Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kill 'Em All/archive1

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2015 [1].

---

Kill 'Em All

Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) and Greg Fasolino (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Kill 'Em All is Metallica's debut and the album that heralded the forthcoming thrash and extreme metal scenes. I've presented the events that preceded its creation and the atmosphere during recording. There's also the music and lyrics analysis, as well as the tour that occured after the album's release. Though the album did not have a successful commercial run in its initial days, it aged well and is regarded as one of the best representative of thrash metal's early days. Hope to receive positive feedback from my peers.--Retrohead (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by DannyMusicEditor

Support (at the moment) - It does not seem to miss anything essential. Beautiful work on the prose. Sources are all good. I'll check images and certification refs in a moment, because I see Master of Puppets had some problems in that area, but I'm liking this so far. I'm confident that this is going to go very well. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, I don't know if I'm missing something, but I'm not finding anything mentioned about this album charting in the UK or Australia according to the refs provided. Seems the only problem I can see at the moment. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey Danny, thanks for the support. Unfortunatelly, the album didn't chart in the United Kingdom and Australia, therefore they aren't in the charts.--Retrohead (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Well if that's true, then I think I'll go ahead and remove the positions that were provided for those territories. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I misunderstood you. I see now that you were talking about mentioning the charts in the prose. I have little information on how the album performed in those territories (sales on a week-to-week basis, year-end charts, etc.) so don't see where/why would I put it.--Retrohead (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

No. What I'm saying is, the references provided for the UK and Australian peak chart positions say nothing about those spots. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I copied the positions from Metallica discography. I don't know why Kill 'Em All isn't present on the British chart, but my guess would be that they only rank the top 100. This album unfortunatelly didn't break into that area.--Retrohead (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I found alternative sources in the discography. Apparently, they have a book citation for Australia's position, and for the UK position, they have a Chart Log tracking sales from 1994-2010. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok Danny, I've applied the sources you provided to the article (big thanks for that!).--Retrohead (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem! Best of luck! DannyMusicEditor (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cambalachero

Image review

• File:Metallica - Kill 'Em All cover.jpg is a non-free image with an appropiate rationale.
• File:Lars Ulrich live in London 2008-09-15.jpg seems fine.
• File:Priest feast 22 - megadeth 05.jpg seems fine.
• File:The Four Horsemen.ogg needs to fill the sections "Not replaceable with free media because" and "Respect for commercial opportunities".

Ok, the sections are now filled.--Retrohead (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• File:Metallica - Seek and Destroy.ogg seems fine, but you should use {{Non-free media data}} and {{Non-free media rationale}} to avoid repeating details each time the file is used in an article. Cambalachero (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Went with the same format as "The Four Horsemen" sample.--Retrohead (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Background and recording

Remember that this section is about the background of the album (how were the songs composed, how was the lineup formed, how was it recorded, etc), not about all the history of Metallica at the time. For the most part, both things are the same, but some portions (such as Mustaine breaking a string during a tour, or who gets to play with Saxon) go a bit off-topic, as they are not related to the creation of the album. The captions of both photos should be shorter, and should link the name of the person seen in them (this does not count for the limits on links to a same article). Besides, if the captions mentions two people, it must be clear who is the one of the photo (that, or rewrite the caption to mention only the man in the photo). You and me can easily recognize Ulrich and Mustaine even in a photo without context; but a featured article will be read by many people, including people with limited or no knowledge about thrash metal. Cambalachero (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

See what you mean. I've corrected the image descriptions, writing the band members with full names and adding "pictured" in brackets.--Retrohead (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Bollyjeff

• References 13,22, and 47 do not link properly to their bibliography entries.

Thanks for the note Bollyjeff, it is corrected now.--Retrohead (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Reference 27 has incorrect date.

Corrected.

• Reference 31 does not say anything about "fake crowd noise". Can you find a source that does?

Found a Metal Hammer article that mentions that information.

• Why isn't ref 45 a book source in the bibliography?

I moved it there.

• Reference 47 can have a date of 1983 at least; it says issue 1.

Added the release date of the first issue (August 1983)

• Reference 49 is dead.

Replaced it with a book reference.

• The images of Ulrich and Mustaine have long unsourced captions with unclear wording.

Sourced them. What did you find awkwardly worded?

