Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Slayer

Proposal Big Four Wikiproject
I have just created the Megadeth Wikiproject. But I think that the scope is too narrow (just Megadeth) and I think that the Metal Genre Wikiproject is too large of a scope to handle everything. I propose that we make a Wikiproject Big Four, or something to that effect to cover the Big Four American Metal bands, Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, and Anthrax. I'm eager to hear any opinions. Adumbvoget 08:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That idea actually sounds brilliant. Not only is the scope size appropriate, but its topic spans the importance and evolution of modern day heavy metal branches such as thrash metal, speed metal and glam metal. I'm surprised this has not been suggested before as it makes complete sense in terms of heavy metal coverage. If at all, I would be more than honoured to create a nourish such a project. Let me know what you think. Megazodiac 02:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Every once in a while, someone thinks it's great to start a WikiProject. In truth though, that's the easy part. Write some GAs / FAs on Big Four related articles, then I might change my opinion. Before then though, I don't think there are enough active contributors to warrant such a project. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Five GA's in February
Lets do it again in March :) Dave Lombardo and Still Reigning are currently GAC's, and Lucifer is almost done with Eyes of the Insane, I'm going to be editing Show No Mercy. Any recommendations for articles that should be fairly easy to bring up to GA? M3tal H3ad 07:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll be working on "Jihad (song)" in my sandbox as a future GA possibility. I'd recommend Paul Bostaph as a future GA possibility, and also / especially Kerry King. Hopefully Christ Illusion will pass its FAC to make 2 FAs for the Project. LuciferMorgan 01:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll pick Bostaph, this interview basically covers his whole career with all the band he's been in, but has nothing on early life. As for King, well he never talks about his early life, always about how good he is, and today's "we're the most underground band" was just stupid. I'll see what i can do thanks, Jihad is coming along nicely and gl with Christ. :). M3tal H3ad 02:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll likely see if I can get "Eyes of the Insane" to GA sometime also. As the GAs clock up, we should keep an eye on which ones could most likely be future FACs. With Bostaph, strip away the headings and make it more like the other Slayer bios etc., but of course don't concentrate too much on his Slayer work - give equal time to his other bands. Oh, and see if you can find a better picture than the current one - I loathe the current one. By the way, you should've given me a shout when you started GHUA in your sandbox as I could help out - I think it should follow the "Christ Illusion" format, as controversy comes after "Reception". Ie. band releases album, critics review it, controversy happens over cover blah blah. Anyway, wish for help with GHUA, or you want your sandbox to yourself? :) LuciferMorgan 03:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings from WP:KLF
It's great to see another small project churning out good articles, and particularly in this genre which has been really weak on Wikipedia until now. With 2 FAs from 36 articles already you're not only catching us but I suspect you'll be passing us soon enough too. Keep up the good work! --kingboyk 12:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I saw the KLF project and wanted something like that (Lots of GA's) so started this, and yea article relating to heavy metal are really crap. Anyway, keep up the good yourself :) M3tal H3ad 05:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The KLF project indeed kicks ass, and I agree with your sentiments on Metal representation on Wikipedia *torches the Metal WikiProject alight*. Yeah I think the Slayer Project has a few more GAs yet and even one or two FAs ("Angel of Death" and Dave Lombardo look the closest so far), but it'll be cool when the KLF Project is back in full swing. I'm sure out of those 10 KLF GAs there must be another two or three future FAs lurking. One thing that's a shame though is most small Projects, to be honest, do little beyond tagging articles - I could name a few of these, but that would be telling wouldn't it? :) LuciferMorgan 06:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder what project you're referring to ;) M3tal H3ad 09:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Projects, plural :) LuciferMorgan 17:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That would probably be most of them then? :) Even WP:BEATLES wasn't getting much done in the early days, and that's relatively large. A lot of projects seem to do bugger all other than tag pages, and sometimes not even that :)
