I just remembered this because I was reading it again last night. I have a Bass Guitar issue that publishes a lost interview with Cliff Burton he gave less than a day before he died. In it he mentioned that R.E.M. was one of his favorite bands at the moment. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my stack of guitar magazines takes about half a shelf, which comes to about a foot long. My brother has a few as well, and these span from 1998 to 2005, which was the last time I picked up an issue that had articles and tabs that interested me. I have a stack of about 13 or 14 Spin issues on my coffee table that I got because I received a free subscription back in 2004. I've got one issue of Q and one of Mojo" (plus a special Mojo" edition about the music of Manchester). My favorite magazines are from the NME Originals reprints series, of which I own the Britpop and Goth issues (if only I bought them when I saw them on the stands, I wouldn't have had to pay over thirty dollars to buy them off the website . . .) I also like trying to track down reprint collections; I've got a compendium of R.E.M. articles from various publications (which proved invaluable in sourcing the article) and a Guitar World anthology of alternative rock articles, both of which I bought used at Strand Bookstore in New York City. Tonight I just bought a Kerrang! Legends special devoted to the Foo Fighters. I definitely spend more on books and articles about music these days than I do on music itself. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a serious collection you have. I had a few music magazines a year or two ago but no idea where they went, although i would never think of spending $30 unless it really interested me. Also with the Internet there's so much information for free, including excerpts from magazines. Which reminds me! i have to get the Decibel Magazine which has a cover story of Slayer and the band's history, which helped get 4 GA's, 1 FA and possibly one more FA (South of Heaven), so are worth buying sometimes :D. There's also a Slayer book, the first, coming out in June 08, which myself and Lucifer will be buying. Hehe i understand that you put more money into magazines than CDs with the stupid prices they put on them these days. You think they would realize. I actually might go to the newsagent tomorrow and have a look at some mags, look what you made me do :p M3tal H3ad (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the main reasons I don't buy much music these days is because I have virtually everything I want, and since I work in a place with a vast and ever-expanding music library I can listen to music any time I want for free. I love reading about music, and while I've grown quite accustomed to the increasing number of newspapers and magazines that archive their articles online, there are times I just have to buy the print version (particularly articles reprinted in the NME Originals series, much of which isn't available to the public in any other fashion). By the way, this Kerrang! Legends I bought has an order form for past issues, and one of the ones listed is for a Metallica special. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lucky, last CD/DVD i bought was Metallica S&M like 8 months ago. Reading and writing articles you will find some really cool and interesting stuff, which is why I'm still here, so you are right. Is the Metallica special a specific album/period, or the entire history in general? M3tal H3ad (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read your notes on the article's discussion. No offense, but if you saw that all of that needed to be addressed, why didn't you fix any of the data that needed to be corrected, reworded, etc.? You may respond on your talk page, as I am watching it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If i made all the changes how are editors' supposed to improve, if they aren't being told what to improve on. I reviewed an article you nominated and found some things that need fixing, so for next time you will hopefully be able to deal with them before a GA nom. M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of information is repeated in the book and the MTV timeline you cited, so I saw no need to replace it. There's still a few more things i might be able to add, but none of it really pressing. When this article passes GAC (Which is certainly should), I encourage you to look up or buy books/documentaries on Metallica to ensure you have consulted the best available sources before going to FAC. I'm going to list an oppose on the Trent Reznor FAC soon because it doesn't acknowledge all the sources available on the subject, so that's something you should try to be on top of. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be pretty busy from now through the first week of January (holidays, my FA projects, and all that), but once things settle down I'll go through my magazines and pull out what I can for the Metallica article. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, again thanks for helping me with the GA! You said something about changing some parts of the article to avoid redundancy. If you'd please, review the article once more and highlight some of the issues that caught your eye and offer some suggestions about improving them in the second peer review for Hybrid Theory. Thanks! (SUDUSER)8506:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Godsmack
Hi, would you please talk some sense into User:Demantos. He is trying to merge Godsmack discography with Godsmack. Godsmack has enough music to warrent a seperate article for discography, and any substantially successful band has one on wikipedia. Please comment on his talk page, and comment here.
