Wikipedia:Peer review/Megadeth/archive2

Megadeth
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'm intending to get it to FA status. Any suggestions regarding copy editing, ideas about expanding the article, or anything that will improve it are welcomed. Thanks in advance.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Previous peer review

Comment: Hi there- I'll do my best to give a full review at a later point (though I don't have as much time for Wikipedia at the moment as I sometimes do) but I think some time devoted to the NFC in the article would help prepare it for FAC.
 * File:Megadeth - Rattlehead.ogg is slightly high in terms of bitrate. Per WP:SAMPLE, 64kbps will normally be sufficient. The rationale could also do with expansion; the "n.a."s should be replaced.
 * File:DaveMustaine1991.jpg should be removed. It's a very large non-free image of a living person. Even if the performance is very important, how Mustaine looked during it surely isn't. The lack of copyright information (original source, photographer, copyright holder) is also very problematic.
 * File:Symphony of Destruction clip.ogg has only one (vague) rationale for two uses. Each use requires a separate, specific rationale. Further, the sample should be reduced to 64kbps and a maximum of 10% of the song length; in this case, 24 seconds.

Fixing these issues now will save problems at FAC! J Milburn (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Admittedly, I haven't worked on music articles in years, and when I did, it was on a bunch of No Doubt album articles with, who did most of the work. That said, I'll try to take a closer look at this article later anyway. No major issues jump out at me from a quick skim, although I'm not fond of the sentence "Megadeth is one of the few American underground metal bands from the 1980s that achieved mass commercial success" - I mean, every band is underground at some point, and when they achieve mass commercial success, they no longer are. Tezero (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - need to get rid of fluffy sentences like, "This album, along with touring worldwide, would aid in bringing Megadeth to public recognition." I don't know Megadeth that well so can't comment on comprehensiveness too much. Will take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "they both examined about 15 drummers because they wanted to get a drummer who possessed unique skills." - ummm, what "unique" skills?
 * Thanks for pointing that issue. I modified the sentence and I think it reads better now. Just to ask, is it "comprehend well" or "well comprehend" the more accurate way?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * All are accurate - just depends what flows more easily - I actually prefer this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually - I wonder whether adverbs "easily", "readily" or leaving out an adverb altogether would be preferable. I don't know the background well enough to suggest others with confidence. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think "well" is a better solution over the other two. What actually worries me is the overuse of the term thrash metal in the "legacy" section. Any proposals on how to resolve this?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok - the "responsible for the genre's development and popularization." segment is unneeded as it could be folded into "creating the core of thrash metal" - I would have done it myself but am not sure how it would gell with the source. Agree it is very tricky here to reduce thrashes.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good edit Casliber, the paragraph definetely reads better now. I've also intended to shake that section a bit, but haven't thought of that idea.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe the key is to add a little - maybe some bands that have cited them as influences? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll put that on my to-do list. Are there any other issues regarding the prose and its comprehensiveness?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Question: Josh, in your opinion, is the article near FA status with the current illustrations? If not, do you have a suggestion on what else should be uploaded? And regarding the samples, I would really appreciate your help in reducing the audio quality because I have zero experience in doing that.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never seen an article have problems at FAC because of a lack of illustrations, and, in any case, this has plenty. Concerning the freely licensed images, File:Megadeth 1986.jpg could do with an English description, but the rest look completely fine. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, since there are no other comments, I'm going to close the review. Thanks to everyone for the input, and hope that this will do well in the FA nomination.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)