"picked the band's name from his friend Ron Quintana, who had a list of names" maybe could be "picked the band's name from his friend Ron Quintana's list of names" and "Ulrich suggested [the name] Metal Mania". "Mustaine brawled drunken" is perhaps not the best grammar. Drunkenly? "Was involved in a drunken brawl" is perhaps better.

Ok, did the copyediting as you suggested.

• "New Wave of British Heavy Metal" -> "New Wave of British Heavy Metal (NWOBHM)" and/or provide the link at first occurrence of NWOBHM.

Done.

• Song clips also include un-sourced text.

Sourced them.

• Music and lyrics - switches from talking about "Hit the Lights" to "The Four Horsemen" mid-sentence. I got lost reading that. Please separate better. Same thing on "Motorbreath" and "Jump in the Fire". And "Phantom Lord" and "No Remorse". And every other song; a really awkward style to my eyes.

Separated them with fullstop.

• Touring - "In late June," Year is needed. Last year mentioned was 2010

Added year.

• Any way to get a picture of that alternative album cover?

This would be the alternative cover. However, I'm not keen on uploading non-free images because everything I've uploaded so far (except front covers) has been deleted, and I don't really know how to justify its use.

Yes, I see that they usually get rejected. You do have significant commentary on the subject though; I wonder if you could use the t-shirt picture instead? And is this the bootleg release that you discussed: [2]

I'll ask an editor who's more knowledgeable than me in that area, and see what he recommends. Here is the discussion. If you think the alt cover is essential, I will upload it, but I personally prefer not to. About the bootleg-yep, that's the one.

• All of my points have have been addressed, but I find the prose to be lacking slightly. For example, I have often seen the word "opined" and other such flowery words called out at reviews because of WP:SAY. Can you find an experienced edit to give it a quick copy edit? Then I would feel better about giving full support.

Do you want a copyedit on the "Reception", or on the entire article? I believe Greg Fasolino can handle the duty.

Entire article please. Another example from the Touring section: "along an early version of...".

Ok, I replaced "opined" with "observed", and I think there aren't vague words such as that. About the second part of the note, is it better to replace "along" with "in addition to", "accompanied", or a better suggestion if you have?

I fixed it myself. What about the rest of the article? Greg hasn't touched it since mid June. BollyJeff | talk

I guess he has nothing to change or perhaps he has other more important duties. He went through the article in early June, and Curly Turkey also copyedited the artcle in that period. Turkey also did a peer review, and I don't want to bother him again with this article. Can you point some issues that I can correct myself to avoid the standard c/e procedure at WP:GOCE? I've read the text today and doesn't look particularly bad to me.

I will check it again soon. I have the same problem with my articles. I give it to GOCE; then FAC reviewers say its not good enough, but I have nowhere to go for additional help. BollyJeff | talk 19:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Background and recording - ""This was mortgage money I'm spending, not something I've got put by I'm going to invest," later he said." This looks weird. Could you replace "put by I'm going" with ellipses? Could you re-word "later he said"?

Slightly reworded the non-quote part. Regarding the Zazula's statement, it looks weird, but we can't alter weird statements. Ellipses are mostly used when there are few meaningless sentences that aren't important in making the point.

• I would move some of the Mechanix text such as: "Mustaine wrote "The Mechanix" during his tenure at Panic, with lyrics about having sex at a gas station" up into the Background and recording section, where the song title is first mentioned, with no explanation.

Could fit there, but I'll lose the point on how Metallica changed the lyrics.

How about just mentioning ""The Mechanix", which Mustaine wrote during his tenure with Panic"?

I see you've done that on my behalf. I just did a minor wording correction.

• Music and Lyrics - "he was working at." Ending a sentence with 'at' is not good.

I've seen that word construction in newspapers. You have an idea how to modify it if you don't find it appropriate?

All the style guides known to me, from Fowler downwards, regard it as a superstition to believe that one shouldn't use a preposition to end a sentence with. Tim riley talk 21:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"where he was working."

• "inspired by Diamond Head's "Dead Reckoning"" is confirmed in source 29, not 26. Perhaps put both sources together after both sentences.

Cite 26 confirms it is the first song recorded during the album sessions, and ref 29 says it was inspired by Diamond Head and Hetfield wrote the riff in the truck factory.

• Source 52 - Is Muze somehow related to CD Universe or Q Magazine? In what manner? Fix with correctly formatted citation.

Dropped Muze, think it looks good now.

