I am nominating this for featured article because... It's been ready for a long time. It's just been unfairly allowed to go into limbo. Red marquis (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - I appreciate you've put a lot of work into this article and are becoming frustrated, but I don't feel this article currently meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:
WP:MOS issues: inappropriate bracketing of ellipses, overlinking, etc
Please point out where I bracketed ellipses inappropriately. I believe I've already fixed that issue a while back and skimming over the article again, I couldn't find where I might have missed.
Throughout the article. The only time you should be writing "[...]" is when it is necessary to distinguish added ellipses from ellipses included in the original source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Exactly why I was confused. All of the bracketed ellipses were added by me to cut down superfluous text. None of them were included in the original text. -Red marquis (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that means they shouldn't be bracketed. When you add ellipses, add them without brackets unless they are in addition to brackets already present in the source material. For example, if you were quoting something like "I don't know...I guess I've always know that I'm different", you could write "I don't know...I guess [...] I'm different". Does that make sense? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh. I was told something completely different during GA nom. I'll go and fix it. Thanks for explaining. -Red marquis (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Holy_Wood_mercury_logo.jpg: who holds copyright to this image?
I believe copyright belongs to the singer Marilyn Manson. The design was conceived by him and executed along side artist P.R. Brown.
Okay, can you add that to the FUR? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean "add that to the FUR"? It already is in FUR under "Other information". Was I suppossed to put it elsewhere? -Red marquis (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
"It was released on November 13, 2000, in the United Kingdom, on November 14, 2000, in the United States and Australia and on December 5, 2000 in Japan through Nothing and Interscope Records and marked a return to the industrial metal style of the band's earlier efforts, after the modernized glam rock sound of Mechanical Animals" - split, check for others
Addressed. Please check for anymore errors. Thanks. -Red marquis (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Another example: "Growing speculation in the national media and among the public led to their music and imagery, among those of other bands as well as other forms of popular entertainment such as movies and videogames, being blamed for inciting Harris and Klebold to kill their classmates; however, later reports would contradict these allegations and point out that the two not only were not fans of the band but considered them "a joke"." Check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Multiple inconsistencies in reference/citation formatting. Some examples: ranges must use endashes, not hyphens; should distinguish between "p." and "pp."; be consistent in what is italicized when; etc
Fixed. Check to see if there anymore errors. Thanks. -Red marquis (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, inconsistencies remain. For example, compare FN 9 and 88, missing page numbers for 78, RIAA shouldn't be italicized, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Do the endashes extend to the dates too? (disregard)-Red marquis (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Combine duplicate sources, and don't repeat cited sources in External links
You wrote "some specific concerns". I'm guessing you've found more. List them down so I could address them one by one. -Red marquis (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Support This article looks terrific. Definitely FA worthy. --Hockeyben✉ 00:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
When did you read the article, btw? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment - To Nikkimaria (or to any other potential reviewer/s), I've addressed all of the issues pointed out above. If there are any other, please note them down so I could fix them. Otherwise, does this finally pass FAC? -Red marquis (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Oppose At >130kB, surely this would be the longest album FA (?). I think a lot of the text can be pared down for a more digestable and professional read:
Too many long quotes: there at least two in every section (blockquotes or quoteboxes), with Concept having four. This is a little excessive, and disrupts the flow of the article. It also causes repetitiveness: Altamont is mentioned twice.
I agree that there may be excessive quoting but they are all necessary. You have to remember that this is a concept album that deals with a highly controversial topic. So removing any of them would completely hinder the reader's understanding of the album's myriad ideas or Manson's thought process when he was coming up with them. All of which are important here. At the risk of further sounding like a quote-whore, I'd like to quote the article's copy-editor User:Chaosdruid who I think gave me the best justification when I queried him on the topic of excessive quotations: "I understand that there were comments about the amount of quotes but, as this album generated such a lot of press and many of the comments span a ten or more year period, I do not think that there are that many to cut out (if any at all). Many points raised by the opponents of the themes and the timing of the album, as well as the Columbine topic, are better answered by Manson himself - perhaps this is why there was a view about over-quoting." -Red marquis (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Citations: While citations are a Good Thing, using them like "" and "" is annoying for the reader. You only really need the one, authoritative cite in most instances.
Overlinking: common English words such as celebrity, iconography, news media, evolved ... don't need to be linked. Please audit throughout.
Fixed. Check to see if there are any more words that don't need to be linked. Thanks. -Red marquis (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Level of detail: you often don't need a date-month-year level of detail for dates, just a month-year will do. The biggest offender of this is the Promotion section, which reads like a day-to-day log of the band's activities in October and November. Remember that every major album gets promoted with shows and performances, so reading this stuff in such detail is probably not going to be very interesting for most people. All this also applies to the excessively detailed release information of Singles.
I actually agree about your point on the level of detailing for dates but doesn't MOS discourage use of vague dating (ie. "early/mid/late February of 2000" or "Spring of 2000")? I was under the impression that Wikipedia wanted THAT level of anal thoroughness. -Red marquis (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to find where it is mentioned, but the general principle is that specific day dates aren't necessary unless that particular day is noteworthy for context. Month and year should suffice in most instances. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. This article needs a great deal of pruning, and it needs to focus on its purported subject, the album. The number of serial citations is both absurd and potentially misleading. For instance, there's a fairly long quotation in the Guns, God and Government Tour section that's attributed to two sources. Why two? And what does this: "The Denver show also provided the backdrop for Manson's interview on America's climate of fear and culture of gun violence in Michael Moore's 2002 documentary film Bowling for Columbine. When Moore asked what he would have said if he had the opportunity to speak to the students at Columbine High he replied, 'I wouldn't say a single word. I would listen to what they have to say and that's what no one did.'" have to do with the album? MalleusFatuorum 23:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Fatuorum, while I agree that there is still a lot of room for improving my prose, how is that quote not a part of the album when addressing Columbine (and, by extension, of the social issues faced by thousands of angry "outcast" high school students) IS one of the main reasons it exists in the first place?
I'd hate to think that anyone's motivation for opposing its FAC really comes down to a simple dislike of the way Manson defended himself via the points it raised or of its thesis central thesis of linking Columbine and the way people gorged themselves on that news item to Jesus Christ and religion. That's his opinion, which he has every right to express on this record. I will not gut it out. -Red marquis (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
My opinion that this overly long and rambling article needs to be pruned back to give it some much needed focus is hardly likely to be changed by your suggestion that I have opposed because of some personal antipathy towards Manson, who I really couldn't care less about in truth. MalleusFatuorum 00:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to suggest that you, specifically, have some sort of personal agenda against the guy, Fatuorum. I apologize if I appeared to be personally attacking you. I wasn't. However, some people within and without Wikipedia have told to me that I shouldn't be surprised if the sort of ideas contained within the article would meet resistance. I'm simply stating, in general terms for anyone on this site, that I would not cut them out to appease anyone who might not like them. Personally, I'm simply trying to document the ideas expressed relating to the album. I think they are all important to give a proper understanding of it and a gauge by which it can be judged.
Also, as I mentioned above, I agree with you that the article needs some rewrite to make it more concise. I apologize to other editors if I haven't done so yet. It is not stubbornness on my part. I've just been busy IRL. Rest assured, I have no intention of ignoring or disregarding all of the problems you've raised. I will address them all quite soon. -Red marquis (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
just out of personal curiosity Malleus, what do you think needs to be pruned to give this article focus? Where does it ramble and stray from its subject matter? -Red marquis (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.