Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Strapping Young Lad

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 23:00, 24 June 2008 (→Strapping Young Lad: restart note). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Strapping Young Lad

previous FAC (18:14, 29 April 2008)

Toolbox

Self-nominator Well, here goes nothing. I did my best to find all the necessary references, and improve the article as a whole. Gocsa (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blabbermouth.net is definitely a reliable source, and the best one out there for metal articles. Many other metal FAs use Blabbermouth.net, just check it. As for the others, read the previous FAC, it is impossible to take heavy metal (or more precisely, extreme metal) articles even up to GA status without these interviews. There are no books, or essays written about the topic, or even mainstream magazine articles, like Rolling Stone, etc. Gocsa (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not questioning you, but I have still yet to be convinced it is in fact a reliable source. Blabbermouth.net aside, there are plenty of other questionable sources. We can't have FAs with even the slightest doubt that information in the article is not one-hundred percent accurite. Also, I'm starting to take a look at the prose, and it could still use some fine-tuning. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what makes other sites' or magazines' interviews accurate or more reliable? I can't change the fact that a band is so underground, basically only webzines, and fanzines are interested in their activities and in interviewing them. Maybe we should e-mail all those sites' editors or the interviewers to prove they actually interviewed the band or a band member? Cause if that's needed, I'll gladly do it. Gocsa (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because the more notable ones are known to be accurite and reliable. I have no doubt that they interviewed them, but I am concerned as to how accurite the facts are and if they are worthy of an encyclopedia. I think it might be a good idea to get some emails out to the sources to determine if they're reliable. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm sorry, but it doesn't appear that you addressed all the concerns that caused this to fail last time. At the bare minimum:
I think somebody has already offered help with blabbermouth, although I don't understand your problem, it is the most uncontroversial reference used, I've already told you people to check out other metal FAs, probably the blabbermouth issue was alreasy cleared up at those FACs, or maybe I'll ask one of the editors of those articles (like Slayer, Opeth, or Metallica). And what is the WP:BLP violation in the article? Gocsa (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See below for my comment about blabbermouth. The BLP violation is saying the guy has bi-polor disorder. Such claims need to be backed up by extraordinarily reliable sources. You source for that statement doesn't even work. --Laser brain (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link works now, sorry, it worked when I added it. The bipolar thing is also backed up by another ref, ref42, a Zero Tolerance magazine article. Gocsa (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Laser brain (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Blabbermouth.net is absolutely a reliable source. It is the news source for heavy (and especially extreme) metal, and, as Gocsa rightly says, it is used throughout the high quality heavy metal articles on Wikipedia. There are a large number of decent magazines about metal (including online ones- Decibel Magazine for instance) but none of them update on the level of Blabbermouth, meaning they cannot match it in terms of a news source. On top of this, it is hosted by (though independent of) Roadrunner Records; one of the most commercially successful labels that deals in a lot of heavy metal. In what way is it unreliable? J Milburn (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, we can't "take your word for it" on blabbermouth. We need proof from an outside, neutral, reliable source that it is reliable. An article in a print journal, for example, stating that blabbermouth is an authoritative and, more important, accurate source would be great. That other metal articles use it is irrelevant; if I would have seen their FACs, I would have opposed there too. You simply can't take for granted that web sites are reliable without some proof or documentation. --Laser brain (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What makes the following reliable sources. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Yes, I know this is an obscure area. No, showing us previous FAs that use these sources doesn't work. If anything, those FAs may need to go to FAR if their sources can't be shown to be RS.
By the way, I do understand the need for reliable sources, and I do support reliable sources, and I'm not trying to lower the standards here on Wikipedia or anything like that. But I still don't understand it, and I still don't agree with you, as I used interviews for God's sakes, none of these 'questionable' references are news articles, or reviews, or any other type of articles, they are interviews with one or more band members, so obviously not submitted by users. Even if any of these sites allow user-submitted news or album reviews, interviews are never submitted by users, it isn't even allowed. Yes, the listed sites are 98% webzines, so they are run by enthusiastic heavy metal fans, and I do understand you have to be a professional, well-known author (or at least be an author at a respected mag, like Rolling Stone) to write album reviews, and articles, so I only used reviews and articles from reliable sites, and magazines/journals, like All Music Guide, Metal Hammer, Revolver, Kerrang, Cleveland Scene, Zero Tolerance, Houston Press, etc. But you definitely don't have to be a professional at all to do an interview. And the only way to find information about such underground bands as SYL is reading interviews, and while mainstream bands like Metallica are interviewed by mainstream mags, like Rolling Stone, the smaller, underground bands on independent labels are interviewed by underground webzines, fanzines, about 90% of the time. Gocsa (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the problem is, in my eyes, if they are fan sites, even if you use an interview, how do we know the interview was reported/transcribed/etc correctly. I'm not saying they are making things up, it's more the little details that may or may not have gotten taken care of correctly. The band members are living people, and because of BLP concerns, we must make sure that the information reported is the very best possible, and the most acurate. Look at the printed sources and see what sort of statements they make about these sites. See what links they report. Surely someone has done a "Best of the web" awards program/article for metal sites? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, it is a fan site, but I only used it for two one refs, these are excerpts of radio interviews. I don't know what's Wikipedia's policy on this kind of stuff.
And why is it a problem that they have gone out of business?