 * And, yes, there's a few articles in our project which I think just need a bit of work before they go for FAC, but it's getting back into the swing of things isn't it... and knowing where to start. Vinoir is back so I guess I ought to make the most of that and come up with a plan... --kingboyk 23:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be most of the Projects, yes indeed. They seem to think "Ooo let's start a Project" - anyone can start one, but it's maintaining one that's the difficult bit. I'm rather annoyed with the Metal Project as I've said on numerous occasions, as they seem to have no definitive objectives or goals, or any ways or strategies in achieving any goals. It really needs a few editors to overhaul it - I'd have a go though it's too much work for one person. I'm hoping to persuade them to start assessing Metal related articles like other Projects, and then they can see where they're at. Then if that works, see if they can start getting a peer review going etc., and get some GAs off the ground - a hard task indeed, but let's see how it goes. LuciferMorgan 01:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that post and I think it's a good idea. If I were you I'd get it all set up for them and see what happens; when they see the template parameters and the article worklist they'll probably want to use it! --kingboyk 01:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How would one set that up then? This assessment template I mean. LuciferMorgan 01:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * here M3tal H3ad 06:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. I'm guessing the index is taken care of solely by a bot then? Or not? LuciferMorgan 08:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea, you tag them bot updates the index and that table. Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot is the thing you're looking for, for article assesments. M3tal H3ad 08:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it very hard to understand to be honest. I'm guessing the bot creates the tables too as a result of the category? If I create a talk page template that's the same as the Slayer one, but substitutes the word "Slayer" for "Metal" wherever Slayer is mentioned, would that work? LuciferMorgan 09:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Bot creates the table, by you creating categories like "FA-class heavy metal articles" When i did it for Slayer i had no idea what i was doing. You need to add the class and category parameter to template:HMM, i could do it if you want. M3tal H3ad 09:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It'd be great if you could, but thus far nobody has replied to me on the Project's talk page about implementing such a scheme. I think if it goes through it'd be the first step in the right direction for that Project. I think what the template says could be reworded too. LuciferMorgan 09:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, should it be "A-Class Metal articles" or "A-Class Heavy Metal articles" M3tal H3ad 09:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm Heavy Metal articles, since it's formally referred to as Heavy Metal. Let's hope none of the Project members cause a fuss... LuciferMorgan 09:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you tag a few while i get it set-up(see if it works, and class= is set up) thanks. M3tal H3ad 09:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do - I assume you mean assess a few, and not tag? LuciferMorgan 09:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering HMM's size, an unassessed category will have to be made also. LuciferMorgan 09:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, but it's going to take awhile, goes through unassessed articles one by one. M3tal H3ad 10:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that Project is gonna take a miracle to get off the ground. LuciferMorgan 10:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * More then a miracle ;) currently on Ne. Could you check the Angel of Death Technical section in my sandbox? like anything missing or needs to be added :| thanks. M3tal H3ad 10:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's gonna take a ton of work, but I'd really love it to take off (doubtful thus far though :. How do you feel about Slayer related articles having the HMM tag, or is this something you'd object to? Just wondering. As concerns Angel of Death, that bit looks fine, and I really hope you're going for FAC with that one. LuciferMorgan 10:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, like 920 unassessed articles. AOD, never thought of FA but i guess it could be done, a sample of the "big double bass part", copyedit, picture of the crowd going crazy live when they perform it would do the trick. Are you going to tag every article relating to heavy metal? I don't it's worth the effort. M3tal H3ad 10:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think if all were tagged it'd tell the Project where they're at, but if they don't get off their backsides to improve them it may prove a waste of time. Let's hope not LuciferMorgan 10:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bother. Now the bot has stub assessed a couple of thousand I'd maybe assess the few hundred in the unassessed articles cat, and mainly try and get some interest drummed up. Your call, but the idea is to stimulate interest not give u 2 guys more work! --kingboyk 12:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Blimey, you move fast. Are Motorhead within scope of HMM? They're quite well documented, thanks in main to 2 dedicated editors. If they're within scope I'll get some of their articles assessed. --kingboyk 14:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say they are yes 110% (I'd say they can be classed as rock and metal judging by the media) - best band I seen live are Motorhead. Any help is welcome :) LuciferMorgan 22:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen em live too (when Wurzel was still in the band). Not the best live band I've seen tho :) That would probably be Carter USM. --kingboyk 12:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"Blood Red" and "Jesus Saves"
Per WP:BOLD, I have addressed the problems with these two articles;