The article passed the GA review. Thank you so much for helping me out with my first Good Article! Now time for FA. Anything needed for that? Skeeker[Talk]21:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind going through changing the "theirs" that you notice, I tried but you edited the page as I was, and when I change the words they don't seem to make sense. Please see my above comment. Thank you, Skeeker[Talk]03:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a rule for numbers in an article there is a discussion going on on the FAC page about whether to type numbers (two) or just use the numbers (2). One other user said to type numbers up to 10 then use the numbers from 11 and up. Please give your opinion. Thank you, Skeeker[Talk]22:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Godsmack is FA![reply] Thank you, Skeeker[Talk]22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: UA
It needs a ton of copyediting work before it can even be considered for GA status. If I reviewed it, I'd be ripping shreds into the writing. I'll see what I can do. LuciferMorgan (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Entertainment Weekly's Chuck Eddy called Slayer's version of The Stooges' "I Wanna Be Your Dog", to which Araya changed the lyrics to make it a "sex song", a "klutzy remake and an insufferable satanic dirge at album's end, but why would anybody stick around long enough to discover these?".[9]" - Where does this Chuck Eddy use the words "sex song"? Isn't mentioned anywhere in the reference. LuciferMorgan (talk) 09:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil is going to copyedit the article in a few days, and that's since I feel he has better skills in that department than myself. After the article is nominated for GA, I really feel it's either Lombardo or Haunting the Chapel for FA. LuciferMorgan (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guy, it's good to see your projects are kicking serious ass. With that in mind, I'd just like a little advice on how to get my own WikiProject running - specifically one on Deftones (apologies if it offends your true metal sensibilities!)
Anyway, I've completely bastardised the Slayer WikiProject and sandboxed my draft for the WikiProject at User:Seegoon/Deftones project. Mainly, I've just replaced where it said "Slayer" with "Deftones" - your formula seems to work pretty smoothly! Specifically, if you could help me with the assessment table you have in the top right corner of your WikiProject, I'd be highly grateful.
Have you ever listened to metalcore? If you do not like them and personally don't think they should be called metal, that is your subjective opinion. Like it or not they are just straight metal. Metalcore is a mix of metal and hardcore and while BFMV may have some breakdowns, they are more along the lines of Metallica breakdowns. I really don't think someone is going to call Metallica metalcore.
Untill a subgenre can be found and clearly cited without legitament sites contradicting, then it must remain under the main genre, which is heavy metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.42.162.134 (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input on the nomination.
I've edited the article extensively and would love to hear your feedback.