I'll note that the google books search below for Stylus mixes this magazine up with another one, but the ones that refer to this one are enough. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we can strike this one out as well. It's a site that's been up since 1995, they also work as an indie record company, the site gets several million visits a month, you can read more here. They also published quotes there from record companies, their opinions about the site, such as Roadrunner, Century Media, Nuclear Blast, Earache, etc. Blabbermouth.net also used one of their interviews here, and Metal Hammer here
Los Angeles Loud is a management company that does booking, production, promotion. The interviews are here: http://www.laloud.com/press.htm, I think the site is reliable. Gocsa (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the notes given below where Blabbermouth uses information from blistering.com is an announcment that blistering.com is offering merchandise. The other two do show usage of blistering though for news or interviews. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know you say this was addressed, but I can't find where it was. Please be kind to an old lady and let me know where? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here and here. Gocsa (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can read here that it is a quarterly printed magazine. "It's estimated that each printed issue of Crave Magazine reaches over 50,000 readers and over 20,000 online. Currently, Crave Magazine is distributed in over 20 states. Crave is based in Portland, Or/Vancouver, WA." Gocsa (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will check the sites' 'About us' sections and stuff, but I have limited time, so please be patient. Gocsa (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like Blabbermouth.net is part of roadrunner records, is this one of the big names in extreme metal?
Yes, as J Milburn have said: "it is hosted by (though independent of) Roadrunner Records", and it is one of the biggest, or maybe the biggest name in extreme/more or less underground metal. Gocsa (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if it's independent of the record company's oversight, what makes it reliable? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is recognised as a quality source by Roadrunner, yet not doctored by it. This is exactly what you were looking for- recognition from a major publication or group. J Milburn (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 55 from Terrorizer mag is lacking a title for the article
  • Current ref 59 "Why No more Strapping Young Lad has a formatting error with the publisher
Done Gocsa (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 74 Copper, Bob Interview with Devin Townsend of Strapping Young Lad Crave magazine has a formatting error.
Can someone help me with this one? I couldn't find the mistake. Gocsa (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed it right. Double check it? There was a return-keystroke in the middle of the title which was making the linking formatting break. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Links checked out okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gocsa kindly asked me to return to my comments and re-evaluate. I'm utterly lost at what is being addressed and which statement about reliablity relates to what site. Probably my own fault, since I spent most of the day out in the sun dealing with broodmares, but could someone please integrate/summarize/etc which sites in the above list the nominators/editors feel they have reasons for feeling are reliable and what they are? I'll be upfront and say I'm not entirely convinced by "Blabbermouth uses it so it's reliable" since blabbermouth is probably a marginally reliable source to begin with. Because of the nature of the sources for this niche music, I'm not sure it's best to strike out a lot of the sources above and say "reliable", it's probably better to leave everything up for other reviewers to evaluate on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's basically Bardin's comment, if you scroll down, starting with the sentence "I've been asked to address the sources some more.", and I also added some other stuff as well below that.

The reliable sources are:

  • Blabbermouth.net
  • Chronicles of Chaos
  • Stylus Magazine
  • Metal-rules.com
  • Metal-observer.com
  • Tartareandesire.com
  • Metaleater.com
  • Metal-realm.net
  • Metal-temple.com
  • Sickdrummer.com
  • Blistering.com
  • Revelationz.net
  • Alternative-zine.com
  • Seaoftranquility.org
  • Metalstorm.ee
  • Themegalith.com
  • Rockeyez.com
  • laloud.com - I've addressed this one at your list
  • http://www.portlandmusicians.com/crave/2005/03/index.shtml - I've addressed this one at your list

Gocsa (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It seems to me that there are two distinct interpretations on reliable sources. On the one hand, we have editors who question each and every source that they are not familiar with, demanding proof of some kind that these sources are reliable. On the other hand, we have editors who would treat each source as reliable until some contrary indication emerged. The burden of proof differs in either case: one feels that sources are guilty until proven innocence while the other feels that sources are innocent until proven guilty. All I see on wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources is a rather broad and vague statement that articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment. There is nothing here that indicates that "proof from an outside, neutral, reliable source" is necessary for any other source to be deemed reliable. There is an explicit restriction on some type of sources such as extremist and fringe theories as well as self-published sources but there is no such restriction on webzines and online news media. The guideline explicitly states that this is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment. We are not in a court of law so why this legalistic approach that demands proof and casts aspersions of guilt? I will have to go through this article in more detail myself when I have the time but I can safely say that Blabbermouth.net and Chronicles of Chaos are acceptable sources. Both have a sound reputation. Blabbermouth in particular has been used as a source for many other news media and even published books. Chronicles of Chaos has also been used as a source for a published book. It would be rather ridiculous if members of the academia and other news media find these sources to be reliable while wikipedia does not. --Bardin (talk) 05:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry folks are upset that I question sources. I'm really not that unreasonable about things, you'll notice that I don't support or oppose based on my questions. Articles can and do get promoted with questions about their sources. As for this particular article, the links given above satisfy me about Blabbermouth and chronicles of chaos. For me, being used by a news site or just quoted as being a notable place to go for reliable coverage is enough to show it's reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have not gone through the entire article in detail but I have already encountered some problems. Some of the statements made in the article are not actually being supported by the sources cited. Two examples:

  • the album achieved popularity among heavy metal fans in later years has two citations but neither support this claim of popularity among metal fans in later year. Perhaps I'm missing something but all I see on the two sources concerning this album is that it was being re-released and that it was unpopular upon its original release.
