Talk:Super Collider (album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Vic Rattlehead?[edit]

What proof is there that Vic Rattlehead is present on the album cover? He is barely visible! 117.195.60.29 (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

He is actually on there, but it is not easy to see on anything less than a high-resolution version of the cover. "Proof" is in seeing it, I don't know that you're going to find an article on Blabbermouth or some place confirming that Vic is on there. Personally, I don't see why they even bothered to put him on there at all, but, I didn't design or approve the cover. Also, just my opinion, but I don't think that this album is going to be very Vic-worthy, anyway (maybe he's hiding his face out of frustration?).--L1A1 FAL (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Genre[edit]

I started the genres for the album as heavy metal, thrash metal, and hard rock, based on what I have heard from the album so far. Obviously, the title track has a very strong hard rock sound to it, but Kingmaker and several previews of other tracks i have heard were reminiscent of mid tempo pieces on the last album (read: heavy metal) One or 2 other tracks sounded a bit thrashier. Any other suggestions/rationales for changing genres? please post below.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


I agree with the fact that this album is not a hard rock album. The title track, Super Collider, obviously has a very radio friendly hard rock sound to it, but based off of the other released song, Kingmaker, and other previews it does not not follow the "hard rock" sound. -Intensity254 14:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.250.175 (talk)

I only added hard rock to be all inclusive. I see several editors have already started removing and re-adding it, as well. I reverted to the last version before the genre warring. With that said, if you would like to remove it, do you think it might be a good idea until some of the reviewers comment on it and whatnot? Since they often comment on the makeup of tracks and all, maybe see what they refer to the album as? Additionally, what's your threshold for adding a genre to an album page? Personally, I do think that the inclusion of the genre is warranted, if for no other reason than the title track is the album's lead single, and is thus, for better or worse (or right or wrong), representative of the album.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh wait, I see you were one of those who changed the genres around. I just saw the username, and not the signature.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Hard rock is a completely valid entry. It should have a list precedence over thrash metal since the thrash style appears very sparingly on the album. It is a heavy metal, hard rock album... similar to much of the band's 1990s-early 00s output. But keep thrash metal somewhere in there to, hopefully, prevent the genre trolls from swarming the article. Mr Pyles (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Seconded--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

All music described it as hard Rock and metal but denied it as thrash. Read it Since it isn't thrash and all music agrees and it's sourced. Removing thrash 70.192.201.223 (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There are signs of thrash here and there. it should be retained, but listed third in importance. Besides, some other editor will probably re-add it at some point, anyway. By the way, I don't need to go read it, I put the review there, and put the quote in the article, so i know what it says.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Good edit and cite L1A1 FAL. As mentioned, these articles attract genre trolls who are diehard fanboys who don't want to admit their favourite thrash band has been more hard rock for 20+ years than anything else. (have already reverted an IP G-troll on several other band related pages this evening with that same agenda) The reviews clearly support hard rock... and keeping thrash "as a courtesy" will only hold back a tiny few of the long list of IPs who will edit war to get their POV included into these articles. Mr Pyles (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Super Collider (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Will do the review. Looking through out the article's history, I've only edited the "Charts" section, which doesn't make me a significant contributor. Comments to follow soon.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Вик Ретлхед has asked me at my talk page to take this one over; I'd be glad to. Comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Appreciate the help. I might stick around with some notes of mine.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Your input would be very welcome. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

On first pass, this looks good, though I see some issues that will need to be addressed. I've made some tweaks to the prose as I went to trim a bit of excess verbiage; feel free to revert any with which you disagree. Issues I couldn't immediately resolve myself are listed below. Thanks again for your work to bring this one to this point! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

  • "standard- and limited- vinyl editions" -- the punctuation here throws me a bit. Are the editions normally written as "standard-vinyl" and "limited-vinyl"? If so, the second hyphen shouldn't have a space after it. If not, the hyphens should be omitted.
It was supposed to be an abbreviation for "standard edition and limited edition", but i was unsure myself, so I'll remove the hyphens.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The lead doesn't appear to correlate very well with the body of the article yet; remember that it generally shouldn't present any new information (such as the editions the CD appeared in) that isn't in the body. Rather, it should be a summary touching on each of the article's main sections. (see WP:LEAD)
Will look into placing that into the main text body instead.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Looks like the statement about the lineup change is also only in the lead (and probably needs a source). -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I just removed it. It isn't that important in the grand scheme of things, and I don't really want to track down a source just so I can cite that. It can clearly be seen comparing personnel sections on this page and the one on Thirteen. I merged the bit about Draiman into the end of the first paragraph then.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "Excluding bonus tracks, it is the first cover song to appear on a Megadeth album since "Anarchy in the UK", a Sex Pistols cover, was included on So Far, So Good... So What! in 1988." -- needs citation. I suppose you could source this directly to album liner notes, but if it's not mentioned in any secondary source, I don't know that it's important enough to mention in our article, either.
Consider it gone.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • It appears the license of File:CMS_Silicon_Tracker_Arty_HiRes.jpg is under review. It's probably best to just cut this image from the article for now to avoid complications; it's not particularly important anyway, since the slightly modified image already appears on the album's cover.
Yeah, I originally just added it to add a little visual "flair" to the article, but if there's a license issue, I'll just cut it out then.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Вик Ретлхед, any notes to add? -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I went through the "Critical reception" and must say, its prose is beyond the GA criteria. I also found this link where Mustaine discusses some songs, the artwork etc; if L1A1 thinks it is worthy to add it, he may incorporate it somehow.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I added some stuff about the title track and "Cold Sweat" to the songs section.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Khazar2, I have done most of the changes above, along with reworking the lead. I did it a little closer to how i did the one for Thirteen (Megadeth album), sans Grammy stuff, because that hasn't happened yet for this album. The lead can be further tweaked to include that if or when it does happen. Thanks again for taking the time to review this!--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Checklist[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass as GA