Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South of Heaven

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 14:00, 15 December 2007.

---

South of Heaven

I wish to nominate current Good Article South of Heaven as a Featured Article Candidate, a 1988 album by Californian heavy metal act Slayer. While the article seems short somewhat, I feel it's comprehensive in that it draws upon all the information currently available on the topic. The album remains relatively undiscussed from a critical stance thus far, and isn't as well known or notable to heavy metal music audiences compared to its 1986 predecessor Reign In Blood. Therefore, there isn't as much published material available. All feedback is welcomed and thanked for in advance. I hope the article proves to be a good read. LuciferMorgan 00:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Good read, well sourced. Some comments:

1. The Recording section might be more aptly titled "Background", as it discusses elements of not just recording, but some points about production and development as well.

I've gone for this. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Photography and illustration could be more simply titled "Design", or "Cover design" or even just illustration.

Not too sure if this section can be renamed - Larry Carroll painted the album cover art, while the back cover features a band picture by Glen E. Friedman. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Reception and criticism should be more simply titled "Critical reception", I believe this is more the norm, e.g. for articles on films.

I've done this. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• No need for "However" at the beginning of the "However, Kim Neely of Rolling Stone" sentence.

I thought the "However" ties it in with the last paragraph. If others also agree the word is unnecessary, I don't mind it being scrapped. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Last two sentences of this section do not belong in a Reception section, this should probably be earlier in the Recording section.

I've added the last two sentences to the end of the Recording section. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Overall syntax in this section is very good.

Thanks very much. :) LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Cover interpretations could be more simply titled just "Covers", and could stand-alone as its own subsection.

I've followed this. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Live should be retitled "Live performances."

I agree, and have done so. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

5. Any relevant External links?

I'm not aware of any, but if anyone has any they can suggest, then they can be of course considered. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Great work overall, good job. Cirt (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC).

Thanks very much for your support and constructive feedback, which is greatly appreciated. :) LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Meets criteria. I see no problems. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. :) LuciferMorgan (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support The article looks very good. But while reading it, I found myself correcting a bunch of small copyediting issues. Things like inconsistently using straight and curly quotes, unnecessary or missing italics, and British conventions instead of American. I've corrected everything I noticed, but a more thorough copyedit would probably be helpful. 17Drew (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a British user, and use British conventions. I have no intention of using American conventions, which I find is more or less a dumbed down version of the English language. I think it's about time the Americans (generally) stop trying to Americanize the English language too. However, thanks for your edits. They are really appreciated - I'll have to read Wikipedia guidelines on italics / quotes sometime and get more clued up sometime. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • "In order to contrast the aggressive assault put forth on Reign in Blood, Slayer consciously slowed down the tempo of the album as a whole." I think "aggressive assault" might be a bit too emotional for Wikipedia, but I'll leave that up to you.

This is actually a quote, so I've attempted to clarify this within the article. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• • "The rendition of Judas Priest's "Dissident Aggressor" is the only cover version to appear on a Slayer studio album. This is due to the war-themed lyrics, with Hanneman describing the track as "more just like one of those odd songs that a lot of people didn't know, but it was a favorite of Kerry and I, so we just picked that one."" I'm not sure I understand this, so it's probably a bit ambiguous. Are the war-themed lyrics the reason Slayer chose to cover this particular song or the reason they haven't done any covers since?

They chose the song due to the war themed lyrics, though I've tried to clarify this. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Why are the band members' evaluations of the album in the "Background" section? That seems kind of odd to me.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The evaluations given in the "Background" section just seemed the more appropriate place to put them. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments, which are much appreciated. Should you have any others, feel free to share them. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Objections I saw your comment in FAC talk - hope I can help improve this article - it seems to have some issues in regards to FA Criteria;

""Behind the Crooked Cross" is rarely played live as Hanneman hates the track," - the personal feelings of someone are always POV, unreliable, and need sourcing and attribution.

This already has sourcing and attribution to Decibel Magazine. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

- i mean attribution within the writing - I don't believe Decibel Magazine is the NPOV on his Hanneman's "hate".--Keerllston 15:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV means fairly representing all significant views. Opinions other than the band's are insignificant when discussing its decision not top play the song. Decibel Magazine does not state that the song is good or bad, only that the band said the quote in an interview. NPOV is not an issue here. 17Drew (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps better said would have been verifiable/attribution/reliability - simple fix: "is played rarely according to the band because Hanneman hates the track" - ? --Keerllston 13:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"In order to offset the pace of the group's previous album, Slayer deliberately slowed down the album's tempo." in the lead is very authoritative - may I suggest "Bandmenber have said that the slower tempo of the album is due to the need to offset it from the band's previous album.

