Wikipedia:Peer review/Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)/archive5

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… I need help working out what else needs to be done to attain FAC status. I've made some changes since its FAC nomination and will be making further improvements. What I'm asking for from the reviewer is what deficiencies might there in the current text so I can fix it.
 * Previous peer review

A caveat, though, if you're thinking of reviewing this page, please elaborate on each issue. List every sentence or prose that need copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow. List every structural flaw, etc. Some people who have reviewed this in the past refused to do so, as a result I had no idea what they still had a problem with.

I DO NOT want to deal with that aggravation again. I need reviewers willing to wade through the mud with me, not snipers. If you're not willing to do that, I request you pass from touching this review. If you are, I will be most grateful.

Thanks to the reviewer/s interested in being helpful, Red marquis (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I recognise your frustration, but peer reviewing is a voluntary activity carried out by editors prepared to sacrifice time and effort to helping other editors improve their articles. It is not a service that editors can take for granted, and frankly, the demanding way in which you have expressed your requirements makes it unlikely that anyone will bother to help you. The article received a lengthy review from Jappalang last December, which you do not seem to have acknowledged;  have you taken action on the many points that he raised? If not I suggest you work through those points, and those raised in a sources review carried out by Ealdgyth in November before seeking further help, hopefully in a rather more agreeable manner. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I did rework the article to address all of the issues they raised because they took the time to explain to me my faults. As far as Jappalang's review, I admit that I missed that since I disappeared from Wikipedia for awhile but I have since fixed the problems he raised.-Red marquis (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment No offense, but a little patience will help - this is the third time this article has been nominated at peer review recently. There is a backlog, but we get to all articles within 2 weeks (so if you had waited the first time, this would already have received a review, though I am not sure if it would have been up to your criteria). If you want help with copyediting, have you tried asking at WP:GOCE or one of the volunteers listed as willing to do copyedits at WP:PR/V? Finally, I note that FAC and PR are much more places where problems are pointed out, but not necessarily fixed. The assumption is that if you can write an article, you can read policy and guidelines and try to fix things on your own. So this exchange from the recent FAC is a bit odd:
 * MOS date violations, use 2000-12-01 or Dec 15 1999, not both, choose one; YYYY-MM-DD or the written form. (from )
 * Please expand on where I violated MOS so I can fix each problem. Thanks. -Red marquis (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

How hard is it to pick one date format (your choice) and then go through the article and make sure that all dates follow the format you chose? Try things and if you are still not sure, ask - can someone check to make sure it is not still overlinked (or whatever). By the way, I will review this in a few days (if no one else beats me to it). I will point out what i see as problems, but will assume that you can take my examples and work from there to look for other similar problems to fix. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "How hard is it to pick one date format (your choice) and then go through the article and make sure that all dates follow the format you chose? Try things and if you are still not sure, ask - can someone check to make sure it is not still overlinked (or whatever)." I did do my best to address that particular issue but I don't know if I missed any. I was asking Lakeshade to double check so I could fix each issue but got no response there. It's that lack of follow-up (from any reviewer) of what else I screwed up that is the source of my frustration. -Red marquis (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While I can certainly understand your frustration, might I suggest communicating things a little more clearly? Saying something like "I did do my best to address that particular issue but I don't know if I missed any." and then asking if someone could double check your work is a lot different than what you wrote in FAC "Please expand on where I violated MOS so I can fix each problem." The first approach makes it clear that you have done much or even all of the work. The second seems almost like asking someone else to do the work for you. While reviewers are glad to point out issues, unless someone is also doing a copyedit, almost all reviews do not point out every single grammar issue or every example of any type of problem. As I said I should review this in several days. Off to review others which have been on the PR backlog much longer than this article has. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's gone through vast changes since we last talked and it will go through further ones in the near future. -Red marquis (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, would you like me to wait until it is stable to review it?
 * You can go ahead now (save for the issue on the Concept and Themes section I noted below). Thanks.
 * Also, from my initial quick read I think it would help to add a bit on the band and their career before this album. Imagine a person who was not very familiar with the band - if there were a few sentences on the previous album that would help to provide context to the reader (why did people blame Columbine on Marilyn Manson?)


