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 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.
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.
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)
There is some conflicting info on which singles where released from the album. In the infobox on the right there are five singles listed. In the bodytext under "Promotion", six singles are listed. The one that's missing in the infobox is "Don't Tread On Me". Which list is the right one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
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
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)
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 (talk • contribs) 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.
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:
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.
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.
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  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.
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.
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.
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.
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  makes no sense. Who is Harrison?
in reference , 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  should not be used here, but maybe in the Music style section.
reference  lists albums from 2000 and is of no use here.
reference  is a nude URL and should be properly formatted.
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.
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.
If you read the GA review, the reviewer suggests adding detail about this album's predecessor and its accompanying tour (which is what I was doing). Furthermore, explaining the album's background is vital for the reader to understand why Metallica opted to write simpler songs, and how that affected the album's sales. I also meant to write that the album was released in a six week span with albums by Nirvana, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Pearl Jam, and Guns N' Roses, but that would be sufficient because we would have been writing about rock's background in the early 90s, right?--Retrohead (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree the background is important but it should be addressed here not on a article about a completely different album. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
It is already addressed there. Also, why would FAs such as Love It to Death be talking about "the group's first two albums, Pretties for You (1969) and Easy Action (1970)" in the background when it can be included in Alice Cooper?--Retrohead (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Let's talk about this article and not what's going on somewhere else. Obviously we need others to chime in, I wait for further input from others. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Fine by me. I'm just saying it's a common practice for albums to feature information about the artist's background. The reader won't bother going around Metallica's discography to figure out how this album is related to its predecessors and followups.--Retrohead (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Another thing, how the timing when the album was recorded and mixed, and its commercial performance is not related to this article? Why did you deleted that?--Retrohead (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
A bit late, but seeing as I was the nominator (the noob I was), I agree with Retrohead. Things covered in a band's bio can be on their albums too. dannymusiceditorSpeak up! 18:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)