Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eyes of the Insane

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by GimmeBot (talk | contribs) at 00:37, 5 June 2007 (GimmeBot tagging closed FAC discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:03, 4 June 2007.

Eyes of the Insane

[edit]

I wish to nominate current peer reviewed Good Article "Eyes of the Insane" as a Featured Article Candidate, which is an album track by Californian heavy metal act Slayer. Editors suggestions have helped improve the article (can any of those contributors who wish to comment on this FAC and / or vote please make the fact clear they've been contributors to the article when commenting / voting?.. thanks), while copyedits from Wikipedians have smoothened the article's prose. While the article seems short somewhat, I feel it's comprehensive in that it draws upon all the information currently available on the topic. The song remains relatively undiscussed from a critical stance thus far (it came out in mid / late 2006), and isn't well known to heavy metal music audiences compared to other metal tracks such as "Angel of Death", "Run to the Hills" etc. Even though it was issued in single format, no chart site contains information on the amount of copies sold or any known chart positions (metal singles, if issued at all, rarely make the charts) though if anyone has information it is greatly welcomed. All feedback is welcomed and thanked for in advance. I hope the article proves to be a good read. LuciferMorgan 02:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, which is warmly welcomed. LuciferMorgan 15:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I see nothing that causes me to have any objection to this at all. Prose is compelling; follows MOS and relevent Music Article organization guidelines, well referenced, and uses images well. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm glad you feel it conforms to the criteria. LuciferMorgan 15:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. LuciferMorgan 19:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral The article seems on the short side to be considered comprehensive, though I realize length and comprehensiveness aren't the same thing. My guess is that this is about as thorough as the available references will allow, but is there any information available about how many copies it sold? (I'm also assuming it didn't chart anywhere.) Also, there are some minor formatting issues:
I agree with you the article seems to be a bit on the short side, which is something a little annoying for me. If the topic was better covered by the press than it is at present, then I would definitely expand upon the article. It's something I pondered about before going to FAC, though I read the 1b criteria and feel the article doesn't neglect the major facts and details. This is, as you say, about as thorough as the available referencs currently allow. I'm hoping this first ever English Slayer bio will throw up some info when it's released later in the year. :) LuciferMorgan 11:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I cannot find any information on the amount of copies it sold, and if it charted anywhere. In the world of heavy metal singles are rare, so this information not being available usually comes with the territory. If it ever pops up anywhere though I pledge to add it to the article. LuciferMorgan 11:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • these new songs (from the Christ Illusion album) aren't political at all: "Jihad", "Eyes of the Insane": brackets should be used instead of parentheses if the contents weren't in the original quote, Jihad and Eyes of the Insane should only be in single quotation marks
    • Peter Atkinson of KNAC.com felt that "Eyes of the Insane" offers a post-traumatic sequel to "Mandatory Suicide", again with a soundtrack that recalls the original, but boasting a couple truly mammoth hooks that do shake things up.": not sure where the quote actually starts
I've fixed this. LuciferMorgan 11:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ""Eyes of the Insane" and "Catatonic" both have that slow, grinding feeling of doom that the band has done so well before on classics like 'Dead Skin Mask'.": Eyes of the Insane and Catatonic should be in single quotation marks instead of double
    • "one of the poorest representations of us (Slayer) on the record (Christ Illusion)": brackets should be used instead of parentheses if the contents weren't in the original quote ShadowHalo 11:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at the article, which is very much appreciated. LuciferMorgan 11:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. It's just a shame it isn't a more popular topic, as then the amount of material available would've allowed for a much lengthier article. Let's hope someone will unearth more info in time to come... LuciferMorgan 11:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose as an example of the sort of overnoted disaster that GA produces. Footnote 1, for example, is the source for most of a paragraph; but is there one note at the end of the paragraph saying this, as there would be in any decently produced book or article? No; there are four footnotes, leading the same place, at the end of each sentence. . Furthermore, what is the source? An interview at a fan website. Is this a reliable source? Failing that, is it the best we can get? What is to convince a reader that it is either? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with PMAnderson above, and have no intention of acting upon his inactionable oppose. I also strongly believe this to be baiting also. Please read the following;
  1. His reply to when I nominated a Maths article for Good Article Review
  2. An ANI is made against me
  3. His reply after someone made an ANI report against me regarding me telling PManderson I wouldn't allow him to run me down all over Wikipedia
  4. Yet another instance where he's baiting me
  5. Also read WIkipedia talk:Good articles

