Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Megadeth/archive1

Megadeth

Megadeth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Megadeth
• Featured article candidates/Megadeth/Archive1
• Featured article candidates/Megadeth/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Megadeth/archive2

• Featured article review/Megadeth/archive1

Nominator(s): Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Megadeth, an American heavy metal band. I've been actively working on it since November 2013, and since then it has successfully passed the GA procedure. Additionally, it has been copyedited and went through a peer review recently. I'm aware that there might be some weak areas, but in general, I believe the article covers well the band's history.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Curly Turkey

I'm going to take a look at the prose—I'm not checking to see how well it reflects what's in the sources. I did some copyediting as well. Feel free to disagree with anything here:

Infobox

• "associated_acts", I beleive, is supposed to be about acts that are directly related to this one (spinoff acts, etc). Metallica may qualify, but I'm pretty sure Slayer and Anthrax don't (even if Kerry King happened to play some guitar with them)

—These four bands are actually referred to as the "Big Four", in addition to occasionally touring together and etc. I'm not a big fan of adding spinoff groups because Megadeth had over 20 members throughout its career, and listing dozens of anonymous bands won't be helpful, in my opinion.

I'm aware of that (they've been called that for decades now). The point is that that is not what the field in the tempate is for. For example, for Paul McCartney, you'd have the Beatles and Wings; for Soundgarden you'd have Temple of the Dog. That's not the relation The Big Four have. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, made a few adjustments according to your advice. Honestly, I wasn't aware that the parameter had such a usage.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• considered highly influential in the underground metal scene, was released in October 1986.: is it considered highly influential on today's undergraound metal scene, or was it in the 80s?
• being prominent to thrash metal: or "prominent in"? I'm not familiar with the wording "prominent to".
• including Countdown to Extinction, certified double platinum: maybe throw the release year in parentheses? I'd prefer to see "certified double platinum" dropped, since it follows immediately from "platinum-selling albums, including ...".
• , and has been featured on all recordings since: I'd drop this; it's implied, I think, unless stated otherwise.
• , which has been hosted several times over the years.: is it annual? Irregular?
• A pioneer of the American thrash metal movement: is a "movement" the same as a "genre"?
• Since its inception: I might replace this with an "As of 2014"
• Is Vic Rattlead not worth a mention?

—It was consider influential back in the day and nowadays. As for the second point, do you think "prominent to the growth of thrash metal" is suitable enough? Thrash had a few scenes back then (German, Brazilian, British, etc.), so I think the "American movement" covers things fine. Mentioned Vic Rattlehead in the lead. As for Gigantour, the festival's editions were held occasionally. An advice on how to word this would also be welcomed.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the usage "prominent to" at all. If it's normal wherever you're from, then okay, I won't make an issue of it, but it sure sounds unnatural to me. As to the different scenes, I wasn't objecting to "American", but to "movement", which sounds to me more organized, or even political. I'd change "movement" to something like "scene". Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Right, I'm not English-born speaker neither, but somehow I'm sure I've seen that construction somewhere else on Wiki. I've changed movement to scene.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Early days

• Before establishing his new band, Mustaine's intention was to play faster and heavier music than his previous band.: that was intention before—did he give up this intention upon forming the band?
• while it is in itself a misspelling of the term megadeath: from this wording, it sounds like the "misspelling" is a mistake
• After hiring bassist David Ellefson immediately: if Mustaine and Ellefson cofounded the band, how did Mustaine hire Ellefson?
• the meter changes in music well: from this wording, it sounds like meter changes are normal in music in general
• fellow contemporaries: ???
• referred to as the 1984 Demo': by whom? Fans? The band? Heavy metal doctorate students?
• before replacing Rausch with jazz fusion drummer Gar Samuelson: you might want to make it clear that he wasn't playing jazz fusion in the band (or was he?)

—Well, Samuelson kept playing his unique jazz style during his tenure with Megadeth; the band was even referred by Spin as a jazz-metal band. I dropped the clause with the 1984 demo tape because that title was obviously invented by the journalist from Metal Forces. Certainly not much important since it was previously mentioned that the demo was recorded in 1984. The other issues were addressed by a fellow colleague of mine, L1A1 FAL.

Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good! (1985)

• given US$8,000 by Combat Records: given this is an American band recording in the US, we can assume the dollars are American ones (and delink, per WP:OVERLINK)
• I'm not a fan of jumping forward in the chronology with the "These Boots Are Made for Walkin'"; also, I think it's too much detail for this article. Why not cut it down to a sentence or two, and leave the details to the album's article?

—First point done. As for the second one, I transferred the details about the reissue to the album's page, as suggested.

Peace Sells... but Who's Buying? (1986–87)

• before the band officially began the recording process: but after they had unofficially begun?
• On the other hand,: this sounds like you're weighing opposing arguments—maybe "meanwhile" is better?
• I feel like the Samuelson and Poland stuff should be in the same paragraph, since they were canned at the same time for similar issues.
• Jeff Loomis of Sanctuary, and later Nevermore,: are the band's he was to play in relevant here, or is this just anachronistic trivia?

—Omitted "unofficially", added "meanwhile", dropped the second band from Jeff Loomis' biography.

So Far, So Good... So What! (1988–89)

• Mustaine and Lani had an estrangement: is there not a more elegant way to word this?
• David Ellefson's drug problems, for which he was treated immediately: I thin we know which Ellefson this is at this point, so I'd drop "David"; also, immediately following what?
• were inconsistent (on the 1988 tour) because: is "(on the 1988 tour)" an interpolation? I believe those go in [square brackets]

—A suggestion on how to re-word the "estrangement"?

Mmmm... "Mustaine and Laine became estranged"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Rust in Peace (1990–91)

• though it appeared: to whom?
• was universally acclaimed: seems unlikely
• rhythmically complex progressive edge: is this "progessive" as in "prog?
• Described as a genre-defining work by critics: I see one critic there, not "critics

—Three notes done. I didn't link progressive to progressive rock because I think the term "progessive" (in the case of Megadeth) it is more similar to progressive metal. I believe leaving the word unlinked is the best solution.

Okay, leave it unlinked then. Too bad there isn't an overview article on the different kinds of "progressive". Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm taking a break here. Feel free to ping me if I forget to return. I may be slow to respond. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Refs

• I haven't done a ref check, but I noticed "Mustaine, Dave (2010). Mustaine: A Life in Metal" isn't actually cited anywhere. Move it to "Further reading"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

—Correct. The book was moved to another section.

Countdown to Extinction (1992–93)

• after he successfully handled the mixing: I assume "successfully means it pleased the band, rahter than "did not fail"; I might reword it to something like "as the band was pleased with his mixing of"
• Ellefson revealed that; Ellefson later admitted that: careful with words like this, as per WP:CLAIM
• that were a little broader: what does it mean for a song to be "broad"?
• too, assisted by Max Norman, our producer.": I'd drop "our producer" from the quote. Is there some reason this was quoted, rather than paraphrased?
• included Diamond Head as a performing act: you could safely drop "as a performing act".
• removed from the bill after fewer than six shows: so, like, after five shows?

—Alright, every note from here was addressed, except for the last one. Spin reported that the band was dropped in "less than six shows". I think I've read somewhere that the band was dropped only after three shows, but I think it's better to rely on Spin than on my own memory.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, I'll be stopping there again—I managed to squeeze this in during my lunch break. Feel free to revert any of the copyedits I've made if you disagree with them. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Youthanasia (1994–95)

• reunited with co-producer Max Norman to begin work: he was referred to as "producer" last time—was he co-producer last time as well? If not, maybe reword to "reunited with Max Norman to co-produce"
• at a slower<!--than what?--> tempo: the comment should probably be dealt with—slower than on previous records, or slower than originally written?

—Consider the notes done.

Cryptic Writings (1996–98)

• Due to a problem with the album's original artwork, the album cover was replaced with a voodoo symbol and the album: this seems out of scope to me—or is there some significance to the replaced artwork that merits it not being relegated to the album's article?
• "One part of the record was really fast and aggressive, one third of it was the really melodic, in between stuff, and the final third was really radio-orientated music like Youthanasia.": again, is there some reason this should be quoted?
• because he had lied about having cancer: did he actually lie?

