Wikipedia:Peer review/Slipknot (band)/archive2

Slipknot (band)
I'd like somebody to give a review of this article. My main concern is the information in the article and whether or not it covers the right amount of material. Secondary to me is format, which has mostly been fixed in the last few weeks, but is likely still flawed. Any comments not covered in the two areas already mentioned are welcome as well. --Wildnox(talk) 19:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The general critical reception to each studio album would be welcomed. LuciferMorgan 21:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea, I'm just unsure how I would cite that. Any idea how? --Wildnox(talk) 21:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'll just mention majors reviews I can find. --Wildnox(talk) 21:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You can cite it by saying: Kerrang deemed that the album "insert quote from review here". However, Rolling Stone thought "insert review quote here". LuciferMorgan 12:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How is this "Critical response to the album was generally favorable, with Kerrang! and Rolling Stone both giving the album high ratings. "? --Wildnox(talk) 00:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I Think I'll also mention AMG and EW. --Wildnox(talk) 00:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I;d want a short quote from the review. Kerrang said this isn't correct - Jason Arnopp of Kerrang said "..." would be correct. A review is a reviewer's opinion, not a magazine's opinion. Saying the reception was generally favourable is only sufficient for a lead section of an article or subsection in my eyes. LuciferMorgan 22:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You followed what I said - well done. Some people don't respond to the feedback they get here. LuciferMorgan 05:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you do the same you did for Iowa, but do it for Vol. 3? There's currently no critical reception there, yet Rolling Stone and AMG both have online reviews for the album. LuciferMorgan 05:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I plan to do so, I've just been a little busy lately outside of wiki. --Wildnox(talk) 06:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Seegoon
Here are my thoughts. Overall I think you could do a lot more with this article. Here are some additions I think you could make, rather than straight up alterations: OK, that's enough to keep you busy for a little while. First things first, I'd advise you give it a really good copyedit to make the prose more fluid. The best way to do this (if you can be bothered) is to print it out and go through it with a red pen. If that doesn't interest you, a fresh set of eyes is often very effective and if you like I'll give it a quick shakedown. I hope some of this has helped; if you have any queries, post on my talk page and I'll do what I can. Good luck! Seegoon 17:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Try to get a .gif or .png of how they transcribe their band name for use in the infobox. For examples, see Isis or Slayer. You'll probably be able to find it on their promo or press pages. Likewise, I'm sure they'll have a promotional picture of the band which you could use instead of the pretty crappy on you have at the moment. It would be copyrighted, but if you uploaded it and used the template and a decent fair use rationale, it should be fine. Have a look around here and I'm sure you'll be able to dig something decent enough up. There are a lot of magazine covers too, which are decent because you don't need to give such a thorough fair use rationale. As for the band logo, this is as good as I could find. For best results, convert it to a .gif or .png though.
 * "During the early years the band went through the names The Pale Ones, Pyg system, and Meld before the band settled on Slipknot.[5] Conducted in the basement of Anders Colsefini, co-founder of the band." - this is kind of fragmented and confusing. The second sentence makes very little sense on its own, and in the first sentence you say "the band" twice; "they" would be sufficient.
 * In fact, that whole paragraph is a little choppy and awkward. Give it a quick copy-edit, get it running a little more smoothly.
 * Whenever you mention an album name, ensure it's in italics. This goes for paragraph headers, in the discography, in your references and in the band template at the end of the page too. Be sure to be thorough about this, seeing as you're worried about format.
 * Try to wikilink the first reference to each album - I'm looking at Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. - likewise, try to be consistent with whether you put a full stop at the end of this album title.
 * You need a space after reference [6] and to delete the space between references [10] and [11].
 * Don't use ampersands (& symbols) in your prose.
 * Ensure DVD titles and magazine titles are also italicised.
 * Give Style a copyedit. Spell check, make the sentences run on to each other more smoothly. Also, instead of saying "one reviwer" or "a reviewer", use their name. It sounds more authoritative.
 * The History section is, to me, undernourished. What about any scandals surrounding the band? Have they done outrageous things at concerts? Have they promoted albums in ways that some have seen as unsavoury? Surely with such an infamous band, there will be intrigue and problems.
 * Try to add some more external links, ensuring they're valid and useful. I don't like to blow my own trumpet... so to speak... but at Isis I've spent quite a long time thinking about what the most important links to include are and you could take a look there to get some ideas.
 * In Style, why not talk about influences? Whose sound do they draw on (surely Slayer, for example - make sure you cite your sources though), whose sound have they influenced themselves? Which bands cite Slipknot as an influence? Also, what was their impact on the nu-metal/ rapcore scene?
 * In Videography, how about a rundown of the videos they've recorded for their singles? Have a look at Cult of Luna's videography for a simple way to represent this information.
 * I agree with all the points, except for the image point. From my understanding, we are not supposed to used non-free images when we have a free image Available. I'll work on all the other points though, thank you for supplying such a good list for me to work with. --Wildnox(talk) 21:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 20:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

M3tal H3ad
The article should contain every little detail on everything from sales, certification, one or two reviewers opinions on albums to touring - where have they toured, headlined any festivals? etc etc M3tal H3ad 12:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The history section is pretty short Subliminal verses can be greatly expanded.
 * The roadrunner united doesn't say Jordison was a "team leader" and contributed to four of the tracks
 * Taylor, Root, and Gray had a guest appearance on the album
 * joey's opinion on the album?
 * reviews and opinions?
 * How many copies has Subliminal verses sold?
 * is it platinum? reviews?
 * this album had no swearing, how did reviewers and fans re-act?
 * Did Corey's band Stone Sour have an impact on how Slipknot sounded?
 * no mention of how Root and Taylor think it's not really their band, thus making Stone Sour?
 * Image and identities doesn't mention anything about Mushroomhead, which i feel belongs here - Mushroomhead feel Slipknot stole their image to make money.
 * Solo years, 2003 shouldn't be wikilinked
 * No mention of Jordison filling in for Metallica at the 2004 Download Festival