Talk:Metallica (album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Metallica (album) was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Albums (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Metal (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

To-do list[edit]

I'd love to see this article become GA, but I don't know what still needs improved. A lot could've been fixed since the nearly 4-year-old GA review, but there's no list as to how its progress is coming. What needs done? DannyMusicEditor (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I looked this over, and the article looks like it's in really nice shape. I made a few obvious tweaks, and I've received recommendations to nominate it. It's been recently copyedited, so I trust that did some really well-done work. I'm going to take a chance and see if this qualifies for GA. Here we go! DannyMusicEditor (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

"Sad but True" audio sample[edit]

I don't think a 2-minute sample is minimal use of the work as described in non-free use policy. If the song is 5:24 (324 secs), and this is 2:00 (120 secs), that's about 37% of the whole song, compared to the 5% (30/329) from Enter Sandman and 7% from The Unforgiven (30/386). Either we need a smaller audio sample, or we should remove it altogether and put the caption's information in. And do we really need this many audio samples anyway? While they're formatted correctly, I'm not sure they're all completely necessary. In fact, I've removed the audio sample of Sad but True for now because I'm afraid it may not sit well with the GA nomination. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC), updated 21:08

DannyMusicEditor, the length of File:Metallica - Sad But True.ogg is 30 seconds, not 2 minutes. Some IP vandal changed the duration two years ago.--Retrohead (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice catch. But I'm still wondering if we need this many samples... DannyMusicEditor (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Things I (the nominator) have found so far[edit]

I notice the accessdates are improper in the certification section. (#98-116, at the time this was posted) I will fix these during the review. So far this is the only obvious thing I see missing, so I won't sweat it at the moment. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Less harsh?[edit]

I would not say that this album is any less harsh than their previous albums. It is slower, and heavier, like groove metal. It also still contains many thrash metal elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iron Wizard13 (talkcontribs) 05:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Metallica (album)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lewismaster (talk · contribs) 22:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

My compliments for choosing such a highly visible article to upgrade to GA status. In this moment the article is not ready for GA promotion, because it needs much work to expand its content, fix its structure and repair its references. I don't want to put too much pressure on you, but I need to remind you that the album is inserted among the 500 best albums according to Rolling Stone, is graded Top class in Wikiproject Albums importance scale and is viewed by an average of 1000 users every day. I think that some extra care and coherence with the MOS is needed when trying to promote such articles to GA status, keeping in mind that many readers, casual or not, know very little about the subject and need to be introduced to it.

Having said that, let's start with the content that article is missing. The making of this album has a complex background and a rich history. I remember distinctly that its release started a vehement controversy between metal fans and musicians, who dubbed Metallica as sell outs, and new fans and mainstream critics who welcomed the new and more commercial course of their music. Just hints of these facts are present in the article, which maintains for the main parts exactly the same structure, paragraphing and references already judged insufficient in the 2011 GA review. All the new research and sources are for charts, sales and more and quite biased reviews. Even after a cosmetic clean up by the Guild of Copy Editors, the article appears unbalanced, with too much emphasis given to the success and accolades Metallica received and too little to music style, song composition and production values.

The structure of the article, according to the MOS, is at least two sections short, namely Background and Release. Moreover, the text in current sections Recording and Composition needs to be expanded, analyzed and put in a more logical and chronological sequence. I strongly suggest the creation of a Music style section where to describe all the changes that Metallica introduced with this album. The article is also filled with too many quotations from various copyrighted sources and too little original text. Copyrighted text should be kept to a minimum and it sincerely appears to be excessive in this article (see WP:MOSQUOTE and Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources).

References are another big problem. After a rapid review of the references, I counted 20 dead links, 8 repetitions, one nude URL, various problems with the formats and some unreliable sources.

Following the MOS for the article body here are some suggestions for section structure and for expanding the content of the article:

Infobox[edit]

The reference about the release date should be put in a dedicated section, not here. According to reference [14] two studios were used, so insert both of them in the infobox under Studio =.

Lead[edit]

The lead reflects the lack of content of the article. It is centered on singles, charts and sales. The last sentence should not be here, but in the Tour section.

Background[edit]

This section is missing and should contain a short description of what happened before the production of the album. It would be a nice introduction for new readers, featuring substantial info about the pre-production phases. The list below contains only suggestions and some considerations useful for the editor's research, put approximately in chronological order.

  • I would introduce the article with something about the Damaged Justice tour promoting ...And Justice for All, like the date the tour ended, its success, etc.
  • According to various biographies Metallica's change of musical style did not come out of the blue, but there was pressure from their management and from the record label to produce an album more appealing to the general public and "hit singles". Some research could be useful on this topic.
  • The cover of "Stone Cold Crazy" was recorded before the recording of the album began.
  • Ulrich compiled New Wave of British Heavy Metal '79 Revisited in 1990.
  • Again according to biographies and interviews, the new bassist Jason Newsted was treated quite badly within the band, with frequent pranks during the tour. His bass lines were excluded in the mixing of ---And Justice for All, which created much frustration on his part.
  • The production of an album does not cause divorces, but can raise a state of tension in the families. Some more research on the family status of the band members is necessary, because reference [21] says that it was important for the composition of the songs. The band members were also addicted to alcohol and other substances. Something about their dependencies could help to define the time frame when the album was created.
  • Apparently Bob Rock was chosen after Robert John "Mutt" Lange was considered as producer. The band, after the failure of Mike Clink on the previous recording, had Flemming Rasmussen on payroll to stay on hold for the whole process of production. Rock had also produced Sonic Temple by The Cult, another album Ulrich loved.