—Paraphrased. About whether Menza had lied about having cancer, the sentence opens with "Mustaine said that...", which implies that Mustaine is suggesting that. The viewpoints of both sides are presented here and it's up to the reader to make a conclusion.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course, it should be left to the reader to decide, but the way it's worded, it comes off as Mustaine confirming the Menza lied–it's not clear whether there's a conflict of stories or if it's just ambiguous text. Maybe "because he believed he had lied"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

With "he believed Menza had lied" it turns out that Mustaine had a personal misconception about Menza's injury and he had unfairly fired him. The thing is we don't know if Menza had really lied, so the best solution is to present a conflict of stories.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the conflict of stories should be presented as a conflict of stories, but that's not how it reads at all. With the statement about Mustaine coming suddenly at the end of the paragraph, it comes off as Mustaine revealing that he had discovered Menza had lied. As I said above, "it's not clear whether there's a conflict of stories or if it's just ambiguous text". Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Does this edit did the job?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The World Needs a Hero (2000–01)

• their departure was imminent: doesn't "imminent" mean "about to happen"?
• some critics felt the album fell short of expectations: who?

—Attributed the author and changed the wording referring to Megadeth's departure from Capitol Records.

Sorry, I didn't mean "imminent" should be changed to "about to happen", I meant the word itself didn't make sense in the context. How about just "their departure was because of"? Now we have "but the Orlando Weekly's reviewer"—what makes the Orlando Weekly's reviewer so significant? It seems weird that that one random paper would be singled out. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

When I wrote imminent in the first place, what I meant was that the departure was unavoidable. But nothing to worry, I think even with "about to happen" the sentence reads fine. As for the journal, I picked that review randomly because it seems that all of them think the album was disappointing to a certain degree (not the "comeback" they expected, I guess). Any suggestion on how to improve this?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, it's no longer "about to happen" at this point—it has already happened. They're just wasted words.

With the review, it's not really acceptable to choose one and call it representative of other reviews. If a source has mentioned that many reviews were like that, then it's best to use that source. If there isn't a source that sums up these reviews, then it amounts to original research to choose one as representative of what you've seen. It may be "true" that reviews were like this, but unless other sources have summed it up in the way, we can't really add stuff like that to the article. Can you find a source that talks about the album's disappointing reception? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, replaced the Orlando Weekly with a retrospective review by the Rolling Stone Album Guide, which called it "a step back for the band". What is the best solution for "about to happen"?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd just drop it—change it to "their departure was due to ongoing tensions" or something. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

etc

• {{sfn|Rees & Crampton|1999|p=658}}, {{sfn|Ellefson & McIver|2013|p=118}}: you know, you can just do {{sfn|Rees|Crampton|1999|p=658}}, {{sfn|Ellefson|McIver|2013|p=118}}, and in the {{cite book}}s you can specify "|ref = harv" instead of using an {{SfnRef}}
• Alt text would be nice for the images (for accessibility)
• using ";Current members", ";Former members", ";Footnotes" to bold a "header" is incorrect semantics (it's used for definition lists), and doesn't play well with, for example, screenreaders. Why not just do "===Footnotes==="? Or just bold it (although "===Footnotes===" would be more semantic)?
  • The ref formatting thing is totally unnecessary to reach FA—I was just pointing it out because it's easier—but the whole point of formatting it that way is so that you don't have to use {{SfnRef}} at all—you can just specify "|ref = harv", and the template handles everything automagically. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I must admit that manually replacing "&" with "|" all over the page was quite exhausting. But I've noticed that many of the older FAs only use "ref=author name (year) page X", without a link to the book listed in the bibliography. I think it's not that important whether we will use the "sfn" or "harv" option as long as the link points to the right book.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

There are many different acceptable referencing styles—I was just pointing this out to save you time and effort in the future. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Taking another break ... Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Breakup (2002–03)

• that triggered a relapse of his addiction: do we know what he was addicted to, and what drug triggered the relapse?
• Mustaine re-recorded some parts that were lost over time: How were they lost? The tapes went missing?