(It's still being fixed, but it's definitely better than what you've seen earlier)
--Cahk (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind giving the article another review? It has improved even more. Is it possible for you to get a picture for the infobox? There are pictures on Wikicommons, but apperantly I can't use them. How do I upload a music sample? Skeeker[Talk]03:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added influences and corrected citations. Now would you mind commenting, and copy editing a bit? Another note, please look at Nightwish and Talk:Nightwish#Cleanup, I don't think that the article should be featured anymore, it really sucks. Thank you, Skeeker[Talk]05:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on AIC, All I need to do is revamp the Influences and Styles section and I think it will be ready. Would You mind reviewing a bit, and show me how to get a music sample? Are you going to get Metallica to FA? Thank you, Burningclean[Speak the truth!]02:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once you've scene that would you mind re-reviewing? I expanded a ton of stuff and added to the Influences and Style section. The article is up to 35kb. By the way sorry if I was irritating you. Thank you, Burningclean[Speak the truth!]22:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ready for FA, far from? I have started working on Chevelle (since all the good metal bands are worked on by you, lol). So would you mind reviewing that for me. I think copy editing is an issue, writing for a band is hard when it is comprised of all brothers. Thank you, Burningclean[Speak the truth!]05:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would that be the only reason? There are really no images of him, I just thought it would be good to include a picture of him. What about the fact that it is of the unplugged show, could I include it in the unplugged section? Thank you, Burningclean[Speak the truth!]07:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So where do you cite from? Ain't every web like this? Most of bands don't have their genre on their homepages, not even on their label's homepages...Lykantrop(Talk)10:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You cite music critics for genres, and Rockdetector is written by Garry Sharpe-Young as seen at the credits. There is correct information but there is incorrect information also. And i've been right here ;p just been busy with xmas the past few days. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Metallica article: on Mustaine and Some Kind of Monster
I saw you are working on Metallica. I read there that Mustaine denied the request (about using footage of his meeting with Ulrich for Some Kind of Monster) and that Metallica proceedd to use it anyway. That is false. Mustaine signed a release form at the time, but after some time regretted it. But, as Metallica had the legal permission and wanted to, the footage stayed on the movie. I've read it on the internet and I can probably check that on the book "This Monster Lives" by Joe Berlinger. You might want to check that out. Great work, the article was a mess.--Serte[ Talk · Contrib ]22:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the danger of saying you will review articles upon request when the holidays approach. My apologies, and thanks for the reminder. I'll get to it. VanTuckytalk05:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Please tell me anything to take care of, if possible I'd like to skip GA and go to FA. Would this article be to short for FA? The band has such a small history and I covered everything there needs to be. If you wouldn't mind please comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alice in Chains.
I just saw Dumbbell Indemnity and how you failed it. Why would you? I wasn't even present at all during the time to give my input and to fix the things up myself, but you just went ahead and failed it according to what that user said. The user that was there is unaware of how Simpsons episodes are GA'd, and Dumbbell Indemnity was perfectly fine. I suggest you go back and promote it now, as it's fixed and fine. xihix(talk)19:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also fixed the stuff up on Bart Star, but did not take out the part about Namath. I didn't do so as several other episodes contain information on that, as it is found that the reception of the guest stars from the staff is important. xihix(talk)06:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The backlog at Good Article Nominations has recently exploded to 236 unreviewed articles! Out of 264 total nominations, 17 are on hold, 10 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (47 articles), Film and cinema (25 articles), Television and journalism (16 articles), Art and architecture (15 articles), and Politics and government (14 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
Reviewer of the Month
Dihydrogen Monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month of December, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 of the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen Monoxide hails from Brisbane (which, incidentally, is almost a GA, kids ;)) and has been editing Wikipedia since August 2006. He mostly likes to review articles relating to music, Australia, or anything else that takes his fancy! He also has two articles waiting, and notes that there's still a huge backlog,... so get cracking!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of December 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!
GAReview Template
Lots of you that frequent WP:GAN have undoubtedly seen the articles under review, marked with "Review - I am reviewing this article. ...". The articles have been marked as being under review by an editor using the {{GAReview}} template. The purpose of this template is essentially to prevent two editors from reviewing the same article at the same time, so it's essentially a common courtesy notice to other editors so that they don't pass or fail an article while you're in the midst of collecting and writing comments. However, just because an article is marked, shouldn't preclude another editor from contributing to the review. If you'd like to review it, go ahead; simply collect your comments and write them down on the article's talk page – but don't pass or fail the article – leave that to the other reviewer.
To use this template yourself, simply write "#:{{GAReview}} ~~~~" on the line immediately following the article's nomination at WP:GAN. You can even leave additional comments as well (e.g. "#:{{GAReview}} I will finish my review in the next 24 hours. ~~~~"). Reviewers marking articles with this template should also observe some common etiquette; please don't mark more than 1-3 articles as being under review at a time, and please try and finish your review within 3-5 days of marking the article.
