christian last style. When I learnt how to inline cite, I used the Halloween film article as a guide. It's not that I disagree with it, just keen to learn something new. LuciferMorgan 07:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed someone has added 2004 for the Mick Wall book - sorry guys, but that was the 3rd revised edition, whereas I own the 2nd one from 2001. This may cause confusion as the page numbers I'm quoting are from the 2nd one. Can someone help? I don't know what plan of action to take. LuciferMorgan 22:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone out there even care? LuciferMorgan 20:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/August_31%2C_2005 - is this possible to use as a guide for the lead section? LuciferMorgan 00:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that this with one or two more sentences would be a very nice lead.--Yannismarou 11:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The inline cites I add to the sentence just before the full stop, but somehow they end up appearing shortly after, after the full stops. Is some asshole messing with the cites? LuciferMorgan 00:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think I got what you mean, but inline cites should go after the punctuation not before.--Yannismarou 12:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't get what you mean either by punctuation. Inline cites either come before the full stop of the cited sentence, or after. Which I don't know. If it is after, I'd like it on record it looks rather shitty and rubbish after the full stop, and falsely implies the sentence after is being cited too. LuciferMorgan 16:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Punctuation mark I mean. According to MoS (I don't know where it is exactly mentioned, but I am sure about that), the inline citation goes exactly after the full stop. You can citate within the sentence, if you definitely want to emphasize on something specific within the sentence. Does this help?--Yannismarou 18:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah it does, thanks. I don't like the style, but I'll grudgingly conform. I wish more Metal fans'd help with the article though - they're more a hindrance than a help. LuciferMorgan 18:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations (1c), LEAD and section structure (2). Marskell 13:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - This was moved on within the fortnight exactly bar for one day when I've been (I admit only when I can, which isn't much) working on it, whereas others which have been left for dead have been left open for longer. I'm personally annoyed with that, but I'll defer. If I can address the concerns I will, though I don't recall any mention of criterion 2 at FAR. If I can't address the concerns, I'll vote Remove (a little gutting I can't spend more time on it, but it needs a ton of work). LuciferMorgan 18:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I suggest some more time is given to LuciferMorgan. We can wait here until the changes he has in minda re implemented.--Yannismarou 17:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - There's so much wrong with the article I have insufficient time to work on it unfortunately. I can work on it sporadically from time to time and try get it up to GA if its defeatured (which seems more viable right now). I'd also like it on record that Wikiproject Metal is the worst Project on Wikipedia, and gives people like me a bad name. LuciferMorgan 22:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony 10:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove unless it receives a serious copy-edit. Here are examples.
 * "world-wide"—One word, please.
 * "(who did all artwork for the first 8 studio albums and first 3 live albums)"—Did all artwork" is a little crass for a professionallly written text. Please spell out numbers less than 10, unless there's a good reason not to.
 * "Eddie is also featured in a first-person shooter video game - Ed Hunter - as well as numerous books, graphic comics and band-related merchandise." Do we need "also" and "as well as"?
 * "Although Iron Maiden was a metal band influenced by Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, UFO, Yes, Wishbone Ash, Apocalypse, Queen and Judas Priest, the earlier music had undoubted punk overtones." Does the fact that they're a metal band need to be repeated here? I think your point concerns their influences.
 * "... original vocalist Paul Day became replaced by the outlandish Dennis Wilcock, a huge KISS fan who utilized fire, make-up and fake blood during live commitments." "Became replaced"? "Used", not the ugliest word in English, "ulitized". Is "commitments" the right word?
 * "A quartet in 1977's initial beginning,"—Huh? Lucifer, I can sort of make out the meaning here, but that's not at issue: it's the wording (Tony).


 * Comment When someone agrees to do a gig, this is a commitment, so yes it is the right word. Also into 1977 they were a quartet, though this soon changed, all in the beginning of 1977. Personally, while I think it could do with a copyedit, I seriously fail to understand what is being highlighted in the last two points. The rest I can understand though, but it seems like Wikipedia wants the word 'was' used all over the shop - well feel free to use it all over the shop. I personally can't be bothered anymore. LuciferMorgan 17:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you suggest an alternative then Tony? Personally my copyedit skills ain't great. LuciferMorgan 17:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I put a lot of effort into getting this featured the first time round. There's that much POV that keeps creeping in, and pointless lists... needs a lot of work... --PopUpPirate 17:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, damn Metal editors seem to put in the fancruft at every corner. LuciferMorgan 18:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite the small work I did on it, I vote Remove. LuciferMorgan 11:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I do have a secret list of possibly good copy-editors, by topic area; but I tend not to give them out (might antagonise them to overuse them). A little research of the edit history may reveal one or two people who have the capacity and care about this article ...? Tony 12:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove. Taking into consideration the present situation.--Yannismarou 14:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove. A salute to LuciferMorgan and PopUpPirate for their efforts to save this article:  it's unfortunate that other editors undermined their commendable effort.  Sandy (Talk) 18:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - There was just too much work to be done really as the weasly statements riddled the article, and other editors were more interested in minor little details rather than the article as a whole. Least it's looking slightly better, even though it'll lose FA. LuciferMorgan 10:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)