Well, the re-release was advertised as the "rebirth of a genre-defying classic", and it's in the interview, and I used comomusic.com because a heavy metal fan wrote the review, and how the hell can I support a statement like "the album achieved popularity among heavy metal fans in later years" other than that? But I have to admit, you're right, but there's no other way, so maybe I should delete this part? Although the record company's advertising slogan stuff can stay I guess. Gocsa (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot support a statement like that with reliable sources, then it is pretty much original research and should be removed. --Bardin (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done I have deleted this part, deleted the comomusic.com reference, and rewrote the sentence. I also added a new review, a Metal Hammer one, I think it's much better. Gocsa (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although well-received, critics agreed the album was inferior to City is supported by two citations, both of which are individual reviews that do not speak for other critics. The sentence should be changed to something more appropriate: eg. the album was well-received by critics like so-and-so and so-and-so but these critics also felt that the album was inferior to City.
I'll rephrase it, just give me some time.Gocsa (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Gocsa (talk) 08:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also some stuff do not appear to have any citations for verifiability. Two examples:

  • The band embarked on a world tour in 1997 to promote the album, which included dates in Europe, the US and Australia has no citations. A world tour is a pretty strong claim to make and while I do not doubt that they did do so, there should be a citation to support this. A link to the official tourography on the band's website should suffice if they have one.
  • Although Strapping Young Lad was officially on hiatus, they gave occasional live performances, including an appearance on the Foot In Mouth Tour in 2001 with Fear Factory also has no citations. Perhaps this is common knowledge among fans but bear in mind that you're writing for people who might know the band well (like me). If they were "officially" on hiatus, then a source should be provided to support this. Likewise the occassional performances.
I used this fan site for the tour dates, there are no tour dates on their official site, but I don't know if we can use this site as a source for the tour information. Gocsa (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not gone through all the sources either but www.comomusic.com is definitely not a reliable source since it apparently is a site based on user submissions like the metal archives. --Bardin (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been asked to address the sources some more. I do not really have any inclination to go through the entire list above but I'll addressed some here. Like Blabbermouth and Chronicles of Chaos, Stylus magazine has been used as a reference in published books. Metal-observer.com is "one of the world's longest-running metal web sites" and "one of the top international online metal resources" as identified by Blabbermouth.net here and here. Metal-rules.com is also identified by Blabbermouth as "one of the world's largest and longest-running heavy metal webzines" here and as the provider of "top-notch metal news, views, reviews and interviews" here. These are two very well known websites. The former is large enough to organise a heavy metal festival and the latter is large enough to set up its own record label. How many other webzines can boast that? Both metal-observer.com and metal-rules.com have been used as a news source for Blabbermouth, for instance here, here, here, here and here. Tartareandesire.com, metaleater.com, metal-realm.net, metal-temple.com, sickdrummer.com, blistering.com and revelationz.net might not be as large or established as the observer and rules but these are all reliable publications that have been used by Blabbermouth as news source, mostly but not always in the form of interviews where the subject being questioned has revealed something newsworthy. Examples here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. It would be a bit absurd if, for instance, this interview from metal-realm.com with the Strapping Young Lad guitarist is not considered reliable but the news report of the same interview on Blabbermouth is. I also doubt that such a big name as Tony Iommi, for instance, would bother granting an interview to a site like metaleater.com if he did not felt it to be reliable. In comparison, you will not find comomusic.com or metal-archives.com as news sources for Blabbermouth.net and that is because those sites are not reliable. Please remove the comomusic.com reference from this article. --Bardin (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your work. Also, I think alternative-zine.com is reliable as well, Blabbermouth.net published the first interview with Reverend (the band formed in 1989, by David Wayne, after Metal Church broke up) guitarist Davey Lee since vocalist David Wayne's death, conducted by Alternative-Zine.com here. Gocsa (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
seaoftranquility.org was also used by Blabbermouth.net here, it has a FAQ page here, it's been up since 1995, it was also published in print between 1998 and 2001 - I don't know if that matters for reliability. Gocsa (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted http://www.teufelstomb.com, it was useless anyway. Gocsa (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Metalstorm.ee was used by Blabbermouth.net here Gocsa (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Themegalith.com was used by Blabbermouth.net here and here. Rockeyez.com was used by them here and here. Gocsa (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there a source in the article for "The band's musical direction was mainly determined by Townsend, who suffered from bipolar disorder, and was noted for his dark sense of humor, as well as his eccentric appearance and on-stage behaviour." in the lead? I can't find one currently. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's this part in the Lyrical themes section: "Townsend was the band's primary songwriter. While the first two albums were solely his work, subsequent albums featured a minority of "riffs, lyrical ideas, and song titles" by his bandmates." His bipolar disorder is mentioned more than once, the humor is mentioned in the Lyrical themes, as well as the Live performances sections, his eccentric appearance and on-stage behaviour is mentioned in the Live performances section. The statements are sourced everywhere in the article. Gocsa (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. Do you think mentioning that in the lead might not be the best thing? I know if I was reading an article about myself, I wouldn't want one of the first things a reader sees is that I have a disorder and a bad on-stage behavior. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know really. He always talked about it openly, and it's a really important and unique thing about the band, basically the main reason and inspiration for their truly unique and one of a kind music and it's also the main reason for their unique and one of a kind live performances as well. At the previous FAC the lead's shortness was mentioned as a problem, so I've expanded it with some more important information. Gocsa (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworked this part of the lead a bit, how's it now? Gocsa (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, it looks better. Just one more point: the image caption says Townsend's unique "Skullet" hairstyle and aggressive stage persona have made him one of the most recognizable musicians in the metal community.[78], but the source says it makes Townsend one of the most "memorable", which IMO is slightly different, and may be OR. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You think I should quote that "memorable" part from the article instead? Gocsa (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either way it seems POVish, but it's your call. I think, where it can seem POVish, it's better to use the wording in the source. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done. Gocsa (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose anew. I didn't have time to fully review this when it was posted, but it still needs work.
