This is an archive of past discussions with User:Burningclean. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hey Burningclean. I'll be the first to admit that I'm probably a little hard in my GA reviews. I usually nitpick about style and prose and grammar and stuff a little bit too much than is necessary. I actually try to avoid reviewing articles from people who I haven't worked with before and who I don't know regularly do quality work, because odds are I'll tear the article to shreds and look like a jerk. That said, I think the content issues I brought up with Trivium and The Crucified are both well founded in the GA criteria. Let me explain. As far as the scope of an article goes, the criteria says it should be "broad" (as opposed to "comprehensive" for FA). I don't consider a strictly historical/biographical article to be broad – in fact, I'd say it's pretty narrow, given that the whole article is only based on that one thing. On the other hand, I don't think (for GA purposes) it would be that hard to rectify the situation: I'd be happy with even one additional prose-based section. That way, the article would no longer be singularly-focused (narrow), but by covering the topic from multiple (more than one) angles, it would be "broad". Granted, that's my interpretation of the criteria, but I just can't see how an article that does one thing and one thing only can be considered broad. And yea, I know alot of GA articles get away with less, but that doesn't mean they should have.
As for the sourcing for The Crucified: I did notice the discussion about the source on the talk page, but if I read it correctly, it seemed to focus on whether the topic was notable based on the single source, not whether the single source was sufficient. Per WP:RS, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Two things to point out: "third-party" and "sources". Having one first-party source seems to pretty obviously go against that guideline.
PS, I checked out the GA heavy metal bands that you linked to. I went through them and 15 of the articles have additional sections (music style, influences, etc), while 7 didn't. I don't know if that really proves anything, but hopefully it shows that I'm not completely crazy, and at least I'm in good company. Drewcifer (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey man, so I figured that there wasn't much available sources for The Crucified, and I guess that's unfortunate, but I honestly can't see it as a GA with basically a single first-party source. I've had this problem before (where a lack of sources limits an article's potential), and I don't exactly have a good answer for you. Being the best article it can be is great, but that doesn't mean it's a GA necessarily, you know?
As for the Trivium thing, I think it's limiting an article potential to say "GAs shouldn't have X because that's too much detail for a GA." It's better to go above and beyond the criteria as opposed to the bare minimum, no? But like I said, without a bit more diversified content, I don't think it meets the criteria anyways, so I don't think the article meets the bare minimum quite yet anyways. Besides, I don't think it would really be that big of a deal for the Trivium article. Relocate all the vocal stuff to a separate section, find a few quotes from reviews and stuff (but hopefully not too overly positive), maybe an interview or two, and you're good to go. Drewcifer (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
As you've suggested, I revamped Beyonce and its getting bigger. Its not yet copy edited. Do you have some suggestions for it to be improved? Like what to clean-up and what to add to achieve comprehensiveness. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 08:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Burningclean. I saw what happened at the Black Tide talk page and your debate with the reviewer. I also saw that you've put the article back up at WP:GAN. Now, I would be willing to give your article another review (and don't worry, I've reviewed music articles and just about written an article about a band myself), but before I do I would like to make the suggestion that you take the article over to good article reassessments and claim that the article was inappropriately failed. I believe this might be the more appropriate action for the article. If they tell you at WP:GAR to list it again at WP:GAN, then please feel free to contact me at my talk page and I'll be happy to review the article for you. Thanks for your time. RedPhoenix (Talk) 00:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah sure, I can go through and give it a copyedit for you. And hell, even if I "shouldn't be doing it" because I'm reviewing it, I'll just cite WP:IAR in that case. As for the musical style section, sometimes all you need is a couple sentences, like one I wrote for an article that I have at WP:GAN right now, Crush 40. As long as you cite it, of course. I know it's not required for GA's, but in this case, where there's not that much content anyway due to how new the band is, I would say you really need it in this case. Sorry to give you more work, but I think it's a necessity to meet criterion 3 of the good article criteria in this case. RedPhoenix (Talk) 04:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've finished giving the article a copyedit, but I do have some more concerns as I read through it again. Don't worry, they're minor. First off, even though this is in the lead, the statement about the band's future performance at the festival in Ohio needs to be cited, since it's mentioned nowhere else in the article. Also, I couldn't find a place to work the Jimmy Kimmel statement into the paragraphs, so I let it stand as a lone statement. It didn't belong in the paragraph with the record information. I also put Radio in as their alias in the infobox (if it's a name they used in the past, it makes sense to list it there). It's up to you how you want to work it in, and you really don't need all those red links. Whoever your previous reviewer was has got it wrong. RedPhoenix (Talk) 05:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The Hold Period