—The original tapes were missing actually. Should I re-write it more concisely, or is it good in this state?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I'd reword to make it clear that the tapes were actually lost—these things can be "lost" due to damage or decays, as well. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

United Abominations (2007–08)

• In May 2006, Megadeth announced that their eleventh studio album, United Abominations, was near completion. Although its release was originally scheduled for October 2006, Mustaine later revealed that the band was "putting the finishing touches on it", and postponed the release to May of the following year.: I think this is awfully verbose—why not just say it was scheduled for October but pushed back to the next May?
• Dave Mustaine wanted a shorter lineup: shouldn't this be "smaller lineup"? I know "lines" are short or long, but I'm pretty sure band lineups are large or small.

—Both done.

Endgame (2009–10)

• In May 2009, Megadeth finished recording their twelfth album, and the following month the album's title was revealed to be Endgame.: again, awfully verbose—I'd kick the whole "the folowing month ..." bit into the album's article. It's trivial at this scope.

—Done.

Breaking here again ... sorry I keep doing this! Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thirteen (2010–12)

• first we have "big four", then we have "Big Four".

—Yep, I've missed this one. I've made it consistent using small letters, though the disambiguation page uses capital letters.

Controversy

• Mustaine filed a countersuit: what was the countersuit about?

—Advertising issue. I've explained it in the article.

Influences and style

• Is "constantly creating new material" a "routine"?
• A fan of George Orwell's work, he has written songs based on Orwell's novels.: sentences like these can be easily compressed: "... and has written songs based on George Orwell's novels." That he was a fan can be assumed (if he was basing lyrics on a writer whose works he disliked, that would be worth drawing attention to).
• "poetry about Satan": literally?

—Reworded the sentence about Orwell. As for the band's early Satanic lyrical preoccupations, I copied that clause from a Billboard review. I thought it would sound less dully that writing "they had a number of songs whose subject matter was the devil". But if you think otherwise, we can always alter it.

Well, the way it's written, it seems like scare quotes rather than an actual quotation—it gives the impression that the lyrics appear "Satanic" but really aren't. I'd rewrite either to attribute the quote, or to make it clear the lyrics were actually about the devil. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Would be adequate to plainly write just "satanism"?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that'd be fine. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Legacy

• Having sold over 50 million records worldwide,: as of?
• one of the few American underground metal bands from the 1980s that achieved mass commercial success: I might reword it to something like "one of the few bands from the 1980s American underground metal scene"—they haven't been anything like "underground" for decades now!
• directly responsible for the birth of death metal.: maybe "a direct influence on"? "directly responsible" sounds like they had some active role in the death metal scene
• the expansion of extreme metal to places where it had previously been unknown: what are these "places"? Physical? Musical? Mental?
• a number of next-generational thrash metal bands,: what was the next generation—in the '90s? The 21st century? What consititutes a "generation" in this context?

—I thought writing "bands that originated in the 21st century", but that would be repeating with the first sentence from the paragraph. A suggestion perhaps?

?? I don't see anything about the 21st century in that paragraph? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I ment that the verb "originated" would be used twice in the same paragraph. But nevermind, all of the changes were done.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You could switch up "from" for "originated". Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Helpful comment, thanks.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Members

• I don't think there's any semantic reason to split the current & former members into separate columns—it's also not vertical screen-friendly. I'd drop the columns entirely.
• As these are not definition lists the use of the colons is not semantic—they are not meant for bolding headers.

—Done. Just to ask, can we lose the backing vocal credits because basically every member (apart from Mustaine and a few others) had this duty?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem vital to me. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Other stuff

• I'm surpised there's nothing on Mustaiune bragging about screwing Hammet's girlfriend—I've heard him go on and on about it in enough interviews, I'd've though it'd be in the "Controversy" section.
• You could throw in a {{Portal|Heavy metal}} in the "External links" section

—The link to the portal was added. I'll search on Google these days to find out if there's any journal who wrote about Mustaine's statement.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

From my small "investigation", I've found a couple of videos on Youtube in which Mustaine says he had slept with Hammett's girlfriend after being dismissed from Metallica. There are also a bunch of forums which discuss stuff like this, but other than that, there aren't any reports by the media that can confirm this speculation. If you ask me, this looks like a gossip that barely has any encyclopedical value. Furthermore, there's more than enough text about "Mustaine versus Metallica": the songs on Kill 'Em All, the VH1 documentary, the St. Anger movie, etc.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Mustaine's gone on and on about it enough that I assumed some reliable source would have commented on it. No big deal. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to take another run-through on the prose (hopefully before too long). Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Some ref stuff