    • 1a – fit and finish is missing, lots of small errors need attention from a copy-editor. Examples representative of problems throughout:
      • "The band started as a one-man studio project with Townsend playing most of the instruments on the 1995 debut album, Heavy as a Really Heavy Thing, but he recruited a permanent lineup by 1997." Unwieldly and reads like "he" is "the band".
      • "The band's musical direction was mainly determined by Townsend, whose battle with bipolar disorder, and dark sense of humor was a major influence on his songwriting." What is the comma after "disorder" doing?
      • "The band gained critical success, and a growing underground fan base from their 1997 album City." Ditto after "success".
      • "Strapping Young Lad began in 1995 as a solo project by ..." Try "of" instead of "by".
      • The first section of the History loses me. You outline his rejection by different labels but that only seems like part of the story. Was his shopping his music? As is, it sounds like labels were just randomly approaching him and then rejecting him.
      • "Although Townsend played most of the instruments on the record himself—using a drum machine for the drum tracks—there were also songs that featured local session musicians, including Townsend's future band mate, guitarist Jed Simon." What is the word "himself" doing? The use of em dashes here is grammatically incorrect.
    • 1b – not satisfied with the sourcing at all. Not satisfied with the reliability of Enslain Magazine, which is someone's personal web site on AOL, Crave Magazine, Grind Khaos, or LOUD Magazine. --Laser brain (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually an interview with Gene Hoglan, so I do not feel your 1b assertion has any basis whatsoever. This isn't the Beatles, so you won't see books about Strapping Young Lad any time soon. To be fair, the absolute diatribe Gocsa has had to put up with as concerns sources in this FAC I've found rather saddening, not to mention pathetic. When it comes to an interview, you don't need a top flight journalist at the helm. Throughout this FAC, Gocsa has proved this more than enough. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute diatribe.. saddening.. pathetic.. check. Nice to meet you too. I've listed sources that don't meet WP:RS by a long shot. If you have any useful rebuttal, I'd be glad to discuss it. --Laser brain (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd gladly send out e-mails to these magazines, if you could tell me what to write, how can they prove that they are reliable, that they actually interviewed the band member and transcribed the interview right? Gocsa (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) It's not really a matter of they themselves saying they are reliable. I could register "StrappingYoungLadfacts.com" and write whatever I want. If you emailed me and I responded, "Sure, it's exactly accurate" does that make it so? They just don't meet WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The sources I listed are either personal fan sites or, in the case of Crave, sites without any apparant editorial process or submission guidelines. I'm sorry but if you're hosting stuff on AOL, Geocities, or Tripod, there's no way you're a serious, reliable source that can be used for an encyclopedia article. --Laser brain (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you systematically rule out everything that's hosted on AOl, etc.? Actually yes, you could make a webpage, a fanzine that is, and interview metal bands (no, they do not write whatever they want, they write what the interviewee says, it's called an interview you know). (I don't use news, or reviews or anything like that.) Don't you see it's the subject matter that's REALLY different from anything mainstream? With metal bands, not just the underground ones, even some more 'mainstream' ones, it's like that, their interviews are 90% metal fanzines, and about 10% mainstream magazines. I could also try and ask Townsend himself (or I think his manager would answer, who is also his wife) or Hoglan himself if they ever did these interviews and said these things, if that would satisfy you. Gocsa (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I'm extremely skeptical of fanzines, especially ones where the author hasn't even bothered to register a domain name. If the information is not verifiable to reliable sources, it should not be in the article. That's not even an FA thing, that's a WP policy. If a topic is obscure to where it can't be comprehensively written about using reliable sources, then it can't be a featured article. --Laser brain (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that deleting those 3 references (I have already deleted the Crave magazine one, because the Metal-rules can be used there as well) would affect comprehensiveness so much, but I won't delete them anyway. If that'll be the only reason why this article cannot be featured, than I'll be quite dissapointed in Wikipedia. Gocsa (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gocsa, I am trying to understand your point of view here but you are basically saying that you don't think unreliable sources should be a reason for an article not to be featured? That is a feature article criterion, and it's not flexible. Also, I'm still opposing per 1a as I wrote above. Have you made any progress toward finding a copy-editor? --Laser brain (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Tony1 that the prose isn't "inspiring", but it's adequate. If you're able to pinpoint some more awkwardly constructed or confusing sentences, list them, and I can rewrite them. I don't claim to be the elusive, top-tier copyeditor that would make or break the article's FA status, but I'm the only one who seems interested. A wholesale rewrite is unnecessary, in my opinion; it just needs a bit more polish.