Talk:Six Feet Under (band): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:26, 5 March 2008

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

Metal Stub‑class

	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.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Biography: Musicians Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

GA nomination

I am currently trying to get this article up to GA. It would be very sweet if we could get a death metal article up to this status. Anyone who has reliable sources and information that would be useful to the article, please contribute! Dark Executioner (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It won't happen, not with this article anyways. There are other dm articles that have a higher class than this one, btw. I think B class is the highest. Only Death has that I believe. SFU ain't even that great =), but that's my POV. There's better dm bands. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! There's no way this article will get GA status. I just looked at all the metal GA status articles...There's no pure death metal bands in there at all. The closest you'll get is Devourment, Opeth and Divine Heresy. None of whic are pure death metal. One is melodeath, another is melodeath with metalcore (urgh) and Devourment is deathgrind. You have no chance. Not with this article. It's not even close to good enough. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working to change that. This article can succeed if its more than just me doing all the edits and finding sources. And who cares about what you think of the band - this isn't a forum. Keep comments like that to yourself. Either join in and help or leave, don't cause any problems. Thanks, Dark Executioner (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! I get you, but that wasn't very nice. I realize it's not a forum. I didn't insult SFU, only said there are better death metal bands out there. I'm not even a huge dm fan anyways. Black metal is my topic of choice. It just so happens I always talk like that on talk pages. I get out all my POV there. For example, I often go to the metalcore page and harass them =). Not to the point where I get in any trouble, but I always make sure they know exactly how I feel about that shitty music. I always make sure I am talking about something constructive as well, though (i.e. fixing something or responding to someone). In your case I'll just say that I will join in and help when I can. I'm a very busy sort of person and I work on a great myriad of articles, so it can be hard to spend much time on just one. Good luck. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wasn't insulting the article by saying it wasn't good enough. I was simply pointing out that it does need editing. It also surely won't get a GA rating (and it has nothing to do with the band). It could definitely be upgraded to start class. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages on Wikipedia are not the place to vent your POV. I don't care that you think that there are better death metal bands, Wikipedia isn't the place to say that. I'm not being harsh - I'm merely stating the facts and trying to keep you out of trouble as well. Understand that, dude!