Hey, Burningclean, I haven't seen you put any work into the Black Tide article yet. I would like to remind you the hold period lasts for four more days or so, and I said I'd only extend it if you're working on it and you asked for it. I've given the article the copyedit you wanted already but you still need to finish up with the rest of the issues (I don't know that much about Black Tide, I only saw them perform once at Ozzfest 2007 in Indianapolis.) Good luck.RedPhoenix (Talk) 21:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It was better than I thought it was going to be, so yes, it was a good show. They failed to tell us Black Tide would be on the main stage before Lordi, Static-X, Lamb of God, and Ozzy, but they were good nonetheless. lol at that show, we booed Lordi off stage. Red Phoenixflame of life...protector of all...21:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
GAR and more
Hey thanks for that, I'm generally in over my head regarding all matters GA. I was meaning to ask you for a while; do you want to collaborate on something (in the future, if you are busy now)? I know that there is that falls under both our musical tastes, so maybe an album or a song? Tell me what you think. indopug (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
That's awesome, I have a two month vacation beginning in a month. :) I think while we work on Dirt we can simultaneously improve its singles ("Would?", "Rooster" etc) articles too. indopug (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Search for "alice in chains guitar world" in Google Books. Pages 83–91 of the Guitar World presents Nirvana and the Grunge Revolution preview has almost an entire Guitar World interview with Cantrell where he talks about Dirt, esp. the equipment that is used and what the songs are about. Only two pages (in between) are missing, maybe we can track them down somewhere. Also check Wesley's comment at my talk page. If you can get the book on Staley, we can work on him (hopefully after Dirt :)). indopug (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ha, nice work, yes those sites are all me... they are all way out of date, tho. I never give out the myspace because I never get on there, and theres only 1 song (I think, its been a while), and Im not really trying to "push" it as of yet. But when we do get it together, we are gona get a new name for sure. We are just finishing vocals and stuff on our full length album, it might even be a double album(we have so much shit now), and its all part of a concept album thing. Anyway, i'll post a link once we get original stuff on line, and maybe one day I will be on the list of wikipedians with articles - seeing my former drummer go as far as they have is a big motivator!! \m/ Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This is my biggest project to date and I would like to ask your suggestions for it to improve further. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Stavesacre.GIF. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting article. I think the timeline is a little funky, personally. I think there is two reasons for this: one, graph-wise time is typically on the x axist not the y-axis (ie it should be horizontal not vertical), two, the table is longer then the article itself. The second one might not be a problem once you expand the lead, but the first still is. Take a look at the timeline I did at Nine Inch Nails live performances (towards the end). I'd recommend something along those lines since it's one bar per person (as opposed to re-listing Åkerfeldt 10 times), and it's much easier to see the ins and outs of the band. The code of the timeline is a little complicated, but if you need some help I can hook you up. It took me a couple days to figure out what the hell was going on with that code, so let me know if you'd like some help. Drewcifer (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
That Megadeath table is definitely a step in the right direction, but (this may be just a matter of personal taste) the timeline code just makes more sense to me. It's alot smaller and more concise and can actually say more if you do it right. And the code's not that bad once you figure out what's going on with it. Let me take a shot at it on my my sandbox. Drewcifer (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Check out my sandbox. Kinda finished the timeline, if you're still interested. I did the best I could, given the fact that I've never even heard of the band. Unlike Nine Inch Nails live performances, I hesitated to make seperate colors for instruments since I'm not really sure who does what, or if that would even be a good justification to make. The current color-coding is a little redundant, but hey, it's something. If you'd like some more adjustments, let me know. If you feel like tackling it yourself, here's one tip of advice: if the table just disappears after you make some edits, add in a random empty line or two into the code and keep previewing until it pops up again. Don't know why this happens, but that's my workaround. Let me know what you think! Drewcifer (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Burningclean. I took another look at the Black Tide article today. Now, I haven't been watching the page, so it was like looking at it through fresh eyes with all of the changes. As I said, I'd like to see a musical style section, but I'm not going to make it a requirement (you might want to do that if you're going higher than GA, though). Anyway, I'm ready to pass it PROVIDED THAT you source the statement about them being at the rock festival in Ohio in the lead. If you source that, I will pass the article. I can also extend the hold if you need a little time to find a source. Thanks. Red Phoenixflame of life...protector of all...02:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you may want to examine the edits of this IP 68.195.3.185 (talk·contribs). This editor seems to pop up every few days with a disregard for any previous discussion when it comes to infobox content. When he starts adding glam metal to the Lynyrd Skynyrd page (and eventually he probably will) I'll roll him back. In the meantime more than one set of eyes would be good to try and watch him. Thanks. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree or disagree with the editing as much as I disagree with creating huge numbers of dab links and also ignoring WP:ALBUM guidelines even though they have been pointed out to him numerous times. Thanks for the assistance. If he adds anything foolish to any articles that border on trolling or vandalism I will have him blocked. Until then someone just needs to watch him. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thought I'd come to you directly rather than clutter up the FA page. It looks good and well cited. I'll support it. But wanted to comment. I am a stickler for well written prose and I have one beef.
The band soon sought out Jason Newsted as a replacement and recorded an EP of cover songs to test the talents of Newsted
Surely ther is a better way to express that thought? Like - Jason Newsted was hired as a replacement and the bands first release to feature the new member was an EP of cover songs.
If you just READ the interview then near the bottom, Rex Brown says that a Down DVD is in the works. Now go put the information back you pighead. Festering Rat Corpse (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Read the paragraph that starts with Planet Loud - Okay, Down started out, as we said earlier, as a side-project, did you have any discussion in the way of a long term plan for the band? Rex Brown said himself that a live DVD is in the works if you just read the paragraph below this one. How much more official do you want? BTW my apologies for the pighead comment. We all have feelings. Festering Rat Corpse (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe you may have asked me in recent months what my intentions are on getting this to the main page. I think now the best thing to do is to try to propose this at the time of the LOTY voting in December. I hope everyone who has been involved stays involved and that we get some new people between now and then.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I saw that you have worked on a number of band articles that have reached FA and GA. If you have some time, I would really appreciate an advice you can give me for improving the Dredg article (peer review). Thanks. --Ars Sycro (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Burningclean. I was wondering if you could do me a favor. Currently Nine Inch Nails live performances is at FAC, and one of the reviewers has asked for a copyedit from an uninvolved 3rd-party (so I think he just wants someone other then me to do a copyedit). Do you think you could help me out and go through the article a bit and clean up any language problems you might see? If not, no big deal, but I would appreciate it. Also, I like what I see on my Sandbox with the Opeth band members thing, when do yo think you'll put that bad boy up? Drewcifer (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This month was the first in over a year in which no articles were promoted to featured article status. In the period between March 2007 and April 2008, the project produced a whopping 70 Featured Articles. Let's keep adding to those numbers!
Pearl Jam was featured on the Main Page on April 22.
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated Giggabot (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 4,050 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 227 total nominations, 16 are on hold, 14 are under review, and two are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12).
Noble Story (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk·contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Topic
Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article.
There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth.
Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the good article page, increased the GA count by 1, and added the {{GA}} to article talk page, many reviewers tend to forget to add the topic parameter in {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}}. You can browse the topic parameter abbreviations at on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories.
Let's go back to the page that shows GA topics; does anyone spot the eleventh topic? Yes, Category:Good articles without topic parameter is the 11th topic, only it shouldn't be there. Articles that do not have a topic parameter in either {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter.
That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it.
GA Sweeps Update
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses )
Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process.
From the Editors
There is currently a debate on adding a small green dot to the top right corner of all Good Articles that pass the criteria, similar to the small bronze star that is added to the top right corner of Featured Articles. Members of WikiProject Good Articles are encouraged to participate in the debate on this page.
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
I assume you will be removing that template from all of these articles, a list which includes such distinguished featured articles as Pixies. -- Naerii00:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
){kind=link}