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do think a featured article should use reliable sources, it's just that you (and maybe some other editors) and I (and some other editors) have a different definition of reliable sources. I still find it ridiculous to question the so-called 'reliability' of an interview. I also think reliability CAN differ with different subject matters, pop culture in general is not as serious, or strict area as science, math, biology, etc. Yes, I have requested a copyedit from the League of Copyeditors more than a month ago, but they don't do jack, I could be waiting a whole year, and I don't know who else is interested in the topic of this article and good at copyediting as well.. Gocsa (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I replaced the Loud! magazine ref with one from MetalReview.com, which is I think reliable, based on this, this, or this. Gocsa (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would this book be reliable? It has affiliations with RockDetector.com, so I'm wary. Anyway, there's a two-page write-up on Townsend there. This shows Townsend mentioning Master of Puppets (you know, by that overrated metal band) as an influence. "Weird Al" needs qualifying (who he is: singer, dancer whatever). indopug (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's carried by a distributor, which is a step in the right direction, but the publisher only has four books out. I'd suggest checking on the WP:RSN. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weird Al is a singer, musician, actor, satirist, parodist, songwriter, accordionist, and television producer, pick one:D Do Phil Spector and Frank Zappa also need qualifying? Gocsa (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! If I could define what he does succinctly, I'd have changed it myself. Its probably alright anyway indopug (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I really don't know what to make of this FAC; support on top of a long list of questionable sources, unexplained, above, that include personal, free self-published websites such as geocities.com, tripod.com and members.aol.com SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say: the one hosted on geocities was deleted and replaced. Gocsa (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that we (Bardin, LuciferMorgan, J Milburn, and I) did our best to prove/explain that the 'questionable sources' are reliable. Some of the supporters and opposers still don't agree, it seems. If we left out all the sources questioned by some of you from the article, there would be very little left, and I still don't agree that just on this basis an article can't be featured, especially when it is not even a controversial topic, it's just a pop culture article, albeit a topic with a narrow, underground audience/fan base. The way I see it: An interview doesn't reflect the opinion of a site, the interviewer, as opposed to a review, an article of any kind, an essay, a book, etc., and it has nothing to do with the fact checking process of the site, as it is not a news report. Of course, I agree with you in a way, I would HIGHLy doubt a fanzine's interview with, for example, Madonna, I'd doubt its genuineness and accuracy, but extreme metal bands do give interviews to fanzines, in fact, their interviews mostly consist of these 'underground' magazines (well, they're only underground compared to mainstream ones, and they're of course not underground among members of the subculture, that is heavy metal fans). I would oppose too if this article was about Madonna, or anything more mainstream, but I think it is time to change a bit here on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, and adjust the strict rules just a little to the topic. It's saddening if a whole bunch of articles about death metal, black metal, or any other extreme metal related topic couldn't be featured, just because the topic does not receive media attention, and there are less than a half dozen books written about it. Gocsa (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is saddening. The fact is that you can write the best possible article on an underground band, and yet that band may not have coverage enough for the article's assertions to be supported adequately according to our policies. I'm struggling to see anything wrong with that. FA is not an award for your hard work. FA is an indication of an article's having passed our most rigorous review. 86.44.27.243 (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—NFC policy, refs.

  • The prose is pretty uninspiring, but it's hard to pinpoint obvious flaws the way I usually do in reviews, so I suppose I grudgingly don't object on that basis.
  • Audio-clips: there are THREE, yet the specific reason that each "is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" WP:NFCC#8 is neither explicit nor implied. It would help if the musical or lyrical qualities were alluded to in the main text for this purpose. Convince me that WP:NFCC#3 is satisfied (minimal usage).
Three is that many? You're kidding. Just look at some other band articles, many of them have more, and some of them are less significant than the ones in this article. But let's see: 1. the first one has a caption, it demonstrates the eclectic style of the band, more precisely the sound of the first album, it has a quote that sums it up, and the album's style and reception is discussed in the main text. 2. the second is the band's most well-known song, leaving out this one is like leaving out Sunday, Bloody Sunday from the U2 article, it also has a caption with a quote from AMG which describes the song's "chorused harmonies", so I sampled the discussed part of the song. 3. the third is discussed in more detail in the Live performances section ("The band's humorous approach was also evidenced by a song frequently performed live from 1997, entitled "Far Beyond Metal", a parody of classic heavy metal."), but as the photo is there, it was put in the Lyrical themes section, where the band's tongue-in-cheek humor and self-parody is also discussed in great detail. "Far Beyond Metal" exemplifies this humor the most, and it's one of the most important songs of the band as it was performed at almost every concert between 1997 and 2006, recorded on a live album two times, and recorded on a studio album once. So, I do not think three is a lot, and neither of them are unnecessary. Gocsa (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree wirh Gocsa on this one, 3 samples is not too much and they are well-used here. One thing though I think the caption of the Far beyond sample should be "a parody of classic heavy metal. It became a live staple and a fan favorite, with lyrics changing practically every performance". indopug (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support Laser brain's points above about some of those ref. sites. And, for example, I spot-checked Ref 83 and found it to be a rather positive review, but on a commercial site owned by a "shop" (see bottom). Tell me why this is NPOV/reliable? I think the refs need a proper audit.