 * I've been looking at ways of incorporating this after you suggested it and I can't help but feel that the article would sound biased against the band's detractors if I did. -Red marquis (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Still quite busy IRL, but here's a quick reply. A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow. Kid A is a FA and is about the fourth studio album from Radiohead (I know that musically it is quite different). Look how it talks about the background for Kid A, which also followed the band's best selling album to date. I don't know a lot about the band Marilyn Manson, but I think the background should mention their previous album (which I see from the band's article deuted at No. 1 in the US). I also think it would help to mention the band's style, perhaps the original members' stage names (glamour + murderer), and the fact that Sen. Lieberman had already held Senate hearings about the band and the effects its "violent lyrics" had on young listeners. Again, all of this is very clear to you or anyone familiar with the band, but there are many who will not know this and providing context to the reader in the background is good. Since an FAC criterion is comprehensiveness, I also think it would be needed for this to become an FA. The material on Columbine only makes sense if you explain at least a bit of the band's history. I think MM got a bum rap, but then again no one blamed Pat Boone for Columbine ;-) Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Again for the completely ignorant, it would probably help to in some way differentiate between Marilyn Manson the band and Marilyn Manson the lead singer / frontman. So just adding frontman here It was written in [frontman] Marilyn Manson's former home in the Hollywood Hills and recorded in several "undisclosed" locations, including Death Valley and Laurel Canyon.
 * I'll swiftly address this.
 * FInally, I think WP:LEAD and WP:MOSQUOTE would be in favor citing the Kerang! (sp?) quote in the last paragraph of the lead. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Would be or wouldn't be?
 * I replaced it with a more complete version. Is it passable?
 * WP:LEADCITE says in part The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. so I would include an inline ref for the direct quote (although it is not an absolute requirement). My personal preference is to have the lead be less detailed (as an overview) and the body of the article have more detail, so I thought the shorter version of the quote was fine before. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. I was told the lede should have as little citation in it as possible because it is supposed to be a summary of the article. I took the Kerrang quote from the "Legacy" subsection of the "Reception" section (where it is properly cited). -Red marquis (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be unclear - as little citation as possible doesn't mean zero refs in the lead, if the lead has direct quotes or extraordinary claims. Most editors will cite a direct quote in the lead. If the lead said something like this is best selling album of all time (or even its release year) then that would likely need a cite too. Please note that there are a few editors who read WP:LEAD as allowing no cites ever in the lead, but I think most FAC reviewers prefer them for direct quotes and extraordianry claims. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -Red marquis (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It is stable now. However, I will still need to rewrite the Concept and Themes section which is, for want of a better word, lacking compared to the rest. What do you think? I fear, the changes I just finished making on "background and development" might be straying a bit off-topic in terms of cohesion with the rest of the article. -Red marquis (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am busy now, but should start a detailed review in the next 24 hours or so (hopefully soooner). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, the "Themes" subsection is the only section left for me to copyedit. We'll be able to really get into the Peer Review very soon. -Red marquis (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You can go ahead with the review if you like. I'm still bogged down on the Themes section. Btw, what do you think about that section, so far? -Red marquis (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I have also been bogged down. Will start the full review in the next 24 hours (I promise). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this, here are some suggestions for improvement. I will go section by section.
 * I will come back to the lead after I have read the whole article to make sure it follows WP:LEAD
 * As it is the Background section starts with the following sentence: In the aftermath of the Columbine tragedy, Marilyn Manson and his eponymous band became a "scapegoat".[4][5][1][6] I think this assumes that the reader knows more than can safely be assumed. I would still start the background section with a few sentences giving some basic background information on the band and at least its previous album.
 * I agree. I will address it but I'm still working on refining the themes section.


 * I think it would also be useful to describe the Columbine Massacre in a sentence or two. As it is, the article assumes the reader knows the background, but one of the FA criteria is comprehensiveness, so how does the article meet this as it is?
 * Agree
 * Done.
 * Minor point, but the refs are typically given in numerical order (so fix ...Marilyn Manson and his eponymous band became a "scapegoat".[4][5][1][6] to ...Marilyn Manson and his eponymous band became a "scapegoat".[1][4][5][6]
 * I was hoping one of Wikipedia's bots would fix it themselves.


