Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/12 Gauge (album)/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 01:36, 8 June 2011 [1].

12 Gauge (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, as a major contributor to the article, I believe it is well-written and informative to the reader. I have tried to make it engaging, and it is about as comprehensive as it can be (in this case, the information culled is from a limited amount of sources since the band isn't as huge as Guns N Roses). The article is very stable. A recent edit added a new album review site, and I quickly (and happily!) incorporated it, and this sparked my interest in giving the article another look-through, hence all of today's edits. It's not the lengthiest article, but everything one would want to know about the album is in there. Thank you very much. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media checks out, it's all legit per the NFCC. The rationale on File:Kalmah sacramentum jynkha sample.ogg could do with a quick clean- rather than the copy-pasted/preloaded rationale used there, a specific rationale detailing what that song illustrates would be useful. J Milburn (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rationale updated to be more specific, thank you : ) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 10:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC) ~~Oppose~~ - I appreciate the work that's been done on this article since its last nomination, but I don't feel it yet meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:[reply]

What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This?
Don't repeat cited sources in External links
Music video section needs to be reworked
The article's prose needs editing for grammar, clarity and flow. Some examples: "This consistency would keep fans from being disappointed, but would also keep fans from being surprised." is repetitive, and the tense makes its meaning somewhat unclear; "12 Gauge was released on CD and digital download in Japan on February 24, 2010, Canada on March 2, Europe on March 3, and in North America on April 6." - Canada is in North America; "they intended on adding acoustic guitar sections" - grammar.
The article needs to be more accessible to non-specialists. For example, what is "blackened death metal"? An "outro"?
WP:MOS edits needed - italicization, spell out numbers under 10, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have completely retooled the entire article, making it far less dependent on actual quotes and I've attempted to write it in a style more similar to those found on other FA music articles (I hope)—though I cannot attest to it being "brilliant". Its grammar, clarity, and flow should be much better. I don't think there are any awkward sentences anymore, either. So, to respond to your specific concerns:

I've removed the nocleansing.com site, the dictionary site, and the angrymetalguy site. Regarding the dictionary, I simply left the word "grinding" linked to the Finnish Wikipedia article about grinding. I'm not sure if I need a source for this or not, though. And it's not like it's a necessary thing, I just thought it would be fun to link to, to be honest.
EL is removed entirely, since both links were used as sources.
Music video section reworked!
Article's prose reworked using simpler English. Sorry about the "North America" thing, that was a definite oversight. I tightened the article up a bit and trimmed out some of the most unnecessary and confusing things, especially in the Critical reception section.
Article should be far more accessible than it was before. I also removed probably non-necessary sub-section headers, so the article is less broken apart, but the article isn't so lengthy that this isn't a problem. Potentially difficult industry terms have been replaced with simple English. I also looked at the article in two different skins (Vector and Modern) to make sure the article appeared organized and without any issues in both cases.
I went through WP:MOS; corrections included ellipses usage (adding a space before them), replacing # with No., and replaced jargon.

Thank you so much for your comments. I hope you can find the time to take a look at the article again. I know that articles tagged "oppose" by trusted users at FAC will pretty much be ignored by other reviewers; if you think this article has made some headway, and you think it should be looked at by other reviewers, please do say so! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much better; however, I'm not ready to support its promotion, although I too would welcome the input of other reviewers. In my opinion the prose is not at FA standards - it needs further editing for clarity and flow. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The fair use rational for the music sample included in the article states "It is of a lower quality than the original recording." However, it's 160kbps. That's way to high. It needs to be below 120kbps, preferable 92kbps or below. Orane (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Orane. I've reduced it to 74kbps and tagged the file page to have the higher rate version deleted. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 15:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw another error. You need to check the formatting of your sources. Websites and online sources should not be in italics (I see a number of sources like Pop Matters, Amazon, NecroWeb.de, Finishcharts.com and a bunch of others) that are all italicized. By default, the "cite web" template formats the "work" parameter into italics. You have to control this by placing the website's names etc in the "publisher" parameter. Do you understand? Orane (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orane, thanks for noticing that. And, in fact, the italics are purportedly correct. I started a discussion on this a looooooooong time ago. I'll try to dig it up. If I recall correctly, the consensus was to leave the italics as-is, even for websites and non-titles. Weird, I know. I'll post again when I find it. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My original discussion is located at Template_talk:Cite_web/Archive_6#.22Work.22_vs_.22Publisher.22_parameters when I was trying to figure out the difference between the work and publisher parameters, but the italicization issue is brought up immediately. The overall feel of the discussion (which is quite long) is that no one has a definite clue what was going on with the italics, but the consensus was to leave websites italicized. In addition (at least, at the time), I had been un-italicizing websites by adding double apostrophes—as you suggested—but they kept being reverted by SmackBot, which I mention in the discussion. Incidentally, the same archive (Archive 6) has two other discussions on this italics issue: This one, a similar discussion to mine, where it looks like there is no consensus about the italics issue, or rather that the italics thing is quite okay since there isn't any rules against italicizing websites; and this discussion which has the exact same theory: there is no clear documentation that websites should not be italicized (on Wikipedia, in references). I cannot find a more recent discussion, so unless it's stated elsewhere, the italicized work parameter doesn't change. At least that gives us three discussions where the outcome is exactly the same. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.