Wikipedia:Peer review/Meshuggah/archive1

Meshuggah

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.
  

I've listed this article for peer review because I want the article to pass the featured article criteria even before I add it to featured article nominations. So I thank everybody who gives me some suggestions. I just want to know what needs to be improved so that the article passes the FA criteria. Thanks a lot, Cheers :)  LYKANTROP  09:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've red User:AndyZ/Suggestions and corrected some things. But I still need opinions of other experienced users...--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 18:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I am still in the middle of copy-editing the article, but one thing I noticed is your heavy reliance on the band's official bio. That will cause you a lot of problems at FAC should you decide to list it. You will need to find more reliable, secondary sources to back up many statements. --Laser brain (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I know. WP:SELFPUB. But do you think that those facts are controversial or contentious? Where else can I find such details about the biography?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, probably not. But rest assured, they may be challenged. If they are, I'd be glad to help you find other sources. A good place to look is a database named General OneFile. Most libraries have access to it. You can type in "Meshuggah" and it will search tons of magazines for articles about the band. I found a 27-page article named "Re-casting Metal: Rhythm and Meter in the Music of Meshuggah" that would probably have tons of great info. --Laser brain (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I would be really glad If you help me with that. The General OneFile sounds very interesting. I will search in some libraries, but I am not sure if it is so spread also in Europe. In which form does the General OneFile give you the article(s)? Thanks for the help..--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I've added some sources to the text more appropriately. Less text is based only on the official bio now.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 09:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, I have done some copy-editing through the whole article. I didn't do much in the lead section of "Musical style" because, frankly, it is very hard to edit with so many refs. I think we will need to slim them down. I know people love to argue about genres, but can we stick to one or two reliable sources for each item? --Laser brain (talk) 06:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
      • So I reduced the sources in the lead section of "Musical style". There are still few statements with three sources, but all the three sources are very good ones. The genres are reduced mostly to one single source.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
        • It is looking much better. I can see that some of those statements will require multiple sources to avoid being challenged. --Laser brain (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Cannibaloki

With a bit of experience I have as editor the only three things that I do not like in this article are:

• Lack of a band's photo for the infobox.
• The session Musical style, there is in my opinion an excess of references.
• It could not stop talking about the affection in the article, with respect to the references that were retired from the Meshuggah's official website - biography, it certainly is a problem. --Cannibaloki 16:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Ok. What exactly do you mean with the affection in the article? Read for example the Slayer#Style - what is the difference except for the length?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 19:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Only an excess of references, in relation to the Meshuggah's official website. --Cannibaloki 20:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

M3tal H3ad

From the lead

• "extraordinary technical" - is POV remove the extrodinary, it glorifies them
• important hard and heavy bands - hard what? this is awkwardly worded for someone who doesnt know about genres
• Rolling Stone and Alternative Press are publications and should be in italics
• Jens Kidman, who also played rhythm guitar until 1991, and Fredrik Thordendal, were some of the first band members. It says they are members in the first paragraph, seems redundant. The history section can deal with the founding members.
• groundbreaking release - POV, attribute the quote to the person who said it or remove "groundbreaking"
• for their accurate calculated fusion - according to..? "accurate"?
• With 1998's Chaosphere, they made an impression on the guitar, drum and metal magazines - necessary? also remove "the" if you do keep this strange sentence OR how about rewording to something like "With growing popularity the band was featured in several guitar, drum etc etc - "metal magazines" is also too vague for the common reader, try heavy metal music
• I actually think you should restructure the lead. There is too much information on who left/joined/plays what.
  • Just mention the current line-up
  • Any high charting albums
  • Any sales figures
  • Any big world tours/festival appearences
  • Number of releases
  • Some style/influence (you kind of got that down)
• Look at Metallica. The first paragraph introduces the current line-up and past members (i wouldn't with this band as they aren't as popular, ex everyone knows about Mustaine and Cliff) Paragraph 2 and 3 deal with the band's history/rise to fame/some criticism/style. Paragraph 4 is about releases, sale figures, album positions, awards. Just keep it simple and brief. Goodluck. M3tal H3ad (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)