 * very long, complex and clunky sentence. COuld probably be split in two and needs to be cleaned up Their music and imagery, among those of other bands as well as other forms of popular entertainment such as movies and videogames, were alleged by news media outlets to have driven Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold to kill their classmates,[1][7][8][9] despite later conflicting reports—that the two were not fans and considered them "a joke".[1][10][11][12]
 * I've rewritten the ones I could find.


 * What does "swiftly received" mean? I think the intent is that the criticism was swift (i.e. very soon after the massacre people already criticized the band) In spite of this, the group swiftly received vehement public criticism from numerous religious and political figures.[13][14][6] It is also muddled as to time - in spite of this (the later reports that K and H did not like the band), people were swift to criticize them in the immediate aftermath of Columbine?
 * I'll replace it with "immediately" for clarity.
 * I know news stories identify politicians by state and party all the time, but I am not sure the way this article does it follows the WP:MOS. Another question is does it help the reader's understanding to know the political party of the politician? So The day after the shooting, State Senator Dale Shugars (R-Mich.) attended the band's concert at the Van Andel Arena in Grand Rapids, Michigan to conduct research for a proposed bill which would require parental warnings on concert tickets and promotional material for any performer that had released a record bearing the Parental Advisory sticker in the last five years.[15] I think identifying the state here helps, but would probably say something like "The day after the shootings, [plural, more than one person shot] Michigan State Senator Dale Shugars attended the the band's concert at the Van Andel Arena in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Shugars attended to conduct research for a proposed bill which would require parental warnings on concert tickets and promotional material for any performer that had released a record bearing the Parental Advisory sticker in the last five years.[15]" [split a long sentence into two]
 * Good point. Good suggestion too. I will use it.
 * I've adopted the suggestions you pointed out here.


 * In the text box, did Marilyn Manson really include the parenthetical statements explaining the rapes at Woodstock 99 and killing at Altamont? Or are they added by someone else? Insertions in a quote are usually identified by use of [square brackets]
 * They were added by the magazine who interviewed him for clarification.


 * I think it would help to not look at the article for several days and then read it out loud slowly. For example, did you spot the missing word in On April 25, 1999, conservative pundit William Bennett and longtime Manson critic[16] US Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) pointed [to] the group as a contributing factor to the massacre during their appearance on Meet the Press.[8] Again, context and background help here - I had to click the Columbine link to see that the massacre took place on April 20 (5 days prior), but this would be cear if there were a sentence or two on what happened as part of the background here. There is already some background snuck in - the Columbine story is presented piecemeal (shootings mentioned in one place, names of the killers in another, Lieberman's past criticism of the band here) so why not make it clearer?
 * Ok. Will do.
 * I've changed the opening paragraph to help better explain the Columbine massacre. I've been meaning to do it anyway since you mentioned it a few days ago.


 * Watch tense "have been postponed" does not fit with the rest of this section (I think that "had been postponed" would work)  The band also announced that the last five North American dates of their then-ongoing Rock Is Dead Tour have been postponed out of respect for the victims of the massacre.[18]
 * I've rewritten the sentence.


 * Problem image File:Sens. Hatch and Lieberman at the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation hearing.jpg is fair use but not specify a clear source, just "television". Also does this meet WP:NFCC - how does this image increase the reader's understanding of the topic in a way that text alone would not?
 * Changed the source and caption. Hope this is more acceptable.

