- Comment - I think the bands history article is fine for a citation in this instance, its written by the singer/guitarist/songwriter - its not a press release or some kind of advertisement. Looks like a lot of its cites have been replaced anyway, but it was used to reference things like tours, members, cancelations, some quotes, ect. Anyone concerned with that ref should actually take a minute and read what is linked.
I have to take issue with a few things from indopug(big suprise, huh):
- "Has research even been attempted with regard to sources in the band's native language/country? Surely they'll be a goldmine of information." - Not really in this case, the band conducts all of its interviews, writings, songs and everything in English. Im sure there are odd articles here or there in French, German, Swedish, or whatever, but everything they do is in Engish, including the band's website/history section, written by Akerfeldt.
- "On a side note, the prose isn't up to the mark throughout." - Can you give any exact examples of what you mean? What isnt up to the mark? The article was just completley reworded/copyedited,(aside form the musical style section, which is coming) and I dont see any prose issues. Please, copy and paste the prose "throughout" that is not "up to the mark" so we know what you mean.
- "There are too many quotes in the article, hampering readability greatly (esp. those big blockquotes)" - Other than album reviews, I count eight total quotes... A quick look at recent FA Flea, I see at least 15 quotes.
- It should be off-FAC because the sourcing is inadequate." - Why are you always so quick to try and remove stuff from FAC? you did the same thing with the AiC article, and it made it. Instead of opposing or "STRONG" opposing or whatever, why not comment, and give examples as to what the article needs to meet FA standards? Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Simple, I don't believe that FAC=peer review, and that if an article isn't already nearly there, it shouldn't be listed here. This article significantly uses a self-published source, and I am concerned that an entire article should be based on what the lead singer says had happened. The prose isn't as bad as I thought, apart from a few typos, but I'm really only opposing because of that source. Somebody guarantee me that that source is OK, and I'll strike my oppose and review the article normally. As for quotes, why should a four line block quote be used to describe an album in the band's article? "confident the record is gonna be available everywhere." - can't that be incorporated into the prose?
- And please, Skeletor2112, I would rather not be drawn into shouting match, your personal attacks against me above are bad enough. As for your belief that I always [STRONG] oppose, please check In Rainbows (a fantastic article I had no problem supporting after a few suggestions), "The Last Temptation of Krust" (which I copy-edited after the first FAC closed) and "Deja Vu" (which failed despite my copy-edit). Unfortunately, Skeletor, my standards as to what Wikipedia and Wikipedians can achieve aren't low, so I am strict with articles that, IMO, don't nearly make the cut. indopug (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: Burningclean himself will attest to the fact that I helped address reviewers' concerns at FLC for (his) AiC discography. indopug (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how I attacked you in any way... in fact I think I was quite civil. It seems that you oppose certian people's articles straight away, while giving comments on others first -especially articles you worked on, like all of the articles you mention above. I realize that you have been here longer than your username, and you changed it for whatever reason, and you have high standards... but show me any FAC page that doesn't have suggestions, corrections, ect?
You say "I am concerned that an entire article should be based on what the lead singer says" Looking at the references - the article uses seven cites from Akerfeldt's writings, thats seven out of the article's 48 total references. How is "the entire article" based on those seven cites? The "four line block quote" is used to describe the (often misunderstood) concept of Still Life. And in order not to minimize the genius that is Mikael Akerfeldt - he is the songwriter, lyricist, singer, guitarist and driving force for the band, not just the "lead singer". Its like you read the article a month ago, and decided then to oppose no matter what, without even looking at the article again. "The prose isn't as bad as I thought" - huh?? Thats what I mean. You give reasons that you don't even back up with examples, and I dont get that. If you dont think the article is FA standard, fine. Cite a reason, give an example, and that is that. But these lofty comments, like "its not comprehensive enough"(AiC) or "I am strict with articles that don't nearly make the cut" - just explain what you mean. Skeletor2112 (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, I never opposed for Opeth on the basis of bad prose, only sourcing. The article cites chapters of the autobiog multiple times, totalling 15. Pardon me for not recognising the genius of Mikael Akerfeldt; I guess the fact that he's a genius makes his word completely reliable and objective. As for that album, why should it be explained at all in such detail is my question? "you oppose certian people's articles straight away" - who are these "certain people"? Also, I mostly never even saw those pages I supported at before they came to FAC. Genuine query: is getting bored of your old username and getting a new one illegal?
