Wikipedia:Peer review/Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)/archive2

Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…
 * Previous peer review

I need some rewrite advice in how to trim the "concept" section of this page while still retaining all of the contents therein. I also need help in figuring out what other sections are missing/need expanding upon.

Thanks, Red marquis (talk) 08:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments from Jappalang

Lede
 * The lede is a summary of the main text, and should not contain material not found in the main body. Check the lede for any material not covered in the main body.  The following is an example.


 * "... Holy Wood was a commercial disappointment ..."
 * Where is this stated in the main text, especially when it "was awarded gold status in March 2003 for selling more than 500,000 copies."

Concept
 * The opening sentence is overly long and stuffed with too many ideas. It could have been broken into several simpler shorter sentences.


 * "... despite later reports to the contrary; that the two actually considered them 'a joke'." and "... similar Sufic and Alevi philosophy, "Perfect or Complete Man""; the very archetype for humanity."
 * I believe the semi-colons are wrongly used here.


 * Why is "Guns, God and Government" in bold?


 * "Perfect or Complete Man""
 * What is with the double double-quotation mark at the end of this?


 * What is with the single quotation marks that enclose certain names?


 * "... consumed by Holy Wood's ideology ..."
 * Why is Holy Wood not in italics here?


 * "... another lesser character is found in "Coma Black"."
 * Coma Black is a short piece of artistic work?


 * "... in the wake of Columbine — anti-mimesis or life imitating art), ..."
 * Where is the opening bracket?

Packaging


 * First paragraph is unsourced.

Book and film


 * "... the film never began production."
 * Unsourced: was production never started, was it cancelled, or was it just an idea in the first place?

Guns, God and Government Tour
 * Why is "Guns, God and Government" in italics in the Concept section and not here? Why is Tour capitalised here?  Which is it?


 * "It featured six legs spanning Europe, Japan and North America with a total of 125 shows."
 * Reading this sentence, I have a funny image of the show as a creature with six legs that stretch across Europe, Japan, and North America... I know leg means a section or stage of journey but the phrasing of this sentence leads to a weird imagery...


 * "The Christian organization Citizens for Peace and Respect ..."
 * Why is an organization's name in italics?


 * Last sentence is unsourced.

Critical reception
 * External links should not be in the main text (or tables). The Professional ratings should be cited instead.


 * The section is simply a collection of quotes. There is no analysis involved here, no separation of the reviewers' opinions into thematic paragraphs.

See also
 * Why is there a need for this section when the links are already existent in the article or do not exist at all (WP:SEEALSO)?

Sources
 * How does sputnik.com, a "community-driven music site where our users write and submit album reviews and more" qualify as a reliable source?


 * The youtube link is a copyright violation and should be removed (WP:LINKVIO). I do not think it is from Bowling from Columbine; even if it is, the film's copyright owners, Michael Moore nor the film's producers, certainly did not upload it to Youtube or given permission to.  In fact, judging from the logo that is continually flashed, this is an OzTV segment recorded in about 2002 when Manson played at the festival.  OzTV certainly are not the ones who uploaded their work to Youtube.

Images
 * File:TheDeathSongKids.jpg
 * How does this justify WP:NFCC? The article has no critical commentary on the art here.  This image is quite simply the background of the original image and in my opinion adequately described with such words.


 * File:Rating-Christgau-dud.png
 * I have a feeling this might be a copyright violation and raised the issue at commons:Commons talk:Licensing

I think there is a whole lot of mix-ups in the use of quotation marks (single, double, existent, or non-existent) here. The same goes for the use of italics and bold.

There are several instances of the noun plus -ing constructs. Please see User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing on why this construct is discouraged and how such instances can be improved.

Supposedly this album was part of a greater project, so why is there no mention of the gestation and early parts of the project? The article talks about the Columbine incident but makes no explanation of why or how this album is related to it. This two points are in response to the Origin and recording section because they should have been addressed there. Instead, the chronology is messed up by having relevant material (about the background) in the later Concept section.

I think Concept is too broad a section (and presented in words that are either too vague or complicated). "The record makes numerous references to events and figures in pop culture history to audit everyone's participating role in creating the culture that culminated in Columbine." comes across to me as a complicated phrasing (audit?). Go for simpler phrasings. It is difficult to suggest alternative phrasings or ponder if the structure of the article is sound if one is confused by the words used. The contents of "Origin and recording" and "Concept" (and I think the entire article) should be reorganized and rewritten. I suggest: "Background", "Production", "Book, film, and tour", "Themes", and "Reception". Jappalang (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)