Break
 * Looks much better - I would still have some sort of background on the band and their previous album.
 * I would move the ref after Lieberman's name in On April 25, 1999, conservative pundit William Bennett and longtime Manson critic[16] US Senator...
 * Problem sentence The following day, ten US Senators, spearheaded by US Senator for Kansas Sam Brownback, signed and sent a letter to Edgar Bronfman Jr., president of Interscope Records-owner Seagrams, requesting the voluntary cesation of his company's distribution of "music that glorifies violence" to children.[19] First off, we already know he's a senator, so why not something like The following day, ten US Senators, spearheaded by Sam Brownback of Kansas, signed and sent a letter to Edgar Bronfman Jr...? Second, why not say something like "president of Seagrams, which owned Intterscope Records,"? Third, I am pretty sure it is "cessation" (not one s, but two). Fourth, is the phrase "to children" modifiying ditribution (in which case "his company's distribution to children of "music that glorifies violence".would be clearer) or is it violence specifically to children?
 * The word "also" can usually be cut (The band also issued a statement later in the day...)
 * Problem sentence (second one - including preceding sentence for context): On May 4, 1999, a hearing on the marketing and distribution practices of violent content to minors by the television, music, film and video game industries was conducted before the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.[21] It was chaired by U.S. Senator Sam Brownback and comprised of eleven Republicans and nine Democrats, including US Senator for Utah Orrin Hatch and US Senator Joseph Lieberman as well as cultural observers, professors and mental-health professionals that included William Bennett and the Archbishop of Denver, Reverend Charles J. Chaput.[21]
 * Identifying the committee as a US Senate committee means the article does not have to repeat that its members are US Senators. Also the MOS says once an article has identified someone by their full name, the article should just use the last name thereafter (unless there are two people with the same last name, to avoid confusion). So The committee was chaired by Brownback and comprised of eleven Republicans and nine Democrats, including Lieberman and Utah's Orrin Hatch. I also changed "It" to "The committee" - It has an unclear antecedent (is it the committee or the hearing).
 * I would also split the sentence into one that focuses on the senators and one that mentions the people who testified. So The committee heard testimony from cultural observers, professors and mental-health professionals that included Bennett and the Archbishop of Denver, Reverend Charles J. Chaput.[21]
 * Avoid passive voice where possible, so The band was among those criticized by the participants, besides fellow label-mate Nine Inch Nails and the 1999 Wachowski brothers film The Matrix, for their alleged contribution to the environment that made tragedies like Columbine possible.[21] could be something like Participants criticized the band, its label-mate Nine Inch Nails, and the 1999 Wachowski brothers film The Matrix for their alleged contribution to the environment that made tragedies like Columbine possible.[21]
 * Another problem Senators Brownback, Hatch and Lieberman concluded the proceedings by requesting an investigation from the Federal Trade Commission and the United States Department of Justice on marketing practices of the entertainment industry to minors.[21][26] I am OK with repeating Sentaors here, but again this could be tightened and needs to be clarified. Perhaps something like Senators Brownback, Hatch and Lieberman concluded by requesting that the Federal Trade Commission and the United States Department of Justice investigate the entertainment industry's marketing practices to minors.[21][26]
 * In Following the conclusion of the European/Japan Festival leg of the tour ... avoid "/" and make things consistent (either European and Japanese Festival leg OR perhaps Europe and Japan leg..)(first one sounds better). If the official name was "European/Japan Festival" (which is not grammatical) and you want to use that, then put it in quotes.
 * Is "then" necessary in he album's early development would be marked by the singer's three month seclusion at his then home in the Hollywood Hills.[2]  I understand it means that he later moved, but does the reader need to know that at this point in the article (reads smoother without it).
 * I am not sure what a "knowing threat" is He would later tell Alternative Press that he also felt a knowing threat to his safety and ...
 * Tighten and clarify It was after he determined that it was less prudent for a controversial artist like himself to allow his detractors to use entertainment as a scapegoat, including his, that he decided to move forward with creating the new album as an extensive counterattack to these accusations.[1][9] to something like After Manson determined that it was less prudent for a controversial artist to allow his detractors to use his work (and entertainment in general) as a scapegoat, he decided to move forward by creating a new album as a counterattack [to these accusations - not sure this phrase is needed].[1][9]
 * The new issues have been addressed. -Red marquis (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, that is all I have to say on the Background section. I am not sure I can review the rest at this level of detail (much oif what I pointed out is copyediting). I also have other peer reviews to do, but I will make comments on the other sections over the next several days (try for at least a section a day).