1. "Blood Red" didn't have enough factual info to warrant its own article, so all the salvageable info was merged into the "Seasons in the Abyss" article and the BR article made a redirect.

2. The "Jesus Saves" article had numerous entries for different things with that name, though the Slayer entry had nothing apart from fancruft. This has been eradicated, and an italicized note above the article for those looking for the Slayer song to refer to Reign in Blood.

This means the project now has two less articles, and so does the Slayer template. If anyone has reasonable objections, message me on my talk page. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 03:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. M3tal H3ad 05:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, i don't think "Behind the Crooked Cross", "Mandatory Suicide", "Dead Skin Mask" and "Seasons in the Abyss" should have their own article, most of the info is speculation of what the song is about. M3tal H3ad 12:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Zap the fancruft! Good work guys :) --kingboyk 13:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well zap them then M3tal H3ad I would like I did with the other two. Merge any worthy info into the main album article, make it a redirect, and then delink the song in the Slayer template (you can still keep the song name there). Aside from some critical reception, there's nothing that can be added to those four song articles at present. If some good sources turn up in the future, we can revert the redirect and then clean up the song article in question. If we zap those 4, that would hit us down to 30. LuciferMorgan 14:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Kingboyk does have a point though; how many song articles on Wikipedia are worthy enough in terms of quality to merit their own article? Not many I reckon. LuciferMorgan 19:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Still Reigning
Ya'll want to collaborate and get this featured? :) M3tal H3ad 14:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright. Say, have you thought of nominating Slayer as a featured topic? Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 13:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea, i did at one stage, it will defiantly need King, Bostaph, Seasons and Divine (at the minimum) GA which will take awhile. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M3tal H3ad (talk • contribs) 02:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Don't forget Undisputed Attitude and Diabolus in Musica :) LuciferMorgan 20:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Diabolus is quite crap atm as is Seasons. I can expand the Reception section of these articles to a decent size but that's about it. We'll get there one day :) M3tal H3ad 10:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

God Hates Us All
Could everyone give it a once over to "fine tune" it before i nominate for FA? Thanks. M3tal H3ad 09:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's nominated. Let's hope we receive some sound feedback and more importantly positive votes :) LuciferMorgan 00:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Reception sections in Slayer album articles
I've noticed a trend in "Reception" sections as I was browsing articles on Reign in Blood, Seasons in the Abyss, etc... The wording suggests that All Music Guide reviewed 80's Slayer albums upon their release. AMG was not founded until 1991. It would be preferable to use reviews actually written upon an album's release to support claims about critical/popular reception at the time. Not to say AMG's reviews shouldn't be included, but not in a way that conflates them with contemporary reviews if the AMG review was done 5, 10, 15 years after the album's release. 35.12.24.81 19:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, reviews written years after the release are often informed by recieved openion. Agree that both should be included, but they should form a seperate paragraph, and should be qualified by phrases such as "writing in 1991" etc.
 * Good point, but there is no date on the reviews. M3tal H3ad 05:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We generally try to say "writing retrospectively" or something like that but tbh I think we've always treated AMG reviews as contemporaneous. Well, anyway, it's certainly a good point and worth bearing in mind. --kingboyk (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Progress
Lombardo and South of Heaven are future FA's, are there any other articles that can be expanded in the future to reach FA or GA level? M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The McIver book should present new possibilities. I think Haunting the Chapel is a possibility, maybe. LuciferMorgan (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * South of Heaven is now FA. :) LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Until the McIver book presents itself, there isn't much else we can do right now. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We might come up lucky and find an audio interview like i randomly found with Undisputed Attitude. But yea..until the book pretty much no more GA's although i might start reception sections for each album. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow
You have 9 FAs now? That's just fantastic. --kingboyk (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC) PS I just read the MfD, what a joke - looks like 1 or 2 people were seriously considering deleting a project that has created more featured content than most projects several times it's size!
 * Thanks, but we've ran out of content until a Slayer book is released in June 08 :(. I think the guy who nominated the project for deletion has a pet-hate against Slayer or something, tried to get the page moved to Slayer (band). Anyway, nice to see you around again : ) M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured topic candidates/Christ Illusion
You know I have the utmost respect for you guys, and I'm well aware that as writers we snap up all the Featured "awards" we can get, but Featured topic candidates/Christ Illusion is a bit of a joke isn't it? An article on an album and 2 singles that it spawned doesn't make much of a "topic" AFAIC. At the very least I'd like to see Slayer (band) included (and better still, such micro-topics disallowed: all of Slayer should be at FA/GA or none at all). Anyway, I commented at Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Christ Illusion.

Of course, I am going to straight away go scrutinise The KLF list to see what smaller topics I might attack, "if you can't beat them join them" :) Cheers guys --kingboyk (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusion: We're way behind, there's one or two possible topics but nothing really complete. Kudos again to you guys. --kingboyk (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Seasons in the Abyss
Is anyone from the wikiproject going to work on Seasons in the Abyss? I'm just wondering, that is my favorite Slayer album. — Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 03:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Afraid there isn't enough content for it to be expanded. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not even with the oral history? I'd help if it is possible. — Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 02:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The oral history of SITA is only available in the magazine version. I gotta order it someday. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  20:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Slayer
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:40, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
 * 1) supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
 * 2) opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
 * List of cleanup articles for your project

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

Ikip 05:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Show No Mercy (Slayer album) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Show No Mercy (Slayer album) to be moved to Show No Mercy. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

FAR for Slayer
I have nominated Slayer for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Jeff Hanneman
Jeff Hanneman has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)