This oppose is due to the fact I nominated a Maths article for GAR and heavily disagree with his citation style. This is WP:POINT, is trolling, and I request that I do not have to reply any more to PMAnderson's bad faith oppose as it disrupts Wikipedia. Furthermore, I don't want the trouble that'll arise from replying to PMAnderson's baiting. LuciferMorgan 20:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to "an interview at a fansite", this is inaccurate since this is a first hand interview the website conducted with Slayer's vocalist Tom Araya, the person who wrote the lyrics to the song. I take the word of lead singer Tom Araya as regards his inspiration for writing the song over any other supposed "critic" and believe it to be a valid source. So yes this is a reliable source, and yes this is the best we can get since the article even quotes from the interview - all quotes from an interview are exclusive to that specific interview so cannot be used from anywhere else. LuciferMorgan 21:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I congratulate LuciferMorgan on his feat of mindreading; it is unfortunate that he is mistaken. I looked at this article to see what sort of GA's were being proposed to FA; I object to its promotion because it is clogged with useless and unsightly footnote tags. As for LuciferMorgan's justification of footnote 1: those claims, sourced, belong in the article, not here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You looked at this article not because to "see what sort of GA's were being proposed" - that's a blatant lie, and don't insult the intelligence of everyone else around here. The reason you checked this specific one was because I am the nominator, nothing more and nothing less as has been proved by your recent edit history. There are other GA being nominated, but conveniently enough you chose this one. It's WP:POINT, it's disruptive to this FAC and FAC as a whole, and it should be stopped. If you wish to debate the 1c criterion of FA criteria please do so on the FA criteria talk page and not here. I have no time for people wasting time here like you are.
This uncivil (and evidence-free) personal attack raises the question of whether LuciferMorgan has the temperament for Wikipedia; I gather this has come up before. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uncivil personal attack? You just called LuciferMorgan "Illiterate" in your edit summary for the above comment. I believe him to be a respected contributor to the GA and FA processes, and it is painfully obvious you are following him, which would, IMO, make you objections inactionable as well. I'm sure Raul is smart enough to see through that and I applaud LM for keeping a level head and not stooping to this level of provocation. Cricket02 18:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I called the footnoting style illiterate, three comments below, beginning Nonsense, and it is. As for LuciferMorgan's claims that he is being baited: I did observe, and do here, that he attempted to fail an article from GA because it didn't use the template of his choice in its footnotes; something not in the GA standards. If he can't play by the rules, he should expect other editors to notice, as other editors have here, and here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As concerns "claims", they're not claims. They're facts - I think a lyricist actually knows what inspired him to write the lyrics to one of his own songs. They're already cited and sourced in the article PMAnderson. Furthermore, please actually state which part of the FA criteria you object to. These "unsightly footnote tags" you refer to are inline citations, and are used so that the article meets criterion 1. c. LuciferMorgan 23:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to Mr. Andersons's characterization of footnote tags as "unsightly:" Wikipedia is an academic endeavour; as such asthetic concerns should take a secondary role to Academic rigor. The article clearly uses footnotes correctly and is referenced at a level that consensus has long determined as reasonable for a Good or Featured article. Also, I would endorse Lucifer's concerns about Mr. Andersen's behavior. Checking his recent contribs, most of his time recently has been spent taking specifically contrary positions to anything LuciferMorgan does or says. This may be coincidence, but it is getting harder to maintain good faith that it is. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense. This is not academic usage; it is a parody. Please supply an example of an academic paper which consistently uses two footnotes on a single sentence. (It is possible, given Yannismarou's usage, that this is European; but if so, it is inappropriate to this article.)
  • More seriously, give an example of any paper anywhere which uses the same footnote on five consecutive sentences, as this article does. This is laughable and illiterate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments While this Anderson character may be acting in bad faith, I feel his concern about references is valid (though certainly not enough to warrant a strong object...). There are some instances in the article where the same references are used sentence after sentence. I think this could be shortened to just put the reference at the end of the section rather than having it at the end of every sentence. Also, in the music and structure section, I feel some of the very descriptive language should be put in quotations: 'intensely harrowing, angular and descending riff' or 'towering chorus' for example. Finally, the origins sections (which, just as a random side thought, I think could be renamed inspiration or something like that, if you so desire), could be condensed. I know the article is already pretty short, but it just seems overly descriptive: 'Araya left his baggage at the hotel to attend the rehearsals' for example. Anyway, the article is interesting and flows well; these are mainly minor quibbles. Nathanalex 05:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look at the article Nathanalex. Your edits to the text have improved it's overall flow, so I'm grateful. The problem with putting the descriptive bits in quotations is that they were pooled from various sources (the reason why it's heavily cited), so instead of one quote you'd get 8-9-10 or whatever. In that section, when a cite is at the end of a word it means that specific word was taken from that specific article.
