Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Master of Puppets/archive4

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 by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2015 [1].

---

Master of Puppets

Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Metallica's third studio album, acclaimed effort by both critics and fans. I think it meets the FA criteria and hope to receive positive feedback.--Retrohead (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maury Markowitz

Support: Left my comments two rounds ago, has only improved since. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Teh Thrasher

Support: The article is well written, plus Retrohead has put a lot of effort into it.-Teh Thrasher 12:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bollyjeff

Support: All of my points have been addressed; good job. BollyJeff | talk 12:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The April 2006 edition of Kerrang! was dedicated to the album and offered readers the cover album Master of Puppets: Remastered" - The source is a forum post from an anonymous source stating that the album is coming. Can we get something more substantial here? Also, it looks like the albums were actually given away, not just 'offered'.

Replaced it with Blabbermouth.net and corrected the wording.

• "The album was less successful on international level, entering the top 40 on the German and Swiss album charts in its inaugural year" - on an international level. Also, doesn't the source show top 40 on several other countries as well?

Copyedited it and added other countries.

• I still believe now, as I did during another review, that the second paragraph of 'Commercial performance' belongs under 'Accolades and legacy'. I also think that 'Accolades and legacy' should be a full section,coming after 'Commercial performance'. If this is not clear, I can make the change myself if you want.

Rearranged.

Thank you.

• Source 11, "Ulrich bored Hammett in Metallica's Puppet sessions" is dead.

It seems the website is under reconstruction. Is this appropriate for use?

I fixed it using wayback machine.

• The 'Background and recording' section could use a link to underground music for American underground scene.

Linked.

• How are you getting the years 2004 and 2008 etc for the international chart peaking from the given source? I can understand certifications happening years later, but chart peaks??

If you click on any flag, you can read the information related to the album in that country. For example, the album peaked number 67 in 2010 in Italy and stayed on the chart for 1 week.

Thanks, its hard to believe, but I guess its true. One more thing: Given the high total sales in Canada, did it ever make the charts there?

Yes, thanks for reminding me. Peaked number 52 in 1988.

• I cannot confirm all the certifications in the table. For example, ARIA shows Death Magnetic, not MoP; New Zealand is a dead link.

I think New Zealand works now. Check number 33, the album is marked as platinum with a silver bar. I removed Australia, it seems MoP is not certified there yet.

BollyJeff | talk 15:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

• Support looks good now Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nergaal

There are a few small issues from my previous review:

• "at 220 beats per minute" is this a lot? unless you are an expert in the field this says little. Give some comparison to mainstream music.

220 bpm is a metronomical measure for tempo; I've linked beats per minute to provide the reader further information. Fast and slow are relative terms (depends what you compare). For example, Slayer's "Necrophobic" is 248 bpm, and Metallica's Hit the Lights is about 160 bpm.

I wasn't talking about me. I was pointing out that a reader going through the article would have no idea what 220 bpm means. Consider having a footnote or something that gives a reference point. Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, further information is provided at the link.

• "off-kilter 5/8 time signature on each fourth bar" what do kilter and bar mean? jargon should be at least wikilinked

Linked.

• "1986 is" never start with a number => please show me a couple of FAs with numbers starting a sentence

I've asked Greg Fasolino, who works as a professional copyeditor, and he said there's nothing wrong in starting the sentence with a year. 1986 is not used as a number, but as a year, which counts as a noun.

Even if it is ok, does the sentence have to start with a number? Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to write "Nineteen eighty six is seen as a pinnacle year for thrash metal"?

• accolades section should mention the years when the lists were put together => I have a feeling that many of the acknowledges this album received were put together more than a decade after the album came out. this would be worthwhile clarifying in the text because it shows a long-term impact, as opposed to just trendiness of the likes of People's Awards and crap

Well, I can insert years if you insist, but they are already given in the "date" field of the references.

People reading the text wont check for date in the reference. I think giving some sense of when were these accolades given would put the awards in perspective. Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Professional ratings" table is a bit short imo => still think the same. there can be reviews listed in the table that are not discussed in the text

The reviews by Spin, BBC Music, and Popmatters didn't grade the album, therefore they are not in the table.

• how come the certifications list is only 4 entries long? I would have guessed to be much much longer

Expanded.

• "after having been retired for a number of years" => why were "Battery", "Welcome Home (Sanitarium)", and "Damage, Inc." were retired?

I assume because Metallica was promoting Load and Reload back in 1995–1997 and had to drop some of the older songs from the setlist.