I appreciate any positive contributions you can make to SFU. This GA means a good bit to me b/c it's my very first time trying to get an article up to this status. Thanks, Dark Executioner (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never gotten in trouble for that, but I'll stop, at least with you. To be honest, I think it's a losing battle you're fighting. Take a look at the metal bands who do have high status (GA or above). It's only the biggest bands, man. Slayer, Rush, Megadeth, Metallica, Iron Maiden and other bands like that. Even then there aren't many of them. You have a better chance with other articles than this. Devourement has the highest status for a death metal band (GA). Take a look at it. Death also has one of the highest statuses for a dm band (B). Examine it. Both are longer and a bit more adept than this article. You just don't have enough info to work with. This article should be changed to start class, but i don't see it getting higher than that any time soon. I'll do what I can. Making it more encyclopedic helps. Words like "apocalytic" and "brutal" don't help the article at all. I'm a metalhead. I appreciate shit like that, but the normal person won't. You gotta think like more of a normal person or a nerd. Encylopedic. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 01:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through the page and did an array of cleanups. From what I can see from this article is a lot of repetition like "saw the release of" for example. It also has a lot of OR which needs sourcing. You also may want to check the Words to Avoid guideline for what words you shouldn't use, such as obviosuly/obvious for instance. Also, with WP:DATE we don't add the st, nd, rd or th at the end of dates (although I am unaware of a time when you can). With WP:CONTEXT it is good to link articles that are related to the text or things people may not know a lot about (think international with things). Also the length for it to be a GA-class article is a bit short and the quality of this article I don't think is quite there yet for a "B" article but it's definitely not a stub anymore. I know a few articles that should be reviewed which are B-class and could be Good Article Candidates. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 06:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 06:26, 5 March 2008 edit CircafuciX (talk \| contribs) 11,414 edits →GA nomination: comment ← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:26, 5 March 2008 edit undo CircafuciX (talk \| contribs) 11,414 edits m →GA nomination: oops forgot to sign Next edit →
Line 29:		Line 29:
	:I've never gotten in trouble for that, but I'll stop, at least with you. To be honest, I think it's a losing battle you're fighting. Take a look at the metal bands who ''do'' have high status (GA or above). It's only the ''biggest'' bands, man. Slayer, Rush, Megadeth, Metallica, Iron Maiden and other bands like that. Even then there aren't many of them. You have a better chance with other articles than this. Devourement has the highest status for a death metal band (GA). Take a look at it. [[Death (band)\|Death]] also has one of the highest statuses for a dm band (B). Examine it. Both are longer and a bit more adept than this article. You just don't have enough info to work with. This article should be changed to start class, but i don't see it getting higher than that any time soon. I'll do what I can. Making it more encyclopedic helps. Words like "apocalytic" and "brutal" don't help the article at all. I'm a metalhead. I appreciate shit like that, but the normal person won't. You gotta think like more of a normal person or a nerd. Encylopedic. [[User:Navnløs\|<b><font color="#0066CC">Blizzard Beast</font></b>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Navnløs\|<font color="#666666"><i>$ODIN$</i></font>]]</sup></small> 01:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)		:I've never gotten in trouble for that, but I'll stop, at least with you. To be honest, I think it's a losing battle you're fighting. Take a look at the metal bands who ''do'' have high status (GA or above). It's only the ''biggest'' bands, man. Slayer, Rush, Megadeth, Metallica, Iron Maiden and other bands like that. Even then there aren't many of them. You have a better chance with other articles than this. Devourement has the highest status for a death metal band (GA). Take a look at it. [[Death (band)\|Death]] also has one of the highest statuses for a dm band (B). Examine it. Both are longer and a bit more adept than this article. You just don't have enough info to work with. This article should be changed to start class, but i don't see it getting higher than that any time soon. I'll do what I can. Making it more encyclopedic helps. Words like "apocalytic" and "brutal" don't help the article at all. I'm a metalhead. I appreciate shit like that, but the normal person won't. You gotta think like more of a normal person or a nerd. Encylopedic. [[User:Navnløs\|<b><font color="#0066CC">Blizzard Beast</font></b>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Navnløs\|<font color="#666666"><i>$ODIN$</i></font>]]</sup></small> 01:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

	I just went through the page and did an array of cleanups. From what I can see from this article is a lot of repetition like "saw the release of" for example. It also has a lot of [[WP:OR\|OR]] which '''needs''' sourcing. You also may want to check the [[WP:AVOID\|Words to Avoid]] guideline for what words you shouldn't use, such as obviosuly/obvious for instance. Also, with [[WP:DATE]] we don't add the st, nd, rd or th at the end of dates (although I am unaware of a time when you can). With [[WP:CONTEXT]] it is good to link articles that are related to the text or things people may not know a lot about (think international with things). Also the length for it to be a GA-class article is a bit short and the quality of this article I don't think is quite there yet for a "B" article but it's definitely not a stub anymore. I know a few articles that should be reviewed which are B-class and could be Good Article Candidates.		I just went through the page and did an array of cleanups. From what I can see from this article is a lot of repetition like "saw the release of" for example. It also has a lot of [[WP:OR\|OR]] which '''needs''' sourcing. You also may want to check the [[WP:AVOID\|Words to Avoid]] guideline for what words you shouldn't use, such as obviosuly/obvious for instance. Also, with [[WP:DATE]] we don't add the st, nd, rd or th at the end of dates (although I am unaware of a time when you can). With [[WP:CONTEXT]] it is good to link articles that are related to the text or things people may not know a lot about (think international with things). Also the length for it to be a GA-class article is a bit short and the quality of this article I don't think is quite there yet for a "B" article but it's definitely not a stub anymore. I know a few articles that should be reviewed which are B-class and could be Good Article Candidates. −'''<font color="#000062">[[User:CircafuciX\|₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪]]</font> <sup>[[User talk:CircafuciX\|<font color="#082567">kaiden </font>]]</sup>''' 06:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)