I concur with PMAnderson that the citation of this article is a bit ridiculous. How is it helpful to put five footnotes to the same source within a two-sentence, 40-word passage (see the citations of the Thom Jurek review)? Lucifer, do you really believe that the reader needs to be reminded of the source every eight words? Christopher Parham (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When citing, I usually follow the third rule of Yannismarou's guide Ten rules to make an article FA. If a sentence is cited more than once, it's because more than one source was used in that sentence. This is particularly prevalent in the "Musical structure" section - this I believe is likely the section you take issue with Christopher (correct me if you wish in the event of me being wrong). Ideally, within that section I would prefer to put citations 5 and 6 at the end of that second sentence which seems clogged somewhat - the reason I haven't yet is due to the fact that sometimes people tend to question verifiability on specific words, and that's why I've gone a little overboard in that first sentence. Being someone who's spent time at FAR, I'm perfectly aware of the tendency to add cite tags to specific sentences, and I wish to avoid that with this article and not be called up to . Per consensus here and elsewhere though, I've rounded up those cites in the second sentence to the end of the sentence. I hope this goes to appease people somewhat. LuciferMorgan 08:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's cited in an odd way at all. As concerns Blabbermouth being 17 of the 46 refs, it is because they provide the most information on heavy metal music and it worked for two previous FAs - the information cannot be found anywhere else. Their reliability isn't in question as far as I am concerned - they base their info on press releases etc. The ability to send emails via the website is used for webzines to have their interviews excerpted, and for much smaller bands to get their news on the website. It is a reliable source in my opinion. I wouldn't use an unreliable source to cite articles. LuciferMorgan 10:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know nothing about this subject whatever, but what the hey: Support. It seems OK to me in the absence of hard-copy sources. Perhaps the external link could be formatted with a citation template, and the link to the wikipedia article on Blabbermouth moved to its first mention? DrKiernan 14:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. Could you tell me where to Blabbermouth's first mention is? I cannot find it, unless it's the one already linked. LuciferMorgan 15:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now made an attempt to reduce the amount of consecutive citations. I hope this appeases everyone's concerns. LuciferMorgan 15:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an improvement; but there is no need to cite any footnote twice in succession in the same paragraph; and some of these sources could still be improved. For example, our article on the nominees for the 49th Grammy awards cites their own website; this is more reliable than the source here, which is a crystal-ball article from Blabbermouth (which cites the same site). There should also be relevant newspaper articles for most of this. Make mine Oppose, as noted above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "crystal ball article" comment is rather inaccurate; a crystal ball article has to try predicting things from the future, not actually report present day, truthful news.
There are no relevant newspaper articles for most of this; "there should", but there isn't. Newspapers tend to report on who's won which Grammy in the R&B and Pop categories, and which mainstream Rock bands won which award. Aside from reporting on who won what (which is obligatory), newspaper articles do not go in depth on whoever won the Best Metal Performance. Put simply, they don't care.
As concerns Grammy.com being more authorative on saying who one what Grammy, I agree. The citation concerning the fact they were nominated now uses the Grammy.com list as opposed to Blabbermouth.net. The sentence concerning the nominees doesn't though since the Grammy.com list doesn't say where the event was held. LuciferMorgan 17:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (leaning towards object): This seems to be more references than text. I am confused why the author feels this FAC [1] is over reffed and why his own is not. Some phrases are completely mystifying to me, what for example is a "harrowing, angular and descending riff "? and "to the refrain and bridge, before resolving" what exactly is a "bridge" in this context? In fact the whole of the "Music and structure" section needs to be written so that those unfamiliar with the language of popular music can understand it. Giano 06:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are not more references than text - this article uses all the sources it can on a minor topic, and in my opinion fully satisfies criterion 1. b. and criterion 1. c.
I don't understand why you are confused at all to be honest; Horace François Bastien Sébastiani de La Porta cites non controversial statements two or three times, where as this article cites only a statement once, and even that has been cut down. So the confusion is wholly misfounded, and I fail to understand how or why someone can even compare this article to that one. Now that's the real confusing bit in my opinion. That's like comparing apples and oranges, and in fact I don't feel your comment is at all warranted nor justified.