--BollyJeff | talk 03:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Support - All of my points have been addressed, and the recent edits are enough to push it over the edge for me. BollyJeff | talk 14:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments by Tim riley

Evidently of FA quality, it seems to me. A few comments before I add my explicit support.

• Lead
  • "two–month co–headlining" – are we sure about the en-dashes? Wouldn't hyphens would be usual here? Might be prudent to ask an expert such as Chris the speller to take a look at the article.

I changed en dashes to hyphens where appropriate. Chris the speller ^yack 00:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Chris, as always! Tim riley talk 20:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Background and recording
  • "Ron McGovney on bass and temporary guitarist Lloyd Grant" – I might add a comma after "bass" for clarity.

Added.

• • "Although Motley Crue was originally scheduled to open the show, they canceled because of their" – singular or plural? In fact this is a problem throughout the article. "Metallica played in front of 7,000 people, their largest audience…" and "Metallica recorded a three-song demo to persuade the venue's management to allow them to open", "Metallica's third concert was in April, at which they premiered…", but "Metallica headed to Sweet Silence Studios in Copenhagen to record its sophomore album", "Metallica's commercial success with its third studio album", "Metallica promoted its material" etc. I have the general impression that "the band was" is more usual in AmEng and "the band were" in BrEng, but either way we want to be consistent.

I think all of them are corrected now. Went with the American approach because the album is from a US band.

• • "at the The Troubadour" – I don't think we want the repeated definite article. A crazed grammarian might make a case for it in some circumstances, but for everyday English I think just "at The Troubadour" is right.

Whoops, I wonder how I haven't noticed that. It is corrected now.

• Music and lyrics
  • "the devil watches people killing each other, sure they will go to hell" – is the devil or the people who are sure?

Added "and is" to avoid any potential misconstruction.

• Reception
  • "and facetiously remarked" – I'd lose the adverb, which has a touch of WP:EDITORIAL about it.

It is gone now.

• • "said it influenced him selfsame" – unless this is a verbatim quote – in which case it would be better to put it in direct speech – it would be preferable to put it in plain English, replacing "selfsame" with "as much as" or similar.

Went with "as much as".

That's all from me. Not at all my area of expertise, but I think I understood everything, as the article is written with great clarity and has just the right number of links. I look forward to supporting the FA candidacy once these few minor points are addressed. Tim riley talk 21:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Now very happy to add my support. To this layman's eye the article seems comprehensive, and it is precisely, clearly written, and admirably concise (unlike some articles on popular music I have waded through at FAC), with wide and thorough referencing and a good balance, pro and con, in the reported assessments of the disc. It certainly seems to me to meet the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 20:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Tim, your comments are always appreciated.--Retrohead (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Wikipedian Penguin

I won't have time to delve deeper, but a look at the lead yielded some concerns:

• "which fuses New Wave of British Heavy Metal riffing with hardcore punk tempos."—awkward grammar; "Fusing x riffing with y" does not sound correct.

I don't find it grammatically incorrect or hard ro understand. It means that Metallica combined/fused/blended fast guitar riffs with double-kick drums. Those instruments are the basis in rock music, and the sentence says in which manner the instruments were played.

I understand the sentence now. Would "riffs" instead of "riffing" be better? The participle really confused me. The Wikipedian Penguin 04:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Changed to "riffs".

• "...and inspired a number of bands who followed in similar manner."—redundancy ("a number of"); zero is a number, so are one and a million.

Per Collin's dictionary, "a number of" is a synonym for "several, a few, various".

It is wordy and relatively uninformative. The Wikipedian Penguin 04:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• "The album did not enter the Billboard 200 until 1986..."—until in 1986

I believe "until 1986" is more accurate than your suggestion. Chris the speller can correct me if I'm wrong.

• You need a hyphen in "best album lists".

I think the current version is better, though I'd prefer to hear Chris' opinion on this one also.

• "...Metallica started playing shows in local clubs in Los Angeles before relocating to San Francisco. Metallica recorded a couple of demos, trying to get attention from club owners."—repetitive "Metallica".

That's what the band calls itself. I tried to use the terms "Metallica", "the band", and "the group" equally often, but except for those terms, there isn't a fourth option.

Why not "they"? The Wikipedian Penguin 04:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Because Americans refer to the band as "it".

• "...trying to get attention from club owners. The group's No Life 'til Leather demo (1982) caught the attention of Megaforce label head Jon Zazula..."—"trying" is redundant and more repetition of "the attention", making for uncomfortable reading.