GA Sweeps
After openly requesting the community for more participants into the Sweeps, we have 3 more members on the board. They are (in no particular order) Canadian Paul, VanTucky, and Masem. Canadian Paul will be sweeping "Middle East and the World" articles. VanTucky will be sweeping "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" and "Literature" articles. Masem will be sweeping "Television episodes". We're still looking for more reviewers. Interested individuals should contact OhanaUnited for details.
At this moment, participation in the sweeps project is by invitation only, as we desire experienced reviewers who have a thorough and extensive knowledge of the criteria. This is to ensure that articles that have "fallen through the cracks" would be found and removed, and that additional articles don't fall through the cracks during the sweep.
Currently, there are 16 members working on the project, and we have reviewed 74 articles in December 2007. Of those that are swept, 275 articles are kept as GA, 126 articles are delisted, and 5 promoted to FA.
Did You Know,...
... that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000?
... that GA was formed on October 11, 2005 and was formerly called "Half-decent articles"?
... that many discussions were made over the years on whether GA should have a symbol placed on the main article space, yet at the end always removed?
... that there was a proposal to change the GA symbol to a green featured star?
From the Editors
Happy New Year, everyone! I'm just filling in for Dr. Cash as he's busy (or away) in real life. This explains why I wasn't prepared for a full-length article on GA process, and instead I resort to a tiny DYK for GA.
OhanaUnited
Happy New Year as well! I'm still here, and haven't totally disappeared. I had to cut back on editing and reviewing during the month of December as I made the transition from Flagstaff, Arizona to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But I should be about settled in the Keystone State, so I'll be contributing more to Wikipedia again in the new year. Thanks to OhanaUnited for putting together much of the content for this newsletter! He's been working hard with the Sweeps, and the 'Did You Know' section is also a great idea, so I think that will become a regular feature now! I also figured out how to have a collapsible newsletter, so that will change our delivery options a bit. Cheers!
I see what you mean with the album articles. So newer albums are pretty easy? You must have some books on Slayer. Yeah Mudvayne will be pretty easy, as was Chevelle. Machine Head might be a bit more of a challenge, but the Blackeing section will be pretty easy, you have so much info on the page for it. Do you think Chevelle is featurable? And do you have plans on making all of your GAs into FAs? I feel like a 20 questions game, lol. Burningclean[Speak the truth!]20:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat started Lamb of God for you. I think my next project will be Mudvayne. What would you say to editing Children of Bodom, Opeth, and/or Machine Head together sometime? I noticed you were editing Divine Heresy, I though I would tell you that I met them on the Operation Annihilation tour. My first 2008 message, ;) Burningclean[Speak the truth!]15:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I just found out I'm going to see them in February with Hellyeah. Have you been to cool gigs? Mudvayne is harder than I thought, it is almost impossible finding formation info. Burningclean[Speak the truth!]02:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Are you going to be doing Lamb of God alone, or would you like some help? To review and pass GAs do you have to be some kind of special editor or something along those lines? Burningclean[Speak the truth!]04:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to go through my articles to see if I can add anything before then. One of the articles I have is definitely useful: a interview about Kirk Hammett about his guitar style on every album up through 2001. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the sources available, you might want to start off the Musical Style section mentioning how early on Metallica's main influences were NWOBHM bands. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the Metallica FAC. Should I not state a support because I have edited that page alot? I think you and I are the two biggest editors to the article (you obvioulsy the most). Burningclean[Speak the truth!]22:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the welcome back. I am very busy working and travelling and only have time to pop in every once in a while. You've done some excellent work getting a few articles to Featured status. The Metallica article has come along way since the days when I was reverting 15 vandal attacks a day on it. Good luck with your project. I hope all goes well. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 04:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have fulfilled all the requirements to the best of my abilities. Please tell me on the pages' talkpage if there is anything else that needs to be done. Regards, FamicomJL (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is now an official group picture of this new project. However, I don't know how to put images like that on Wikipedia. If you could take care of it for me, I would be grateful. You can find the picture I'm talking about on Google images, their Myspace, or the band's official website, www.cavaleraconspiracy.com. Again, thank you.