 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
 * I tried my best to avoid it.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Media
 * One general concern I have about the article is the number of fair use images and sound files, which may well be a problem under WP:NFCC. There are 5 fair use images and 2 fair use sound files. The cover art in the lead inforbox and two sound files both seem fine and are pretty standard in album articles. It is worth noting though that all fair use media have to be discussed in the article and can't just be used for mere decoration.
 * There are other FAC articles with more. Kid A for example has 6 images and 2 sound files. A couple of those images have captions that contribute far less to the understanding of the article than what I have here.
 * Huh? Kid A has three fair use images - the album cover (infobox), and two examples of art. Both examples of art are extensively discussed in the article. It does have two fair use sound samples, but three of its images are freely licensed. As I pointed out already, none of this articles images are freely licensed. That really doen't matter for PR, but at FAC there will be an image review and my guess is that this may well be a problem there. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * With images, the two questions I like to ask are "Does this image increase the reader's understanding in ways that a text description alone does not?" and "Is there a free use replacement which would convey much (or all) of the same information?". The other thing to keep in mind is that a fair use image must meet all of the criteria listed in WP:NFCC. Here are my thoughts on the remaining images (not the cover art or the sound files)


 * File:Sens. Hatch and Lieberman at the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation hearing.jpg seems problematic to me. How does seeing these two guys increase the reader's understanding? There are certainly free images of all modern US Senators, so there could be images of the two that were free.
 * I'm not sure there exists a pic of the two of them at the hearing besides this.


 * File:Holy Wood logo.jpg - the use of this symbol is discussed in three places in the article, but there could be more discussion of the symbol itself. There are certainly free versions of the alchemy symbol for Mercury, so some image reviewers at FAC might argue this could be replaced.
 * This version is the highly stylized reinterpretation used by the band which is very distinct from the usual variation found in Wikipedia's image archives.


 * File:Marilyn Manson in Bishop regalia.jpg - there is very little discussion of this in the article. There are free images of Manson the person available.
 * The point was not to depict Manson but to depict his imagery during this era. As an artist that reinvents his sound and appearance with every album (like Madonna and David Bowie), presenting him in the attires and makeup that he wears for each album is very significant.


 * File:Marilyn Manson tarot cards.png - there is a lot of discussion of these cards in the article, which is good. The problems are that 10 of the cards are shown (so there are image reviewers who would count these as 10 separate works of art, which is much more problematic) and the Hanged Man is the same image as the album cover. See NFCC criterion 3a and 3b:
 * 3.a. Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
 * 3b. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.


 * The final concern I have is that there are free images of the band members and of the band in concert, so it seems odd to not have any free images in the article at all (though be careful, some of the band member images look like they may be copyvios)
 * Problem here is that none of those free images were from this period. They are all from the Mechanical Animals era (1998), the Eat Me, Drink Me (2007) era or the High End of Low (2009) era. In fact, besides the album cover, there weren't any images related to the Holy Wood album or the Guns, God & Govt. Tour before I uploaded the four in question.

Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Recording and production
 * I did a light copyedit of the first two paragraphs and will try to do more. Please revert if I make things worse or introduce errors.
 * The text box with the quote on the film seems out of place in the first section, since the film is not even mentioned here. I would move it to the Book and film subsection.
 * The key phrase here is and I'm [also] making this new record. I took it to mean it was referring to the whole Holy Wood project not just the book/film. So I think that justifies its placement.


 * A general observation is that this article tweaks its quotations a lot. I worry about this because the WP:MOSQUOTE says to make "Minimal change: Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation." Adding words like "also" in the text box or changing "media" to "[news] media" seem to me to be violations of this part of the MOS.
 * Good point.
 * I am a little confused by recording in "undisclosed locations" followed by a discussion of the places where the recording were made. Is the quote needed?
 * Death Valley and The Mansion were the only "undisclosed locations" that were disclosed. Reading the interviews implied there were others but they chose not to discuss them.