• It doesn't appear to be a hard and fast rule, but footnotes normally come before citations (see WP:FNNR).
• The "Bibliography" section should be alphabetized by surname.
• Cite #12 & #56 read "p. Chapter 7" & "p. Chapter 13"—when using a location other than a page you should use "|loc=" instead of "|p="
• Cites #3, #28, #35, #70, #83, #91, #100, #125 appear to be dead links

Updated the links; they weren't dead, I assume they were directing somewhere else. Anyway, these notes are done.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

File check

• Commons has some images of the band logo: File:Megadeth logo chrome 728.gif, File:Megadeth logo.svg, File:Megadeth.gif. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• File:Megadeth 1986.jpg is also on Commons, but I seriously doubt it's legit—the uploader, Thrashzone666, calls it "own work", but it's obvioulsy as scan from a magazine or something (you can see a crease across the middle). Easily the best "action shot" of the band in the article, but it'll most likely have to be dropped.
• File:Megadeth - Rattlehead.ogg & File:Symphony of Destruction clip.ogg needs {{Non-free use rationale}}
• The other files seem to be properly tagged, etc. You can do an Google search filtering for images "Labeled for reuse with modification". You might find some good ones there (though if you do you should double-check the licences to make sure).
• Wouldn't it be better to have a shot of the band with their instruments in the infobox? You can't even really tell they're a band from the current picture. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

—I'm sure I've seen the image (of Megadeth performing in 1986) at the band's official website. As for the infobox image, I'll look at some photos with low resolution which are not licensed, in other words suitable for Wikipedia.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Wherever the image comes from, the chances of it belonging to Thrashzone666 are close to nil. Copyrighted images are not a problem per se, but they do need to have the correct copyright information. Unless it can be proved that this "Thrashzone666" owns the photo (highly unlikely), it had better be taken down. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I'm aware that the band owns the photo, but my suggestion was to keep it because it's the only image available from that period. If the guys from Wiki Commons delete it, it's easy to remove the file name. As for the samples, I'm currently awaiting an upload of "Peace Sells", so I'll be dealing with that issue later. And is it permitted to put the logo at the top of the infobox like on the Macedonian edition?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, "just keeping it" is not an option. The copyright information must be correct, and it's not. If you can track down the correct copyright information, tag the image appropriately, and move it from Commons to Wikipedia, then fine; otherwise, it has to go. If this isn't done, the article automatically fails criterion #3. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I can see you've got a fair use rationale for it now, but there's no link to where you got the image. I've looked around the band's website, and I can't find it anywhere. The problem is that the image needs to be attributed. If it is indeed from some magazine, then it likely belongs to the photographer or the magazine rather than the band. We can't just assume the band owns it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it was a remake of this (third row in the middle)?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not upload that one instead, then, since it doesn't have a crease across it? Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Done--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

etc

• Not a fan of the Jon Hadusek quote box—it doesn't seem particuarly encyclopaedic to me.
• You still have non-semantic semicolons being used to bold "headers" (such as "Studio albums", "Current members")

—Done.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

A closer look at the lead

• I'm not sure about the lead—the logic escapes me. The opening sentence is fine, but then it jumps immediatley into a history of the band that, for reason I can't figure out, is split between this and the next paragraph. Thinking of the reader (especially one not familiar with the band), I think it would be better to devote the first paragraph to a description of their sound and image, and then bump to the history to the next paragraph or two.
• known for its distinctive, technical instrumental style: I'd drop "distinctive"—it doesn't really tell the reader anything
• thrash metal's creation, development, and popularization: I'd cut this down to "thrash metal's development and popularization"—there may be a difference between "creation2 and "development", but it's hairsplitting, especially in the scope of the lead.
• and ranks as one of the most successful American heavy metal bands.: of course this is true, but what statement in the body backs this up?

—I've somehow re-ordered the intro. Can we manage to reduce the term "thrash metal" because it is mentioned three times in the first paragraph? Let's say "responsible for its development and popularization"?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

How about something like:

Megadeth is an American thrash metal band from Los Angeles, California, formed in 1983 by guitarist Dave Mustaine and bassist David Ellefson, shortly after Mustaine's dismissal from Metallica. Along with Anthrax, Metallica and Slayer, Megadeth is credited as one of the "big four" bands who pioneered and popularized American thrash metal. Megadeth is known for its technical instrumental style that often features fast rhythm sections and complex arrangements; their lyrics convey gloomy themes including death, war, politics, and religion.