Dark Executioner (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]
Regarding Wikiproject:Metal
After reading your comments on PAntera's talk page, as you may or may not have read, I agree with you that we should add Pantera to the list. I also would like to request adding Napalm Death, Children of Bodom and Trivium to the list, if they are not there already. Respond to me on my talk page as soon as you can, please.
Dark Executioner (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]
Please look at the FAC. You don't have to support or object, but some guy is making it a pain in the ass to promote, while there are numerous supporters. Please take a look and comment. If you agree with him that is okay, but please read through. He seems to know what he is talking about, but he is not viewing my standpoint. Thank you, Burningclean[Speak the truth!]22:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did the corrections as listed, although I had minor disputes on a couple. Anyway, if you seek further improvements, contact me. Wildroot21:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That movie rules. Sometime I should do something other than music, lol. :D I told someone to ask you for picture advise, Is that okay. I just kind of figured it was rude to do that without you knowing. Sorry if it is, I just realised that. —Burningclean[Speak the truth!]02:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have question to ask you. I created the CC page, but there's just one problem: I have no idea how to upload images on Wikipedia. There's several group and live photo shots already circulating on Google and their official website. I asked Skeeker/Brurningclean for help, but he told me to ask you about it. Said something about Flickr, and how you have to be a member to get images from it. Well anyway, if you could just get a picture of Cavalera Conspiracy, could you go ahead and put it on the page for me? I would mighty appreciate it.
Dark Executioner (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]
You Are Amazing
I've noticed that you and I have very similar music tastes and I admire you for contributing to so many featured articles and good articles, especially making WikiProject Slayer so successful by making more than half of its articles either good or featured. --Chinese3126 (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uploading Pictures
Hello, I recently procured permission for a few pictures to be used for the Guns N' Roses article, at the behest of Skeeker[Talk]. However, I know nothing about uploading pictures, so he told me to ask you about it. I was wondering if you could tell me where to upload the pictures (i.e., Wikipedia Commons versus . . . ?), as well as any formalities regarding the permissions to use them (whether copies of the permissions need to be archived, or whatever). Thanks! GrimmC (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. I think I should be able to get some good pictures uploaded now. However, I was wondering why non-commercial can't be set in the license. Given Wikipedia is non-profit, it would seem that's okay. I 'm just wondering what to tell users so it doesn't seem shady, since I'm sure they'd be thinking the same thing. GrimmC (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lamb of God
Hey, I was wondering how far you are going to take Lamb of God. I'm up for my first collaberation, so if you were just going to GA, could I help bring it to FA with you. They are one of my favorite bands and I've been itching to work on it. —Burningclean[Speak the truth!]03:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to begin work on it soon? I just noticed Reign in Blood on the homepage, nice work. Great job on Metallica, I'm jeleous (not really), they are my favorite band. Nice work. —Burningclean[Speak the truth!]03:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet, I'll get to work on that while Opeth is in the boring "waiting to be reviewed" process. Sorry I feel like a 20 questions ball, did you want to work on LOG together? Thanks by the way. Is there a limit to how samll an article should be to become FA? Chevelle is less than 30KB but is a really good article. —Burningclean[Speak the truth!]03:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, what articles?. That sucks that AiC failed. It didn't yet but I am closing it, I do see some of his points, others were just tedious, I thought. I was wondering your age and location (just country and/or state, no city required). —Burningclean[Speak the truth!]04:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I thought you were in California or something, lol. Most Austrailia editors I see work on Powderfinger. The Blackening rules, if you need help with it at I'll help whatever I can. I'm seeing the in less than a month now, WOO! Thank you for all the help you have given me over the last few months. I think I sound like a pain in the arsenal sometimes. —Burningclean[Speak the truth!]04:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think heavy metal fans are the most passionate about their music I think. I don't know if you noticed but most of the music featured articles are metal or rock related. No a whole lot of pop or country, rap, etc. it all sucks anway. That is how I view it. I think wiki is a good source of info when it is sourced, so why not work on articles a lot of people look at. —Burningclean[Speak the truth!]20:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Alien 5
I didn't protect that article - previously, we used to use an old system consisting of protected title lists, and I used a bot to switch 8,000 or so pages over to the new system. However, looking at the deleted edits and your new section, all looks well. :-) east.718at 07:41, January 15, 2008
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:HannemanRainingblood.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:HannemanRainingblood.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Has this been confirmed? It seems very odd that a band would want to disband right after the release of a new studio album. If it's so, then the metal world will lose one of it's best bands, man!