Nergaal (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Blastmaster11

This article has defiantly come a long ways now and I salute the work put into it. I noticed though that on several album GA's, such as Aaliyah (album), the Background and the Recording sections are separate. Perhaps the same could be done here? --Blastmaster11 (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could do it, but it would be some five or six sentences into a section, which might give the reader a perception that it's not well researched.--Retrohead (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Borsoka

Upon Retrohead's request I read the article. It is well-written, interesting, neutral and well-researched article which also present media. I hope that it will be presented as a TFA on the main page after its promotion. My lack of knowledge of arts, music and heavy metal albums is the only reason that I do not state that I support its promotion: I cannot decide whether the article is comprehensive. Sorry, for it. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from L1A1 FAL

Overall, seems very well written! In fact, I learned something while reading the article (regarding the Mustaine/Leper Messiah controversy).

• Kind of nitpicking, I know, but I think that the first sentence in the body should be perhaps toned back a bit (re: Kill Em All laying thrash foundations, other bands could arguable make that claim (i.e. Motorhead)), but it is sourced, so I don't see reason to remove it. Only thing for me is, change it to "American" thrash metal... its a little more consistent with the source, and there were earlier pioneers of thrash elsewhere.

• In "Touring", in the first paragraph, the Osbourne stuff seems kind of broken up. Instead of:

" The group used to play Black Sabbath riffs during sound checks, which Osbourne perceived as a mockery toward him. Metallica was noted by the media for its excessive drinking habit while touring and earned the nickname "Alcoholica".[2] The band members occasionally wore satirical T-shirts reading "Alcoholica/Drank 'Em All".[7] The band usually played a 45-minute set often followed by an encore. Referring to that occasion, Ulrich stated that Metallica was honored to play with Osbourne, who treated the band well on the tour.[7]

Maybe it would be better like this:

" The group used to play Black Sabbath riffs during sound checks, which Osbourne perceived as a mockery toward him. Referring to that occasion, Ulrich stated that Metallica was honored to play with Osbourne, who treated the band well on the tour.[7] Metallica was noted by the media for its excessive drinking habit while touring and earned the nickname "Alcoholica".[2] The band members occasionally wore satirical T-shirts reading "Alcoholica/Drank 'Em All".[7] The band usually played a 45-minute set often followed by an encore."

Just seemed like the "Alcoholica" bit kinda broke up the middle of the paragraph there...

I'll probably add a couple more things as I see them, but that's all I got for now. Overall, seems very well written, it explores the background of the subject in-depth and seems to be well-sourced.

Additionally, it appears to meet all featured article criteria. Tenative Support, pending discussion of my commentary above.

--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey L1, thanks for the comments. I've switched the two sentences in "Touring" as you suggested. As for the first note, the second sentence states that "the album revitalized the American underground scene", implying that the first sentence is referring to the American thrash scene. I can add another "American" in the first sentence if you require, but I think it's not that necessary.--Retrohead (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, the American thing... it is probably okay as is. You've done a very good job on this one. I fully support FA for this article--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AJona1992

Sorry for the long awaited review.. You did a fantastic job with this article and I applaud your hard work! I now support the article's promotion to FA status. Best, jona^(talk) 16:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What is tempo? Readers who do not know music terminology would not understand, even if its a term that you may believe is universal. A link would suffice.

Linked.

• A lot of repetition of the word "song" (Music and Lyrics) and "album" (Accolades and legacy)

Tried to compensate with "track" and "record".

• Inconsistency with the spelling of beats per minute (see the last paragraph in Music and Lyrics as an example; 220 beats per minute vs 136-bpm)

Corrected, used the full term.

There's still one left in the same sentence. Best, jona^(talk) 16:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done with the 184 bpm too.--Retrohead (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

Have I missed image and source reviews? If not, pls request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ian, I beleive Snuggums did the image review. You can also check the previous nomination, where GermanJoe did the image review and nothing was added since. A partial source review was done by Bollyjeff, I think.--Retrohead (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, I don't think I did a full source review. Actually, I am not really sure what that means. Could you define that or point to the definition? BollyJeff | talk 18:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check if the sources are reliable, if the links are okay, if the prose doesn not contain something that is not mentioned in the references, if they are properly formatted, etc.--Retrohead (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a citation for the last bit of Reception. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cites added. They were already given in the "Certifications", but regardless, task completed.--Retrohead (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Media check - all OK

• (just for clarity) no image or file changes since 3 May 2015 (diff), all media still OK (see last FAC-nomination for details). GermanJoe (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Niwi3

• Ref 7: You should include the Volume and Issue numbers. These are 2 and 5 respectively. You should also include the page number where you found the information.

Added.

• Ref 27: Same as ref 7. Volume = 2, issue = 4.

Done.

• Ref 29: Instead of citing the Christgau website, you should cite the book Christgau's Record Guide: The 80's, published on October 17, 1990 by Pantheon Books [2]. If you want to keep the URL, use this one istead.

Went with the second option (the url).

• Ref 73: You should wikilink AllMusic to be consistent.

Linked.

• General: I highly recomment you to archive all URLs and move all the refs to the References section. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.