I don't even use that review as a 'review', I don't think it matters if it is owned by a shop (by the way, I don't think it's owned by backstreet-merch), since I only used it to support the fact that the band used the South Park song as intro. No opinion is reflected in this statement, who cares if the review is positive or negative? Gocsa (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TONY (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment about sources, pursuant to my opposition above. I would be a little more sympathetic about a lack of quality sources if I thought every avenue had been exhausted in seeking reliable sources. However, five minutes spent on the International Index to Music Periodicals shows that a lot of reliable sources are available that you just haven't used. This means the article has not been thoroughly or properly researched—a few hours in a library that has access to this database will work wonders. A few examples of what I found:
    • Granger, Rob (2005). "Buzz: Strapping Young Lad". Guitar Player. 39 (10). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
    • Tolleson, Robin (2005). "Gene Hoglan: Haulin' with Strapping Young Lad". Modern Drummer. 29 (8). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
    • Jones, Deirdre (2006). "Masters of Menace—Strapping Young Lad is the new Raging Bull". Guitar Player. 40 (12). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
    • Smith, George (May 7, 2003). "Jump on the grenade". The Village Voice. 48 (19). {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
--Laser brain (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, for your information, I HAVE read the first three of these, but found nothing useful in the first two. And the third one is USED in the article as a ref, just so you know. I 'like' how you're nitpicking without even checking the article itself first, it's just a simple search you know, CTRL+F. Gocsa (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I believe that database is not free, so if you have access, you could have just offered some help earlier. Although I think I did my best to find online and offline sources, and I used not just one or two offline one, but it's true, my sources aren't unlimited. Gocsa (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I searched for "Menace" because that's the title given in the database and didn't see that you had used it. Those are just representative of the first page of results; there are lots of reliable sources available. Like I said, the database is available through any academic or public library. I don't have a problem helping people find sources, but FAC is not the place to research an article. Additionally, the way you and LuciferMorgan have treated me in this FAC makes the prospect of working with you pretty unpleasant. --Laser brain (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I have found the fourth one here, it also says nothing, it's just a paragraph about the band. I know FAC is not the place for this, but as you're opposing you could help. You could copy the list of articles to my talk page for example, as many of them might be available online. Gocsa (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to offend you during this FAC, so sorry. It's just that you could see by the length of this FAC (and the previous one too) that I've pretty much had it with this. I thought this was going to be hard, but never expected this hard. The prose is now OK, as many have said before, not the best, but The Fat Man Who Never Came Back offered his help, which I greatly appreciate. I have said, and did everything I could about the references, yes, some more sources could be used, but as far as I my knowledge goes with this band (and I know them pretty well), everything is in the article, even if some of you call those refs 'questionable'. If an article is featured, that doesn't mean it can't be improved after, just look at Audioslave now and at the time it got featured, I have improved it greatly. Gocsa (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been reviewing your sources, per a suggestion above. I think that it's up to the other reviewers to say whether there's a certain tipping point where an article composed of many somewhat reliable sources becomes unreliable, but I'm not going to push my opinion here. In addition to the comments above, I have these several notes.

  • #2 - Does 3RRR FM have this transcript up? Otherwise, it's just a fan-transcript of a radio interview which could easily have been faked, modified, or misheard. Not a reliable source.
Yeah, it's been mentioned before, I agree this can be questioned. But it's a really good one and used 3-4 times, so I have sent an e-mail to 3RRR FM radio, cause they have a (not so large) archive on their page, and it is stated there that everybody can request a programme/interview/etc. to be put up. So I did that, I'll wait a couple of days, maybe a week, after that I'll rephrase some sentences, and delete some stuff, and the reference will go. Gocsa (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They have replied and said they can't put this old interview up, maybe they'll do a subscriber only section in 1-2 months where it will be possible, etc. I have replied to them today, asking if they have at least the transcript, and also linked this fan site. Cause if you look at this site where the transcipt is, it says "This interview from THE HARD REPORT OFFICIAL WEBSITE" at the bottom of the page. Unfortunately, the link only leads to the main site of this official website, which is dead now, but can be found using archive.org. Since I don't know the exact link of the transcript, and archive.org doesn't have every page of this official website archived, I don't know what to do. But I think since it says the text is from the old official site of the programme, it is accurate, and wasn't transcripted by a fan. Gocsa (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • #5 - Promotional material, not a reliable source.
The album's liner notes by the band's frontman, Devin Townsend is promotional material??? You're absolutely wrong. Gocsa (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • #21 - Promotional source.
It can be considered promotional, and I think it is, but it is only used to support the fact that Townsend produced other artists' albums, and did two solo records by 1998. I could change this to other, more separate refs, like news articles, but what's the point? It even seems pointless to reference his solo and producer work, as the albums themselves act as refs, but nevertheless I inserted this reference. Gocsa (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • #86 - Promotional source.
It can be considered promotional, and I think it is, but it is only used to support the fact that SYL played Townsend's solo material live in the beginning, as he had no separate Devin Townsend Band until 2003. Gocsa (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, I worry about interview transcripts themselves since those would appear to be to me an almost-primary source, rather than a secondary one. We need the reporter/journalist to interject his evaluation of the material for us to know that it's true. Especially because interviews also tend to be a marketing tool which may be trying to advance a POV ("buy this album!") instead of being a factual account. A journalist's reporting on an interview may expose these biases. (Or not, but let's pretend for a moment that they do.)
  • 19/88 (21.5%) of citations are to Blabbermouth, a website.
  • 6/88 (6.8%) to metal-rules.com, a website
  • 4/88 (4.5%) to chronicles of chaos, a webzine.
  • 3/88 (3.4%) to all music guide, a website.
  • 2/88 (2.2%) to metaleagle, a webzine
  • A handful more one-offs. (45% of sources in total from websites or other questionable sources).