 * I do not understand this sentence The album was meant to be electronic in its nature, albeit executed in an acoustic fashion by recording live instruments as opposed to using acoustic guitars.[31] The phrase "executed in an acoustic fashion" is awkward, and seems to be contradicted by the last part of the sentence.
 * That was actually a quote from Manson that I paraphrased to cut down on the use of "overlong quotations" as a previous peer reviewer complained.

All for now, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will try to go through the rest of the article and point out problems I see. Unless I cannot understand something, I will not point out grammar issues. I assume you will get a copyedit. COncept
 * MOS says to use "double quotes" not 'single quotes' (unless it is a quote within a quote), so fix: Its literary foil is 'Death Valley', which is used as "a metaphor for the outcast and the imperfect of the world."[29][53][34] There are other examples of inappropriate single quotes later in this section too.
 * PS I also wondered why three refs are needed for this - how does the reader know which one the quotation is from?
 * The last sentence in this paragraph seems out of place - the previous paragraphs and the first sentence in this paragraph have all been about the Concept (I felt it was the "plot") of the album, now this sentence switches to the tour in support of the album: This religion is called 'Celebritarianism'[54] and is a deliberate parallel of Christianity to critique both the 'Dead Rock Star' martyr/celebrity phenomenon in American celebrity culture and the role that the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ plays as its very blueprint.[55][29][23][2][57][31][3] The worldwide Guns, God and Government Tour that supported the album expanded on this with the tour's logo—a rifle and handguns arranged to resemble the Christian cross.[58] Maybe just change the start of the second sentence to something like This concept was extended to the worldwide Guns, God and Government Tour that supported the album; the tour's logo was a rifle and handguns arranged to resemble the Christian cross.[58]
 * The section title "Composition" seems to have the wrong section title - I think of Composition as being about composing the album, but this is more about musical style. Also it makes no sense that composing the songs comes after recording them.
 * Watch out for logical quotation issues in quotes like Disposable Teens" is a "signature Marilyn Manson song."[53] (the period should be outside the end quotation mark)
 * In the Promotion section, the tenses seem odd in places - all are past events. This continues in the Release section By August 2, the singer had announced on the group's website that the album is scheduled for release on October 24 on Nothing/Interscope Records." shouldn't it be "was scheduled"? Just one example of several.
 * I don't understand this - what are the two [different?] physical formats? In the following weeks, the single was pressed and released in two standalone physical formats. The first, titled "Disposable Teens Pt.1", was released on November 6, 2000 in the UK.[74] ...
 * What does the song cycle structure of the album have to do with Cover and packaging?
 * Oh man, this is a long article. I am calling it a night. Hope to make some final comments tomorrow. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Final comments Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Crtitcal reception section is a bit of a quote farm. My general impression of the article is that it uses a lot of direct quotations. I think with quotes, less is often more. If there are too many quotes, the really good ones can get lost in the noise, as it were. There are FAC reviewers who see the use of too many quotes as a WP:NFCC issue.
 * It is not clear who Warner is (Isn't that lead singer Manson's real last name?)
 * More verb tense and single quote issues
 * The tour section uses cquote but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use blockquote instead.
 * I did not check references closely - they look OK in general
 * My overall impressions -
 * Still needs some sort of brief background on the band and its previous album. The 1997 New York Times article seems like a nice summary of what reactions to the band and its music and attitiude were before Columbine.
 * Article is pretty long and seems like it could be tightened with a good copyedit. There are also places where the detail may be excessive - does the reader need to know which songs are on which concert DVDs? Or that the Rolling Stones used the same house as Manson used for this album to write one of their albums?
 * Too many fair use images, no free images
 * Concerns about too many quotations, too many alterations to the quotes that are there (beyond allowed minor corrections - changing "media" to "[news] media" seems like it is changing the meaning of the original quote (as one example)
 * Language is decent but not great - needs a copy edit. Lots of places seem like they take 20 words to say what 15 or even 10 words could express. Also worries like odd verb tenses
 * Lots of little MOS concerns as noted
 * Seems like it has all the information needed for comprehensiveness (except for the bit of background).


 * Thanks for your help. I've been busy IRL so I haven't been able to address the new ones but I'll make time soon enough. -Red marquis (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)