Wikipedia:Peer review/Gothic metal/archive1

Gothic metal

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've taken an interest and fascination in some gothic metal recently. I've listed this article for peer review because the article is really close and the sourcing on this article is enormously good already, but I didn't write this. No doubt some of the refs are dead now, but since it's been a while since it's been an FAC, I'd like to get a review on what else it needs before it's taken to FAC. (Gonna try that first, no shame in that since it's already been one. If it fails, I'll try GA instead.) I'm in no hurry to get it to FAC, but I will take it there eventually. It got only one oppose and no supports on its last one, which I think all were resolved. I'm sure it'd pass GA with flying colors. Thanks, dannymusiceditor ^{what'd I do now?} 01:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 3family6

Sources

Is Metal Descent reliable? It does have an editorial staff, but how about a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Usually this is checked by looking for other reliable publications that cite the publication in question. But I cannot find any reliable publications that mention this site.
Is the Sonic Cathederal webzine a separate entity from the record label? I'm concerned about potential conflict of interest.
This archive link is still a dead link: [1]
Is Radio Darkness reliable? Anyone can create an internet radio station, so what makes this one a reliable source for information?
A lot of primary sources are given to support the lyrical themes of various artists - I'd try using secondary sources instead.
This is a deadlink, and not acceptable as a source for the content it is supporting
[2] - Deadlink, and unreliable
[3] - Same for this
[4] - deadlink, and it appears to have been used in manner that would constitute original synthesis
[5] - Doesn't look reliable
[6] - Not sure on the reliability of this one, but doesn't seem reliable at first glance
The sources don't follow a consistent style. I'd recommend making sure that they all are formatted the same way, and probably should all be converted to {{sfn}}

Links

A particular wikilink only needs to be given once in the lead, and only once in the article body.

Prose

Some very basic conjugation errors in the "Lyrics" section - I'll fix those myself.
The "Characteristics" section needs work - the first section should be renamed "Sonic traits," and should get into some actual analysis, not just adjectives used to describe the music.

Do you have any suggestions for what I'd put there? I am honestly having trouble finding sources because even the most mainstream sources define it vaguely. dannymusiceditor ^{what'd I do now?} 14:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for sources, I see what you mean. I eventually managed to find this source, which does some actual analysis of the music, though admitting that it is very hard to define. My main problem was mainly that second paragraph in the "sonic traits" section, which is more a list than a summary paragraph. The different stylistic directions need to be discussed, but should be better integrated into full prose. The debate about what qualifies as goth metal should also be in this section, as opposed to merely being sprinkled throughout the article. Particularly, the discussion as to whether Evanescence is gothic metal could be moved to here.

I'm also listing some sources that I found, which should help develop not just the characteristics section but the article as a whole. Whatever you don't use, or can't use because the source in question is behind a paywall, I'd put in a "Further reading" section like on the Viking metal page. Sources: The New Metal Masters, "As Darkness Falls, Sales Rise" (through Billboard), Metal, the Definitive Guide, "A Selective Discography of Scandinavian Metal Music" (through Sound Recording Reviews -archived url), "One local band's attempt to introduce gothic metal to Taiwanese audiences," "Gothic Scholars Don't Wear Black: Gothic Studies and Gothic Subcultures" (through Gothic Studies), "Heavy Metal: Forces of Unification and Fragmentation within a Musical Subculture" (through The World of Music).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The history section often delves into specifics and trivialities that do not summarize the overall history of Gothic metal. A lot of the problem here is it looks like editors were trying to include their favorite band instead of summarizing what reliable sources give as the genre's history
Much of the prose in the article needs to be improved - I am not giving an exhaustive list of examples, but the prose style for much of the article is weak.

Conclusion My above review was thorough, but not exhaustive. I think even a GA is premature at this juncture. Once the above issues are addressed, then maybe go for GAN or FAN.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the look! Maybe a little bit more than I expected (I always forget to check for unreliable), but in time I think it's doable. I'll keep this open for others as well. dannymusiceditor ^{what'd I do now?} 14:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]