- Oh, and the irony. :D indopug (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WOW! I missed alot overnight! [to Skeletor] "indopug(big suprise, huh)" That was a PA (minorly, but still...) otherwise it nothing else offensive was said. Indopug does have high expectatations, and despite being pissed of horribly and wanting to punch something, it really is, for the most part, good. Looking back on the AiC FAC (just about the longest running one in Wiki history) it was long, boring, and agravating, however it was a reasonable opposition. This one, personally, I think is a dumb opposition. If you looked at the bio that is on the website, it is practicaly a book. Mikael Åkerfeldt practically is Opeth. I know that sounds dumb, but any fan or person who knows the band would agree. We should really ask Sandy if the source is alright. Or someone superior to Sandy. I will after this message. I did find other sources for alot of them. The bio is used 15 times, but if you look at Slayer, one of the best articles I have ever read, you will see that a magazine/bio thing it used 18 times. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I apologize if saying "big suprise" was taken the wrong way, I meant of course that I assumed(when I saw comments from indopug)that he would have problems with the article. I guess his style is a bit frustrating to me, not always giving specific points that can be adressed, and trying quickly to dismiss articles. I didn't submit this article or AiC, and they both needed some work, IMO, to get FA. But the idea that the work can't be done "in time", and that the article should be "taken off" FAC because 15 of the articles 70 cites are taken from Akerfeldts own writings, is absurd.
Yes indopug, for the record: Akerfeldt is GOD, his word is the Ultimate Law... i know sarcasm is hard to pick up through text, but come on, man. And it's too bad you dont like Opeth, because you are missing out on some great stuff! But yes, he is more than just the "lead singer", he is Opeth. It's like saying "meh, who cares what the piano player says" when you are quoting Beethoven... he more than just the pianist.
Changing your username is fine, sure. ("illegal"? huh?) Inquiring editors could even trace back my username change if they wanted. I never changed my account, however, and all of my prior work is viewable to anyone. I have to imagine that with your knowledge of Wikipedia's FA process, you have been here a lot longer than your current account, probalby have written many articles, and done a lot of work here. And wether or not your old account(s) contain "problems" (or whatever reason you opted to make a new account), so be it. I was just assuming that you have more expierence than your account shows.
Congratulations on getting a gold star! Ironic? In relation to what - your username change? Not sure what you mean, but good job. I know that you do good work, as anyone can see by your excellent comments on the In Rainbows page you mentioned above: you gave specific examples of things that could be fixed/adressed, and once they were, you support. Simple, I guess I have only seen your reviews (this and AiC) that were different, but that is exactly what I mean. Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See, the problem with that source is not whether or not Akerfeldt is an important part of the band, the question is that after he typed up the story and posted it on the website, there is no third-party verifying the facts. That is the problem with any self-published source. In the case of Slayer, the words of the bandmembers have been published in a third-person magazine, thereby giving some integrity to the information.
- As for me not listing out clearly what my issues in this case and AiC's case, I disagree. Here, a serious flaw was that I thought the article extensively used that self-published source while in AiC's case, enough sources weren't researched/considered (the magazine articles remember?). Both the articles, IMO, needed to be FAC because the research was not good enough; prose, MoS issues etc were secondary.