—although you'll likely offend someone if you call religion itself "gloomy" (WP:NPOV). You could also drop "American" from the first sentence, since that should be obvious once it's stated they're from LA. Also, you should be consistent in whether to call the group "it" ("... its technical instrumental style ...") or "they" ("... their lyrics convey ...") ... or you could avoid it with "... a technical instrumental style ..." and "... the lyrics ..." ... Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, forget the thrash issue. I'll correct the inconsistency with its/their.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfinished notes

• I'll need a few more days to finish the duties regarding the non-free media. I'm planning to use a sample of "Holy Wars" in the "Artistry" section, as well as one from "Peace Sells" (which I'm currently awaiting). So I'll be dealing with the rationales then.
• As for the photos, I received a bot message which requires proper licensing for the recently uploaded image. Which one should be used and is the rationale the one that is needed?

I'm not really sure about that 1986 image at all now—it appears it would be okay if it were promitional material and there were no alternatives. Can't be sure if it's promotional material, nor if there really are no alternatives. Probably best to ask at Wikipedia:Non-free content review.

No worries, I've decided to remove it.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't have much luck in finding a image with all the current members that is under Wikipedia standards (low resolution, not authorized, etc.), so is there any appropriate picture from Commons to use maybe?

Take a look through here to see if there's anything you like, but it doesn't look like they've got a good recent full-band one. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This far, I've experienced a complete fiasco in uploading images. I'm afraid I can't do much here. It seems that the current photo is the best one we have. I just hope this won't hurt the nomination.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It won't hurt anything—I was just hoping for something better. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• And the source about Megadeth being a successful heavy metal band—should I back it up with a ref in the lead? I think the sentence is derived from the "Legacy" saying the band was one of the few American underground bands from the 1980s achieving commercial success.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"Acheiving commercial success" is not the same as being "one of the most successful". I'd drop that line, since the other info (sales, awards, "big four" status) already tells us they're very successful. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

And done.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• You're not getting rid of all of the sound files, are you? It won't hurt the nomination to lose them, but the article would definitely be better with at least one sample of their sound, and the use would be easily justified. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No, actually I removed "Rattlehead" because it was a file from the album's 2002 reissue, and it wasn't really showing the "fuzzy" sound as explained in the article. I'm intending to incorporate an audio of "Peace Sells" as soon as Dawnseeker2000 gets it; the line with the "political cynicism" would be moved to the song's caption then.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Images

Is there any photo on the Internet of the band during the 1980s or 1990s that's suitable for Wikipeida? I know Wiki has VERY strict policy on this topic, but really, seeing only walls of text in the first five sub-headings isn't quite pleasing.

As for the infobox picture, I've found File:Megadeth2010.jpg and File:Megadeth in Porto Alegre.jpg on Commons. The members aren't quite visible, so I wanted to ask if you could somehow shape the photos and make the members look bigger (something like File:Megadeth at Sauna.jpeg→File:Megadeth at Sauna crop.jpg).--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the image could be cropped to just the band members, but it would display at the same width, so the members would remain just as small. I wouldn't worry about the infobox image—the FAC doesn't depend on it. Technically, walls of text won't hurt the FAC either, it would just be nicer if we could have lots of appropriate images. As I poited out above, you should probably throw the logo into the article somewhere—as a text logo, it's subject to trademark but not to copyright, so we're free to use it for our purposes.