I could use "caught the eye" or something else, but I'd prefer to stick with some more offical word constructions than phrases.

"was noticed by" for the second one? The Wikipedian Penguin 04:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Modified.

• "Intended to be titled Metal Up Your Ass, with cover art featuring a hand clutching a dagger emerging from a toilet bowl, the band was asked to change it..."—dangling modifier and fused participle ("with cover art featuring")

There is nothing grammatically incorrect with the way it is. It's editor's discretion, I don't see what you find unconventional in the quoted clause.

The sentence as it is right now states that the band was intended to be titled Metal Up Your Ass. The Wikipedian Penguin 04:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If you read it as a stand-alone sentence, perhaps. But in the context (The album was recorded [...] Intended to be titled Metal Up Your Ass), I don't think it does.

When a modifier begins a sentence as such ("Intended to be titled Metal Up Your Ass), it modifies the immediate object following the comma. That is why this sentence is ungrammatical. The Wikipedian Penguin 23:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Corrected by Bollyjeff.

• The body of the article prose does not use the expression "commercial suicide", so I don't see why it is used in the lead, much less uncited.

Corrected by DannyMusicEditor.

That this is all from the lead may be an indicator of possible problems further down. I won't oppose since I don't have time to revisit the entire article until after holidays, but please take my comments into consideration. Perhaps get a third eye to run over the prose. Good luck, The Wikipedian Penguin 17:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Think the intro has to mention Seek and Destroy since is probably the most popular song of the entire album. Motorbreath could also be mentioned. The article has no impact section, discusing explicitly how the album influenced the future style of Metallica and other bands. The article does not seem to mention at all that Seek & Destroy remained a very popular song being included in tours much later after the album's release. Nergaal (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The album's legacy is discussed in the last paragraph of the reception and partially at the beginning of the music and lyrics. As for "Seek & Destroy", I don't know from where you got the information that the song was premiered live quite some time after the album's release. As far as I know, it was played months before the album was recorded (the August 29, 1982 gig, for example).--Retrohead (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Source review by Cas Liber

My wife is more the Metallica fan though I did enjoy the documentary on them with the therapist. I'll do some source checking.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Formatting for authors/dates/pages looks in order.
• Right, acclaimed music has an author and location. These should be added.

You mean Henrik Franzon, the creator of Acclaimed Music? Added.

• Books all conform with 13 digit ISBNs and hyphens, publishers and no locations.

Spot check by Cas Liber

Ref 78 says double platinum for another album, not kill 'em all.

Can I ask for a help here. Metallica discography#Studio albums says the album is platinum, but I can not find a way to incorporate the ref because the system automatically generates a reference.

The PDF doesn't list it either, but the its re-entry into Australian charts that year. I have little experience with sourcing music articles, sorry. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, it is removed now.--Retrohead (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ref 51 - used twice, material faithful to source.

Ref 25 used twice, material faithful to source though two catchy words better in quotes.

Ref 63 - material faithful to source.

Ref 3 - material mostly faithful to source...but I can't find mention in the source of Mechanix having lyrics about having sex at a gas station, only that they were "silly"

Oh, that's from Pillsbury's book, page 194. I though it would be unusual to have a sandwiched sentence between the same ref.→[3][30]...[30]--Retrohead (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandwiching refs is fine if it helps align material with sources...and the material is funny and should be kept in. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, re-added.--Retrohead (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Most other refs are bookrefs, which I can't check.

Other comments from Cas Liber

Its musical approach and lyrics were contrary to rock's mainstream of the early Eighties and inspired a number of bands who followed in similar manner. - "contrary" means like "disagreed with". If distinct, write something like "markedly different" or something....

and created buzz in the underground tape trading circles - bit casual, would say, "and created a sensation in the underground tape trading circles" or something similar

I adjusted the lead per your suggestion. As for the second, I think "sensation" is a bit pumped wording in comparison to "buzz", which sounds more balanced.--Retrohead (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thought I might say something about this. Per your reason given, "buzz" seems better, but shouldn't "created buzz" be "created a buzz"? I'll fix it now because I'm near certain that's how it should be, but if you disagree, revert me. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right, thanks for correcting that one.--Retrohead (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll pay that one. :)

• Support on comprehensiveness and prose, BTW. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Refs (used for discussion)

• 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. --Laser brain (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

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