- What was ironic was that in the same half hour I was commended for my reviews and had my integrity as a reviewer questioned! That just cracked me up. indopug (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I have checked each and every instance Opeth's official biography has been used - it has only been used to verify factual information, and not for information concerning critical feedback. If a musician types up info and publishes it themselves, or echoes those same words to a journalist and it then gets published by a magazine, then the words of that musician have been published whichever way. For these reasons, I deem Indopug's opposition to Opeth's official biography being used here to be wholly invalid. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand where you are coming from, but I just don't think it is valid. I truley do see what you mean by the third party deal. I have a dumb question: What is "IMO"? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 19:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO=In My Opinion. Google is your friend. Will all participants please try to keep this FAC page focused on WP:WIAFA, without the personal off-topic commentary, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another dumb question: Wht does "Google is your friend." have to deal with this? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It means Google is a very good resource for answering questions. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) But, Lucifer, is it not fair to assume that that journalist would have (in some way) verified the information coming from the musician? Is this the same case with the website—No. As for the site being used only for "facts", I think its a little iffy if Akerfeldt comments on why other members left the band, because they wholly constitute only one side of the story. (Cites #3, 10a, 19d). Cites detailing record company interaction may not be objective as the band may despise the label because of the constraints imposed by them (time/budget/creative constraints or whatever). 19b could exaggerate the no of shows actually played. See, I'm not accusing the guy of lying or anything but as an encyclopedia, we need verified information, which this source sadly does not provide.
- Heavymetal.about.com seems looks unreliable to me; I'm also not fond of the use of tertiary source biographies to cite a Wikipedia biography article, also a tertiary source. Also, even apart from the autobiog, a lot more of the cites are Akerfeldt talking about his band. See the Smashing Pumpkins article, where despite a similar situation, the band's history is not presented from Billy Corgan's POV.
- Thanks, indopug (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually Indopug, when it comes to factual information on an artist (not opinions, but factual information), the artist in question is deemed to be the best source by a journalist. If an artist says he was born on X date, I can assure you that a journalist will not be going around asking third parties to verify every single little detail. If we went with your opinion, then it means that artist interviews aren't deemed a valid source. On another note, Smashing Pumpkins isn't a similar situation - there's much more sources for that article compared to this one. Akerfeldt commenting on why other band members left does indeed constitute one side of the story, I agree. At least, now we're getting somewhere and getting to the root of your concern. There's two options Burningclean can use to address this;
1) Find interviews with the departed musicians.
2) Attribute the reasons for the musicians leaving to Akerfeldt. So, it would say; "According to Akerfeldt,...". LuciferMorgan (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The second option would be still imply that the band's history is almost entirely presented as per Akerfeldt's POV. By "similar situation" I implied that the two were essentially one-man bands. I agree what you say about "facts", but a lot of instances here Akerfeldt gives reasons as to what happened: the small amount of studio time, stuff about record labels could be iffy if only referencing to the frontman.
- After a brief scanthrough I also realised that the prose is quite lacking at times and there are typos aplenty. Choice sentence: "Although Akerfeldt initially believed the band could not finish both albums in the allotted time, Opeth completed two full albums in just seven weeks of studio time, the same ammount of time it took to record Blackwater Park." - Has a typo, unnecessary complexity, repetition and redundancy; could be cut to half its size. indopug (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If his point of view didn't count as reliable, in turn, interviews would not be reliable either. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 18:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I fixed up that sentence, I had to leave in "studio time", though, because it wasn't seven consecutive weeks, it was seven weeks total, split up into a few parts. There again, though, when you say "prose is quite lacking at times and there are typos aplenty", please, can you list exactly what you mean?? Where are the typos? any additional prose issues? Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Åkerfeldt said the primary reason for singing with Roadrunner was the label's wide dsitribution, ensuring the album would be available at lager chain retailers." - Yikes! "Although delays with the album's artwork pushed the release back an additional month, Still Life was released in Europe on 18 October 1999." - I don't see how "Although" fits in with the the second clause of the sentence. "This time it was, tough" - is that right? "Pleased with Still Life, the band sought to recreate the recording exeperience, and again entered the studio with minimal rehearsals, and with no lyrics written." - again, can be improved. Also check for correct spellings of "Åkerfeldt" throughout. These are merely representative of the prose issues; do you agree now that it needs a copy-edit? Maybe you should ask the LoCE? I also find all the albums' critical acclaim a mostly generic "brilliant" or "astounding"; could you maybe include more descriptive praise? Words like "brilliant" really do not add much to the understanding of the reader. indopug (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the typos, sentences, and put the Å on all Åkerfeldt's. None of the album's critical blurbs contain just "brilliant" or "astounding", the complete quotes are: "astounding, a work of breathtaking creative breadth"; "startlingly unique," and "a far-beyond-epic prog/death monstrosity exuding equal parts beauty and brutality."; "brilliant", a "formidable splicing of harsh, often jagged guitar riffs with graceful melodies". I took out one "brilliant", as two reviews said that. I'm not sure it needs a copy-edit, but if these are "merely representative of the prose issues", please list anyhting else you see. Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I had the time to list all the defects, I would have time to correct them myself. I think you're being unreasonable in asking me to list each and every imperfect sentence here; haven't I already proven that prose is deficient at times? Even a light read-through of the article by fresh eyes would be enough to find and then fix the issues. I never said just "brilliant" or "astounding" were being used, but that those terms don't add anything to the understanding of the reader. For eg: "astounding, a work of breathtaking creative breadth" - gives no indication as to the kind of music contained within and the reasons for the reviewer liking it; on the other hand, "a far-beyond-epic prog/death monstrosity exuding equal parts beauty and brutality." and "formidable splicing of harsh, often jagged guitar riffs with graceful melodies" are good in the sense that they succinctly describe the albums' strong points. indopug (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure this is about "proving that the prose is deficient", rather giving specifics on what you see is wrong. I don't think it's unresonable to ask that you give specifics.... if you oppose, give me the exact reasons. I hate to quote the FAC page again, but "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." Non-specific stuff doesn't help us make the article better. And what you personally get out of the critics comments is a bit subjective, isn't it? When I read that 'a reviewer called Blackwater Park "astounding, a work of breathtaking creative breadth", I get that the album is a)really good, and b)covers a wide range, creatively. I mean, its a long way from saying the ablum is "good", and "long" or somthing. Plus, the full review of that album is: 'All Music's Ed Rivadavia called Blackwater Park "astounding, a work of breathtaking creative breadth", noting that Opeth is "repeatedly shattering the foundations of conventional songwriting".[16]' In any case, I expanded the second part to say "keeps with Opeth's tradition by transcending the limits of death/black metal and repeatedly shattering the foundations of conventional songwriting". I agree that a fresh look is needed, I'll see if I can possibly get Tony, the "king of prose", to take a look. Skeletor2112 (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We really need to stop with the personal commentary. Who will give us a straight answer on whether or not the source is okay? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 03:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's all a matter of opinion Burningclean - indopug feels the source isn't ok, whereas I do unless there is material to the contrary. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So how do we know if it is okay to use? He seems to be the only one opposing it. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 18:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite me being the only one to oppose, that fact is that the source is a self-published one. Even if I agree with the usage of that bio (with qualifiers like "according to Akerfeldt") the band's history is to a very large extent (many of the other sources are Akerfeldt interviews) based on the viewpoint of one person (leave it be that he "is" the band). This isn't a question of his word being unreliable as such, but if the opinions of exclusively one person are considered throughout the article--especially on matters such as band mates coming and going, record label issues etc--then its a little POV. Maybe a little more (offline?) research will unearth more information in the form of articles written about the band, interviews with other band members etc. indopug (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I use interviews from band members. I spent hours looking for stuff other than Akerfeldt. The point is is that he does almost all the interviews. Other members, because they are so flipent, don't have the insight that Akerfeldt does. I also have quite a few magazines with Opeth featured but only two have usefull info. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 20:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also like to say that it's not uncommon for one band member to handle all press. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your point, maybe we need to consider a thrid-party non-music reviewer's opinions about whether the is in breach of WP:NPOV and WP:RS? If there is another band FA (preferably recent and of very high quality) that has similar issues? indopug (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the Official bio is causing this many problems, I don't see why the cites can't be replaced with the RockDetector.com bio, which pretty much covers everything cited from Akerfeld writings. RockDetector.com Opeth bio Skeletor2112 (talk) 06:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I replaced most of the cites from Akerfeldt's writings, aside from a few that couldn't be found - such as album rehearsal times, studio length, shows played on the 2003-2004 tour, and the quotes taken from the Official Bio. Here are all of the facts that rely on the bio as of today:
- When Åkerfeldt informed Nordin, who was on a vacation in Brazil, Nordin decided to leave the band and remain in Brazil.[10]
- I found an Itallian interview with Nordin, which was transcribed by the interviewer and posted online, where Nordin basically says the same thing - only the source may not meet WP standards. Anders Nordin Advent interview
- Due to time constraints, the band were only able to rehearse twice before entering the studio.[10]
- "This time it was tough", Åkerfeldt said. "I feel pleasantly blown away by the immense result, though. It was indeed worth the effort."[15]
- "Steve guided us into the realms of 'strange' noises for guitars and voice", Åkerfeldt later said.[15]
- "I wanted to write something heavier than we'd ever done, still I had all these great mellow parts and arrangements which I didn't want to go to waste".[18]
- Opeth completed Deliverence and Damnation in just seven weeks of studio time, the same ammount spent on Blackwater Park alone.[18]
- "Deliverance was so badly recorded, without any organisation whatsoever", Åkerfeldt said, that Sneap "is credited as a 'saviour' in the sleeve, as he surely saved much of the recording".[19]
- The band embarked on their biggest tour yet, playing nearly 200 shows in 2003 and 2004.[19]
- Åkerfeldt said the primary reason for signing with Roadrunner was the label's wide distribution, ensuring the album would be available at larger chain retailers.[26]
- "To be honest", Åkerfeldt said, "that's such an insult after 15 years as a band and 8 records. I can't believe we haven't earned each and every Opeth fans [sic] credibility after all these years. I mean, our songs are 10 minutes long for fucks sake!"[26]
- The band rehearsed for three weeks before entering the studio, the first time the band rehearsed properly since the 1998s My Arms, Your Hearse.[26]
None of this stuff is really that controversial, IMO. And there's no way anyone can say now that the entire article is based on these cites. Skeletor2112 (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The formats of the date entry in each reference are inconsistent; with some using January 31, 2008 and 2008-01-31. --Efe (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you talking about the "Retrieved on" date? Or the date the article was written? Looking at the cite web template examples, it seems that for web cites, both dates should be in the 2008-01-01 style, so I changed all dates in web cites to that style. But the cite journal ref's use the spelled out month for publication date, and the numerical date for 'retrieved on', I think because magazines are monthly, and don't usually have a specific date(other than October 2001, ect) Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent. I'd recommend removing the Rock Detector and Heavymetal.about.com biographies because they are tertiary sources and the sites are unreliable. Cite them back to the autobio if you wish; the statements aren't controversial. I think it would be a good idea if the nominator asks Sandy to restart the nom; this way potential reviewers won't be frightened off by the 40kB of text in this FAC. More reviewers implies better article after FAC. I'll be giving a detailed review of any other concerns (prose/MoS etc) later; I'll be happy support then. Thanks, indopug (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Skeletor. Jeez I miss a lot in a day. I wish we were in the same time zones! Good idea indopug. I'll ask her now. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 18:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Burning, could you ask again for this nom to be restarted? indopug (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I put in another request, Sandy probably missed the last one, as it was in the middle of her(very active) talk page. Skeletor2112 (talk) 08:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandy responded on her talk page, saying that she'd rather not restart this. Suggestions: "one thing you can do is cap off portions of the text that are no longer relevant," and "Another thing you can do if all agree is to move some comments to the talk page of that FAC, as long as you leave a link to the talk page so subsequent readers can see it." I think we can do that to clean out some stuff, plus maybe put a note on any relevant project talkpages (project metal), or other reputable reviewers talkpages requesting a review. Skeletor2112 (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would somebody mind chopping out some comments and moving them to Talk:Opeth? I don't quite know what to cut out. I missed alot becuase Indopug, Skeletor, and I are all in different time zones and it seems that they edit while I sleep. I've been busy with school so I can't keep track of the many comments. However, I am on spring break currently so I will be able to be on more hopefully. I'm usually up much later (or earlier if that's the way you see it). So maby we could wrap this up before my week long break is over. Indopug, do you support, or are you nuetral? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 01:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]