Dark Executioner (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]
I read it right here on Slayer's Wikipedia article that Tom Araya just "doesn't see himself doing this at a later age, hinting at a possible retirement." I was wondering if you knew any more about it. It just doesn't sound right, and I've never heard anything about a Slayer breakup on any other website.Dark Executioner (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]
Retire, breakup... Either way, it would mean no more tours or new songs. It's essentially the same thing. But I appreciate you getting back to me.Dark Executioner (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]
GA Nomination For Resident Evil: Apocalypse!
Hey I've nominated the article after cleaning it all up, removing irrelevant sections and so forth. If you can, can you give the article a review and any suggestions of what could be changed to make it GA status? Thanks :D! Empty2005 (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: the current issue of Guitar World has a cover feature on the 25th anniversary of Kill 'em All. I skimmed through it; it looks pretty solid. You should pick it up if you come across it. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for the comments left on Andrea Corr's talk page regarding certain mistakes found in that article as part of a GA review. I'd managed to fix them during the spare time that I have. So I was wondering if you could re-review it again. Many thanks. σмgнgσмg11:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just saw your comment on Skeeker's page about the AIC FAC. I would like to clarify tbhat the sources I asked for aren't unreliable: merely magazine articles reprinted in archives (Rock's backpages, say) around the internet. I know for a fact that many (all?) music articles are researched in this way, but the cite goes to the original paper magazine. indopug (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant the comment Skeeker left on your talk page (just above this one - "The sources the person wants are un-reliable"). As for Metallica, congrats! If you'd allow me a quibble, I'd say that the "Style" section reads too much like a summary of the band's history. I find the second paragraph of that section very similar to the lead in fact. But I guess this is a stylistic (pun unintended) issue, I'll be cool if you don't change it. indopug (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advise, I will do that. The only problem I see with it though is that Opeth has so much less of a history than the newer FAs (U2, Radiohead, Metallica). But that shouldn't really hold it back should it? You should look at AiC, Skeletor2112 did a really good copyedit and it looks phenomenal. I think now it might finally pass. Just as a note, I officially changed my username from Skeeker to Burningclean. I hope AVP and the future article do well. —Burningclean[Speak the truth!]20:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I guess I was wrong once again with AiC. I changed it just because I liked it better. Skeeker is a nickname of mine, and Burningclean is a word from a Stavesacre (the best band you've never heard of) lyric. I kind of thought someone would think it deals with burning clean fuel for cars, but it actually is a Christian type deal. —Burningclean[Speak the truth!]04:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
U2 and R.E.M. two of the most important bands of the eighties? That can heavily debated, especially in U2's case (a way overrated group who are simply average). Also, it's R.E.M.'s nineties work which is more critically acclaimed in my opinion. LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
R.E.M. were critically acclaimed all the way through Monster; in fact, many critics insist their first album Murmur is their best and most influential. While U2 may be overrated, they were the band called "best band of the 80s" during the 1980s, and are the best-selling band from the last twenty years. Actually, all three bands are the best-selling bands of the last twenty years, and oddly enough they were able to achieve their greatest success at the dawn of the 1990s ("Black Album", Out of Time/Automatic for the People, Achtung Baby). WesleyDodds (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