Now, does this tip the article over? I don't know. I really enjoy the text and think that the prose is much improved. JRP (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The interviews are only used to backup factual events, like when the recording started, etc., or for listing the band members' influences, so I don't think there's any promotion involved in the quotes, or in the way the refs are used. You mention promotion/marketing more than once, but there's no promotion in the article at all, Devin's not known for promoting his music, there are numerous interviews where he even states he doesn't care if you like the music or not:) Talking about having bipolar disorder and stuff doesn't sell albums either:) Gocsa (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "1998)[22], contributed" — move the reference to after punctuation marks per WP:FOOTNOTE

Gary King (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Gocsa (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns resolved, Kelly hi! 04:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, for the music samples used in the article, a couple of minor issues per WP:SAMPLE - the length should be no more than 30 seconds or 10% of the song, whichever is shorter. The length of the songs is not specified, so someone reading the rationales doesn't know whether they comply. Recommend using {{Music sample info}} or something similar to ensure all required info is in place. WP:SAMPLE also recommends 64kbps for audio quality, Image:Strapping Young Lad - S.Y.L..ogg, at 74kbps, is maybe a little high. The other two samples, at 65 and 67 kbps, are close enough to the guideline that I don't think there is a problem. Kelly hi! 16:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Gocsa (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Can you show me where you got "Townsend also liked to joke about the band's Canadian heritage during live performances" from? The 2 refs (metal-rules, blistering) only mention their performance of "Blame Canada"; expanding upon this to say that he liked making fun of their Candian heritage is OR. indopug (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. I couldn't find more sources, although Townsend did tell jokes about Canadians and stuff at some concerts:) I've changed it, maybe it's better now. Gocsa (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Overall I think the prose is just good enough to squeak by but it really could do with a nice copyedit to make it a bit more compelling. Below are questions I had while reading through the article.
    • Was Townsend actually sending his demos out? It isn't entirely clear to me how the record labels heard of him.
Yes, he was definitely circulating demos in the music industry. Gocsa (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • When was he the touring guitarist for The Wildhearts?
In 1994. after the Sex & Religion tour ended, but before the first SYL album was released, which is 1995, but since everything is in chronological order, and it isn't specifically stated that his work with The Wildhearts, or his searching for a record company was in 1995, so I guess it isn't necessary to emphasize one or two times that it is still 1994... Gocsa (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any information on why he choose this band name, or why he chose to form a band rather than be a solo singer?
Well, there's no specific reason for the band name, or the reason is pretty straightforward and silly. I've read that he said "it sounded good", but it wasn't a reliable source (well, not by Wikipedia standards). I think it's obvious that you need a band to perform the songs live, since Townsend is not Britney Spears.. For example, Dave Grohl did the same thing, he can't play all the instruments at the same time :D After Grohl/Townsend found a live band, those people obviously became their studio band as well.. I don't think we have to state the obvious all the time. Gocsa (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about not performing by yourself, but a lot of singers have a touring band and don't market themselves as a band. That was the difference I meant. Karanacs (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there's no specific info on that. Also, it's totally different cause Townsend didn't even start as a solo artist, he chose a moniker, as Grohl did with Foo Fighters, purposely, to move on and have a live band for performing the first album, then make that live band a studio band as well, starting from the second album. But basically, it never was explained in more detail by Townsend (as it never was explained by Grohl either:) Gocsa (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "but received favorable reviews from the heavy metal press" - I think this needs citations right after it and probably needs to identify who gave the favorable reviews (were they all favorable?)
    • "the most disturbing albums you'll hear for a very long time". - should this be album (singular) or is the quote referring to a set of albums? If so, then the sentence will need to be rewritten to match that tense
Done. It was my mistake. Gocsa (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "contending that it contained only two great songs." - does it say which two he thinks were good?
No. At least as far as I know.. Gocsa (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In spite of this, in later years, Townsend has expressed distaste toward his album on several occasions" - I'd rewrite to something like "Nevertheless, Townsend later condemned the album as "basically a collection of demos that were remixed".[cite] In the liner notes of the album's reissue, he contended that the album contained only two great songs."
    • When was the album reissued? It might be good to include a year there
Done. Gocsa (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this really praise "like "sticking your head into the jet nozzle of a Stealth Bomber"??
Well, definitely, in the extreme metal genre :) Also, the whole Kerrang review is positive, so it is, and the quote refers to the praise of its agressiveness. Gocsa (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any information on why the first album was rereleased if it sold so poorly the first time, or how many it actually sold?
    • There are extra commas throughout the article. I'd recommend a good reread to eliminate some of these.
    • When did he release the two solo albums? Did that overlap with the Strapping Young Lad albums? It is not clear here.
    • "Townsend remained productive between 1999 and 2002," - this then goes on to only talk about 2000 and 2001, so the dates don't appear to match up
Well, the 1999 and 2002 refers to the span of the hiatus, since the section is about this time. Also, Physicist was released in mid-2000, so he definitely worked on it already in 1999. Also, I didn't list every work he did as producer, cause it'd be a long list, but he did production work in 2001 and 2002.. Gocsa (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We know that he recorded the first album in a week, so unless a source says so we don't "know" that he worked on that album in 1999. Maybe this sentence could just go away? Karanacs (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I'm only referring to the hiatus (of Strapping) when saying it's between 1999 and 2002. 2000, 2001, or 2002, they definitely between 99-02, don't you agree?:) It's not like it's a false statement. Maybe he didn't do much in 1999, at least nothing was actually released.. Although I also doubt that, there wasn't a year, or minute Townsend rested for this whole time, until about 2006, he's always onto something. But is it necessary to point out nothing was released in 1999? That doesn't mean he wasn't active, he was only on hiatus with SYL, just because AC/DC didn't do jack for a while after 2000, they were still active. Also, Townsend did tour with Strapping in 99, 2000, 2001 and 2002, only much less, I did state that in the article. Gocsa (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the whole sentence could just go away? It doesn't really add to the paragraph and it made me look for info that wasn't there. Karanacs (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and all three were involved in Townsend's solo efforts" - any information on how?
