Talk:Agony (Fleshgod Apocalypse album)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Metal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles

Reception[edit]

This section to me is terrible. It has one opinion of one reviewer who basically states something not only irrelevant and highly biased (that the orchestration drowns out the guitars), but also something that goes against the reason this album is so much more popular than all the others (the orchestration was actually a surprise hit). Evidence of this is very easy to find, starting with an official video interview with the band on the YouTube posted by their record label, Nuclear Blast. I would link it but apparently Wikipedia believes that to be spam (and I don't blame them, though Wikipedia is only marginally better at not providing tons of useless garbage information), but if you find it, the timestamp for the question is 1:30 seconds and it is called "FLESHGOD APOCALYPSE - PART 1: FAN Q & A (AGONY)".

What even is the point of beginning a page without actually trying to provide more relevant information? There are tons more sources that run highly counter to this one which, by itself, makes it seem as though the album had either a negative or neutral reception. The album has been out for 2 years now and this is all that exists for it on here? Sardonicus (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there are better sources (and yes, the band talking in an interview about their own stuff is not an independent third-party source and thus not reliable), then please provide them, and add prose (and references) supporting what you are saying. I do think that both provided reviews are pushing it as far as WP:RS goes anyway, and I would not contest removing either/both of them. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]