(One other option is that you could contact the band and ask them to release an image under an appropriate license. No guarantees, and it probably won't happen quickly, but some public figures prefer that to having a shitty image of themselves at the top of a widely-viewed Wikipedia article.) Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Good advice, I will, though I don't have high hopes to achieving it quickly. As for the image of the first lineup, I really don't get it why we can't use the "promo material" license (even if I manage to find something where all members are visible) since it is being used for promotion of the band. But heh, what else can you do? Those two shitty photos are all we got, and if size of the members will remain the same, there's no need to modify the pics.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, one issue is that we don't really know where the photo came from. It's part of a gallery rather than a press kit (which is what is required for it to fall under Fair Use, apparently). The photo might not belong to the band, and the photographer is uncredited (which means we can't credit the photographer). Plus, there are quite a number of free images of the band available—just not great ones (actually, a few of them are pretty good, just not the full-band ones). Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, the last unfinished note (proper rationales for samples) is now officially finished. Thank you so much for the review. If I get this promoted, you should deserve credit for it as much as I. And if you find some free images of the band, regardless of the period, please send me a link or upload them yourself if you will.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Eric Corbett

This article suffers from a problem common in articles of this type, a confusion between singular and plural. A few examples:

• "In July, Megadeth was added as the opening act for Aerosmith's Get a Grip Tour, but were removed from the bill after fewer than six shows". That's also a bit vague, as zero would be fewer than six shows.
  • Vic pointed out above that the source he has says "fewer than six shows", and he doesn't have another source that specifies how many shows there were. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

    So? If the sentence can't be made more precise then it needs to be rewritten. What about "no more than five shows" for instance? Eric Corbett 22:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

    I don't see the improvement. I'd prefer "a few" or something—at least be clear you're being imprecise. It's a moot point now—Vik's discovered it was three shows (though I don't see that number in the source). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

    Let me try and spell it out for you then. Minus infinity is less than six. Is that how many appearances they made, minus infinity? I really can't understand your reluctance to write clearly and without ambiguity. Eric Corbett 23:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

    "Let me try and spell it out for you then. Minus infinity is" no more than five. See? We can both math. I have no "reluctance to write clearly and without ambiguity", I have a reluctance to replace one wordier-than-necessary ambiguity with another wordier-than-necessary ambiguity. Perhaps you could demonstrate how four words ("no more than five") is less ambiguous and more clear than three ("fewer than six"), or better than two ("a few"). At least "a few" won't cause readers anxiety by implying the possibility of "minus infinity". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

    You clearly can't do "math", as the statement was "fewer than six". If this kind of attitude is maintained and the singular/plural issue isn't sorted out then I will have no hesitation in opposing this article's promotion. Eric Corbett 23:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

    A fluent speaker of Gibberish, I see! I'm impressed. An oppose based on an inability to parse a fellow reviewer's comments would fall squarely within "inactionable" territory, so oppose away. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

    You're not doing your case any favours. Eric Corbett 01:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• In 1985, the group released its debut album through Combat Records ... and they soon signed to Capitol Records.
• "Megadeth is an American thrash metal band ... Their first major label album ...".

Eric Corbett 17:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a British thing, in the main. If the first example was made plural, it'd be fine (although I'm sure there'd be a few more things to fix). Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that it's a British thing to be consistent? Isn't that a good thing even for Americans? Megadeth is either singular or plural, I don't much care which, but it can't be both in the same article. Eric Corbett 18:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's a British thing to use verbs and pronouns differently from articles when dealing with collective nouns. So you might say "A heavy metal group" but "they recorded". but that's the limit to the difference, it needs to be consistent in that convention. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually it's not. The distinction is between the members of the group acting together as a single body or as a collection of individuals. For instance, did they each sign individually with Capitol Records? Eric Corbett 19:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey, just to chime in. I addressed the first issue; as for the second and third, it's a bit tricky. I was leaning towards the American way, as the band comes from the US, but there seem to appear some awkward situations. "They soon signed to Capitol Records" would sound unusual if we write it as "it signed with Capitol".--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no "American way"; there's a right way and a wrong way. I agree with you about potential awkwardness whether you chooose singular or plural, but that's easily dealt with by rephrasing, as I've done with the first example. Eric Corbett 19:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the sentence. By saying the American way I meant that I've chosen to refer to the band in third person singular, not that I've intended to use a different syntax.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I understood what you meant, but if you choose to refer to the band in the third person singular (and no reason why you shouldn't) then you must do so consistently. That's all I'm saying. Eric Corbett 20:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Vic, you'll have to track down a RS for the number of shows Megadeth played in the Get a Grip tour—the source provided is the one that says "fewer than six". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article doesn't meet FA criterion 1a, and efforts to move it in that direction are being met with abuse. Eric Corbett 01:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)