  • Oppose incomprehensible as defined above, Undecided. The clarity and explanation of the musical terms is much improved. However, the article does not mention which key the composition is in, which in unacceptable for a FA on a musical composition. Giano 10:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can find out which key its in for you, and'll get back to you when I have news Giano. LuciferMorgan 18:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, some tabs say the song is in drop B while others say it's in C. Does anyone know what I should do in this case? LuciferMorgan 07:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Different movements can be in differing keys, but there should be one persistant returning principal key. "Drop B"? That would be unusual and very signoficant and need to be in the article - if it is a miserable piece it could well be in "B minor". If references are confused between C and B maybe it is in "C flat major" but that could make it a difficult piece to play. So it is quite important to know. Giano 08:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll dig further and see if I can answer your question. Let's hope so. LuciferMorgan 08:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I had a guitar to hand I could tell you after about 4 seconds of original research; but I'm travelling, and I don't have one with me. I've trawled 20 pages of google search results, but there is no online source for this. The closest match is one reviewer complaining that the last three Slayer albums are all played in the same key, and this is typical of metal. The song is based on discordant guitar riffs buliding on a simple pattern, finalising with a climatic key change; which the article at present explains. But its unlikely that any music journalists went to the trouble of writing down which keys those were. More than likely the root is B minor. Ceoil 13:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the sheet music must be available to look at, which would be pretty definitive. I suspect it is B-minor too especially if the music is said to be "harrowing" and have climatic key changing. However, one would have a better idea of it if we knew what this climatic key changing was, it would also be very intresting to the aritcle's musical section if it were drop B with climatic key changing as it would be of great intrest to know what key it dramaticaly changes too after drop B. If as Lucifer suggests it is in C, I don't see unless it is in tempo largo what could be harrowing about C. A musical page must discuss the music in just a little depth. Giano 18:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This source says the song is in drop B. It's user submitted, so I don't think it can be used as a source. It has the sheet music there though if anyone wishes to read it (I can't read music personally). As concerns me mentioning C, it was just a response I got on my talk page from M3tal H3ad saying its either that or drop B. Does that page solve the mystery in any way, or should I continue digging? LuciferMorgan 18:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The change to the chorus utilises Diablo En Musica. The metal press does not mention this kind of thing very often, but the sheet music might. Ceoil 18:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the sheet music - so I can't tell. That page does mention "drop B" so we can probably assume it is, from what I can tell from that page, there are a lot of flats etc - so perhaps Drop B should be explained and why it is is discordent to so many notes, and also why it such an unusual key. I may be wrong but I think it is unique to guitar so perhaps that should be explained - rather like the original score of "Danse Macabre" something so unusual in music should be explained. Giano 18:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is an example of scordatura, which seems likely, then I think this has to be mentioned and explained on the page. I think this is quite a good opportunity to explore this music now at a diferent level. Giano 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try finding out all this information, as it does indeed sound like a good opportunity and it's rather interesting. It indeed strengthen this FA (Raul654 has promoted it but the Gimmebot hasn't archived this page yet). LuciferMorgan 21:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never heard the word scordatura before, but reading up, thats exactly what it is. All the guitar strings are downtuned, and the first 3 q's of the song are a coda leading to the pay off final chord change. Ceoil 23:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As concerns the "Musical structure" section, I do not feel it can be rewritten (nor does it have to be) at all as it is simple as it can be. Furthermore, this is the kind of thing most expect of song FAs. For example, this is the opening paragraph of the "Music and structure" section from an FA promoted 2 days ago;
"Rich Girl" is a ragga song composed in the key of C minor.[7] It is written in common time and moves at a moderate 100 beats per minute.[7] The beat is accompanied by an alternating perfect fifth dyad and an accented piano trichord.[7][8] The song is written in verse-chorus form,[7] and its instrumentation includes the electronic keyboard, guitar, and keyboard bass.[9]
These are sections you'd find in typical song FAs, and people tend to object if such a section isn't present. On that basis, I'm not rewriting the "Musical structure" section as I feel it would make the article less FA worthy, and I feel your comments do not have any valid basis for an objection. LuciferMorgan 08:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that terms such as "bridge" etc need to be explained or wiki linked, and that phrases like "harrowing" are subjective and should be in quotes. Anyhow the section has been ce'd.Ceoil 11:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand it from that perspective Ceoil, though you and M3tal H3ad seem to have done a fine job on that section. For that, I thank you very much. LuciferMorgan 15:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was all Ceoil really, i added just added a link to bridge. M3tal H3ad 04:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PMAnderson has voted oppose 3 times in bold now - this isn't allowed, so can someone please unbold 2 of PMAnderson's 3 opposes? PMAnderson can only register 1 vote at 1 specific time, not 3. This will then make things easier for Raul654 when he comes to make a decision on the article. Thanks LuciferMorgan 08:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until Pmanderson's concerns are addressed. Epbr123 16:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These phantom "concerns" already been met, and are inactionable. Not to mention just due to the fact I annoyed him at GAR, and which are devised to get on my nerves. LuciferMorgan 17:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Eyes_of_the_Insane&oldid=135926981"