Well, should I list them all and what they played? They're musicians and each one has their instrument, so they played their instruments on one or more of his albums, but it'd be a long list. See: Hoglan played drums on Infinity, Physicist, Terria and Official Bootleg, Stroud played bass on Physicist and the Official Bootleg, Simon played guitar on Physicist and the Official Bootleg. Gocsa (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I was more curious in knowing whether they a) played on the albums, b) helped write songs, c) toured with him under his own name or d) any combination of the above. It's unclear from the article exactly how involved they were. Karanacs (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ". He emphasized that he was not "forcing" his product " - why did he feel the need to emphasize this? Had there been rumblings against him or the band?
    • Any info on why the EP was cancelled?
No. Or well, I guess it was dropped because it was extended to a album, which became Alien. But no one confirmed that ever. Gocsa (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who were the guest vocalists on The New Black?
Again, should I list them there? There were three: Oderus Urungus, Bif Naked, Cam Kroetsch. Gocsa (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If one or more of them have wikilinks, then I'd add them. Karanacs (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree actually, its more apt for the album's article. Actually i wouldn't mind removing "It was also the first album to feature guest vocalists.[51]"; its a short, stubby sentence that makes little difference on the reader's understanding of the article. indopug (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be fine with me if it was removed. My thought was that if it was important enough to be included here, it ought to be expanded on just a teeny bit. Karanacs (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Gocsa (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd completely remove the reference to the about.com review. About.com is never considered a reliable source anyway and it is certainly not a generally respected reviewing mechanism
    • What is the Devin Townsend Band? We don't hear of it by this name at least until it is disbanded
Well, it's his solo band, or more precisely he writes songs alone and there was a band that he performed them with in studio and live. Is there such thing as a solo band? Well, it's mentioned in the Live performances section, but since the article is about SYL, not about Townsend.. Should it say "As a result, Strapping Young Lad—as well as Townsend's solo band, The Devin Townsend Band—were effectively disbanded."? Or maybe delete The Devin Townsend Band part? Gocsa (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just delete that part. Karanacs (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I have removed the Devin Townsend part. Gocsa (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any information on how many units each of the records sold?
Well, no. There's info on the first album, then there's info on Alien and The New Black. It's all in the article. It's pure luck that there's info on the first album, since the first two didn't chart anywhere.. The third only charted on the Top Heatseekers, so I couldn't find sales data. Gocsa (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any information on why the self-titled album was different in terms of sampling/vocal layering?
    • "musical ideas and production style have drawn comparisons to Phil Spector[67] and Frank Zappa.[" - good comparisons? bad comparisons?
I don't know what more to add. They are both highly respected music industry persons, so you can see it as a good comparison, but I think it's neither good nor bad, it's just the production style (in the case of Spector) and progressive ideas (in the case of Zappa) that were similar. It's just a comparison, so you have an idea of his work, but it's not saying he was as bad/good as Spector/Zappa. If you look at the articles used as references, maybe you can add something, but for me "musical ideas and production style" compared to Spector and Zappa is enough. Gocsa (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "subsequent albums featured a minority of "riffs, lyrical ideas, and song titles" by his band mates" - earlier in the article it mentions that the later albums were true collaborations, which made it sound like much more than this.
I don't think so, I wrote that for the first time the album was a product of collaborative writing. I don't think it means 'true collaboration' but if you have a better way to put is, help me:) I think everything is more collaborative than writing every song all by yourself. Gocsa (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • "Following his work as vocalist on Steve Vai's..." It's a bit unclear by the structure of that sentence whether it means that a) after his vocalist work, he realized he had been a "musical whore" during that period or b) after his vocalist work period, he was a "musical whore". Would suggest recasting the sentence to avoid the ambiguity. Or if a), perhaps use "Following his work...Townsend realised"?
    • Is there really no more info on the process of the creation of the actual band? The article seems to breeze through Townsend's recruitment of a permanent line-up. Nothing on his thought process at the time. Why did he want to create a band? What was his initial vision for it? Why did the others join? When did the band form? Etc.
    • "Century Media was not initially interested in releasing a live record, but impressed with Townsend's production, the label agreed to release it." What does "impressed with Townsend's production" mean? Sentence structure could be improved.
    • http://www.axs.com.au/~vk3aaw/devhard1.htm Quoting an unreliable transcription of a radio interview by a fan?
I'm still working on this, I have contacted the radio, they can't put up the interview in an audio file but I'm trying to get the transcript or at least more info about the interview (the exact date and the name of the interviewer). Also, I think the transcript is from the official site of the radio programme as stated on the fan site, but that official site is no more unfortunately. Gocsa (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have spent an hour auditing the sources and I'm not convinced of the reliability of many of them. I would rather see fewer, but reliable, sources, than this plethora of dubious ones. GrahamColmTalk 17:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restart; stalled for well over a month, so I'm restarting this for a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Strapping_Young_Lad&oldid=221535804"