Super Collider (album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Super Collider (album) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
What proof is there that Vic Rattlehead is present on the album cover? He is barely visible! 117.195.60.29 ( talk) 11:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I started the genres for the album as heavy metal, thrash metal, and hard rock, based on what I have heard from the album so far. Obviously, the title track has a very strong hard rock sound to it, but Kingmaker and several previews of other tracks i have heard were reminiscent of mid tempo pieces on the last album (read: heavy metal) One or 2 other tracks sounded a bit thrashier. Any other suggestions/rationales for changing genres? please post below.-- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 13:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the fact that this album is not a hard rock album. The title track, Super Collider, obviously has a very radio friendly hard rock sound to it, but based off of the other released song, Kingmaker, and other previews it does not not follow the "hard rock" sound. -
Intensity254
14:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.128.250.175 (
talk)
All music described it as hard Rock and metal but denied it as thrash. Read it Since it isn't thrash and all music agrees and it's sourced. Removing thrash 70.192.201.223 ( talk) 20:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk) 13:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Will do the review. Looking through out the article's history, I've only edited the "Charts" section, which doesn't make me a significant contributor. Comments to follow soon.--
Вик Ретлхед (
talk)
01:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
On first pass, this looks good, though I see some issues that will need to be addressed. I've made some tweaks to the prose as I went to trim a bit of excess verbiage; feel free to revert any with which you disagree. Issues I couldn't immediately resolve myself are listed below. Thanks again for your work to bring this one to this point! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 19:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Вик Ретлхед, any notes to add? -- Khazar2 ( talk) 19:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Khazar2, I have done most of the changes above, along with reworking the lead. I did it a little closer to how i did the one for Thirteen (Megadeth album), sans Grammy stuff, because that hasn't happened yet for this album. The lead can be further tweaked to include that if or when it does happen. Thanks again for taking the time to review this!-- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 20:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Pass as GA |
Super Collider (album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Super Collider (album) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
What proof is there that Vic Rattlehead is present on the album cover? He is barely visible! 117.195.60.29 ( talk) 11:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I started the genres for the album as heavy metal, thrash metal, and hard rock, based on what I have heard from the album so far. Obviously, the title track has a very strong hard rock sound to it, but Kingmaker and several previews of other tracks i have heard were reminiscent of mid tempo pieces on the last album (read: heavy metal) One or 2 other tracks sounded a bit thrashier. Any other suggestions/rationales for changing genres? please post below.-- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 13:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the fact that this album is not a hard rock album. The title track, Super Collider, obviously has a very radio friendly hard rock sound to it, but based off of the other released song, Kingmaker, and other previews it does not not follow the "hard rock" sound. -
Intensity254
14:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.128.250.175 (
talk)
All music described it as hard Rock and metal but denied it as thrash. Read it Since it isn't thrash and all music agrees and it's sourced. Removing thrash 70.192.201.223 ( talk) 20:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk) 13:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Will do the review. Looking through out the article's history, I've only edited the "Charts" section, which doesn't make me a significant contributor. Comments to follow soon.--
Вик Ретлхед (
talk)
01:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
On first pass, this looks good, though I see some issues that will need to be addressed. I've made some tweaks to the prose as I went to trim a bit of excess verbiage; feel free to revert any with which you disagree. Issues I couldn't immediately resolve myself are listed below. Thanks again for your work to bring this one to this point! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 19:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Вик Ретлхед, any notes to add? -- Khazar2 ( talk) 19:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Khazar2, I have done most of the changes above, along with reworking the lead. I did it a little closer to how i did the one for Thirteen (Megadeth album), sans Grammy stuff, because that hasn't happened yet for this album. The lead can be further tweaked to include that if or when it does happen. Thanks again for taking the time to review this!-- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 20:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Pass as GA |