Composition and recording[edit]

  • Musical direction (Metallica): it should be clear what the musicians wanted to compose, but reduce the use of quotations. The last two paragraphs of the current Composition section could fit here. Newsted and Ulrich's style of playing, too.
  • Hetfield's quotation is totally unjustified here and can be summarized in a sentence like "this time Metallica aimed at a live sound and involved all band members in the creative process".
  • The general topics and tone of the lyrics composed by Hetfield should be inserted here. More details can be included in another part of the article if you want to describe the content of each song.
  • Early demos are OK, but the dates of production of some demos are reported without references.
  • There are sentences about Rock's intervention on the schedule and discipline of the musicians and about the decisions he made during the production of the album scattered in various parts of the article, when they should be put together following a logical and chronological sequence. It should be more evident why the production was troubled, which behaviours and decisions created friction and so on. From the current text it is not very clear.
  • Michael Kamen is not the last of the street fiddlers! He should be cited in the text as the author of the strings arrangements and collaborator to the production. By the way, it would be cool to know where the strings were produced and recorded.
  • Engineers and main collaborators should be cited in the text. Why was the album mixed 3 times? Did the band want more than one choice or were they unsatisfied with Rock's work? More research is needed.
  • The final statements of Rock and the fans' petition could stay at the bottom of this section or go after the lawsuit info.

Music style[edit]

I think that this section should be the core of the article, although now it is reduced to three not-very-descriptive sentences.

  • Musical style (critics): there should be an ample description of how music critics define the music of the album; is it a single style or a mix of styles? How is the music different from Metallica's previous works? Why is it more simple and direct? Why is it more commercial? Here is where you should tell the reader!
  • Only the two songs with the listenable musical fragments have a lengthy description in their captions. Those descriptions probably are better suited for the main text. What about the other songs? The singles have their own articles, but some synthetic description of music style and lyric contents of all the songs in the album could be appropriate.
  • The change of style of this album caused mixed reactions, with Metallica accused of being sell outs by part of the metal community. Those reactions should be included here, maybe with a hint to the controversy that exploded years later with the release of Load.
  • "Many fans consider the album to be a transition..." Uhu? Maybe fans of the first hour or thrash metal fans. However the reference provided is not about fans, so you should find a correct reference or change that sentence.

Packaging[edit]

The best section so far.

Release and promotion[edit]

There is no text about the dates of release, no information about the labels that published the album and nothing about the formats. I remember a double vinyl LP. If you don't want to create a Release history section that info should be here. The reference in the infobox about the release date should also be put here.

  • The singles text is fine, but it could be good to have a synthetic paragraph about the videos produced for them.

Tour[edit]

The tour section should be separated from the promotion, because it is quite bulky and contains much information.

  • There are four articles about these tours. Maybe this fact should be signaled with the proper template on top of the section.
  • The Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert, the Use Your Illusion Tour and the performance of songs from the album after the promotional tours -> all need references.
  • The details about the box set Live Shit are out of topic here. They should be in the relative article. Trim it down.
  • Some more references on the lawsuit paragraph are needed.

Critical reception[edit]

  • Too biased on praise; for example, Martin Popoff, Joel McIver and Brian Tatler were not enthusiastic of the album.
  • some references (Q, Select) are incomplete and don't cite author, page, etc. Find them or remove the reviews.
  • The website Classic Rock Review [ref 65] has nothing to do with the British magazine Classic Rock and is not listed among the reliable sources for music reviews (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources). I suggest removing it.

Commercial performance[edit]

  • We are talking about numbers here, every sentence needs a reference!
  • Urlich's quotation is at least two sentences too long. Trim it down.

Personnel[edit]

References[edit]

  • First of all, when using multiple occurrences of the same reference, it would be better to place the full reference text where the first occurrence appears in the text and not randomly. Otherwise, it becomes arduous for editors to find the original source.
  • Many references are taken from video documentaries, but they are not formatted using Template:Cite AV media and are missing the required entry 'time', which specify for each reference the time the event occurs in the source. It could be appropriate to use a different style of citation for those references (see Wikipedia:Citing sources).
  • Check out dead links or find alternatives.
  • Many references, in particular regarding charts and certifications, are repeated more than once. Format them using <ref name="name">content</ref> and <ref name="name" />.
  • reference [26] makes no sense. Who is Harrison?
  • in reference [63], you cannot take a partial quotation from a commercial site and use it as a review, because commercial sites filter the text for their own purposes. You can cite and quote a review if you have read it in its entirety and reference it properly.
  • reference [98] should not be used here, but maybe in the Music style section.
  • reference [106] lists albums from 2000 and is of no use here.
  • reference [126] is a nude URL and should be properly formatted.

Rationales[edit]

The rationales for the two sound samples are not acceptable as they are now. The two songs are not discussed in the article and the sample inclusions need to be better justified. The accompanying text should explain explicitly why the information contained in the audio cannot practically be represented as text.

Summary[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

The article still needs a lot of work, which cannot be done well in a short time. For this reason I won't put the review on hold, but declare the upgrade to GA status failed. This judgement is not meant to discourage you from trying again after some or all the suggested improvements have been applied. The consultation of any biography about Metallica and its members, as well as watching the documentaries and finding the best articles and interviews about Metallica among the huge quantity available on the web could be the basis to expand your search. Good luck. Lewismaster (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think this counts as groove metal.[edit]

Many of the songs on here sound like groove metal, mainly Sad But True, but others as well. Personally groove metal should be added to the genres. TheEarthboundFan2001 (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@TheEarthboundFan2001: Do you have reliable sources to support your opinion ? Please see previous discussions on this topic Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 00:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

BenStein69 genre changes[edit]

BenStein69 genre changes (diff) Consensus is needed for this change. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 18:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)