Wikipedia:Peer review/Backmasking/archive1

Backmasking
A fascinating topic with lots of material. I'm willing to do as much work as it takes to get to FA. Is it well-organized? Should the fair-use images be included? Should I upload more audio samples? Also, have the concerns about original research/quality of sources been addressed?  Λυδ α cιτγ  18:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 22:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually already did an APR at Talk:Backmasking.  Λυδ α cιτγ  02:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically, the only thing the article needs is reorganization. But it needs a lot of it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well sourced, and the beginning of the article is good. But it quickly descends into prose-lists towards the end, and could use a lot reorganization. For instance, in the "In the digital age" section, the second (and larger) paragraph is about a recent parody of analog backmasking. Instead, it would be more appropriate to mention that digital backmasking tools are now common (one even came with the built-in "sound recorder" in Windows 3.0).
 * Should the "alleged use" section be something like "contested accusations of backmasking"? After-all, these are never claims by the artist, but by those who oppose the artist. Also, this section should be after the section on uncontested use. ("Deliberate use" is redundant, since the lead defines backmasking as always deliberate.)
 * In my opinion, the parody prose-list (which will only grow in time) should be its own list, and should be summarized in this article.
 * Should "Satanic backmasking" be its own section? After all, Slayer used it "only for effect", which means it should be in "aesthetic use". Most of the other bands in that section are hardly notable.
 * I don't see the difference between "Critical or explicit messages" and "Censorship" as reasons for backmasking.

Any further suggestions for macro-reorganization, or is the remaining reorganization just providing a flow for the examples?  Λυδ α cιτγ  02:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "Use" section and Parody subsection are too list-like, and I'll try to provide some narrative and/or eliminate superfluous examples. Are you aware that there is a separate list of backmasked messages? (It isn't organized by type, however.)
 * The reason I think Satanic backmasking should be a separate section is the same reason why those messages are notable: because the majority of the mass hysteria focused on Satanic backmasking, and therefore actual Satanic backmasking is important.
 * The "Critical or explicit messages" are messages recorded to avoid censorship, while the "Censorship" section deals with backmasking as censorship.

Flow improved for "Use" section.  Λυδ α cιτγ  23:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)