The current sentence in the lead more closely resembles the stance of the group's official biography, so I am not changing it. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"according to the group's official biography" should be added?--Keerllston 15:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The main article already notes that this came from the official biography. There's no need to attribute sources in the lead when it's already cited in the main article. 17Drew (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand why we say "according to X spectator" not in citations? it's because reliability is in question - if a person says of themselves that they are depressed it is questionable - if a person's psychologist says it less so.--Keerllston 10:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"While some critics praised the musical shift, others more accustomed to the style of earlier releases were disappointed. " - ummm... some liked it some didn't -obvious and weaseling

This is a direct quote, so therefore cannot be changed. Also, since it's a quote it isn't weasly. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

??? direct quote??? - it doesn't (didn't?) have quotes--Keerllston 15:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a direct quote, but it is paraphrased from Slayer's official biography. It's not very weaselly at all. Some albums garner nearly universal acclaim, and others are completely panned. In this case, it identifies the change in Slayer's musical style as a main point of criticism.

so it isn't a direct quote - it is a paraphrasis. I think the change in Slayer's musical style being the main cause of criticism can be better pointed out that the weasely "some [...] some didn't [...]" - I suggest "Criticism of the album was derived mostly from the musical shift." - or similar - without the usage of "some" - It seems the article depends a lot on info from the official biography.--Keerllston 13:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The current sentence already summarises this fine, so I am not changing it. It isn't weasly at all, so I suggest you actually find out what a weasly sentence is. Most album FAs I have come across summarise the critical reception in the introduction. For example, from Love. Angel. Music. Baby.; "Despite gathering mostly positive reviews, L.A.M.B. received criticism for its many collaborations and superficial lyrical content." Furthermore, your assertion that the article depends on a lot of info from the official biography couldn't be further from the truth - before making such statements, read the article in question. A lot of the info the articles relies on is actually an oral history of the group, printed in Decibel magazine. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are under the impression that an article should reflect the "official" - this is not the case. I note that LAMB section you quoted does not note that "some critics" did "something" - instead criticism was done . - this is much more encyclopedic in tone.--Keerllston 10:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"However, Kim Neely of Rolling Stone dismissed the album as "genuinely offensive satanic drivel."" - why "however" and why is the criticism section of "Critical Reception" so small? - I suggest "Dislike of the Album included that of Neely who said "[...]"" and so on.

The word "However" is used to tie the topic, but can be taken out if need be. The negative part of the "Critical reception" section is small since I cannot find any other negative reception. Therefore, unless you can find negative and reliable reception then this is not a valid objection. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do edit "However" out if you haven't already. - I am unwilling to believe that it's impossible to find negative reviews from notable musical magazines...--Keerllston 10:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Notes: a third of citations are from All Music Guide - a sixth are from blabbermouth - are these good/reputable/reliable sources? there are a total of 36 sources, none of them books, has there been little scholarly work regarding this article's subject matter?

This is heavy metal we're discussing, not Shakespeare. There's currently no English language biographies on Slayer. All Music Guide is only used to cite track listings, and some don't even feel the need to cite track listings. As concerns Blabbermouth, it's the best news source on heavy metal without question. If anyone says they can find a better news source, then I say they're not well informed. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

- I was using notes as in - "not-relevant-to-objection hopefilled queries" - sorry for not being clear in regards to that... --Keerllston 10:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

>--Keerllston 14:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't find any of your objections valid for the aforementioned reasons. However, thanks for taking the time to comment. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Objection not adressed I'm okay with LuciferMorgan finding my objections invalid.--Keerllston 15:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any need to highlight this - the relevant person can find this out for themselves by reading your objection and my responses. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a need? I thought you know - maybe my "opinion" mattered -it is my comment after all- and I think my "opinion" on whether my comment was addressed was pretty relevant as to whether my comment was addressed - feel free to disagree--Keerllston 16:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No there isn't a need, actually. I have written 3 FAs, and there hasn't ever been a need. Whether your comments have been addressed, or even need addressing (which they don't at all, in my opinion), is up to the FAC director and not you. I have come across a few of your comments on other FACs now, and I must say that I'm not too impressed. Before you actually comment on other FACs, I think you need to read the FAC criteria more closely. Also, I think you need to read each respective article you're commenting on more closely. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I'm very impressed at myself either... hahaha
-ummm - you might be comforted to know that FAC is not a vote... - my comment(s) and objection(s) can be ignored - I can't say you convinced me at the very least that they were invalid- but then
if they were invalid you didn't need to say anything either (no need as it were)- since Raul can pretty much review the article and article reviews by himself and rely on his judgement.
--Keerllston 17:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't even warrant a response, other than for me to ask you to stop wasting editors' times and actually read the FAC criteria. Your reasons for objecting are frankly pathetic, and have no basis in the criteria. And as concerns convincing you, I certainly don't wish to - I address comments which adhere to FAC guidelines, not ones which people like you dream up. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

you say: "your reasons [...] are [...] pathetic" -Sounds uncivil to my ears, -do you (LuciferMorgan) have a personal issue with me? I suggest you discontinue this avenue of action - it does not seem very constructive.
--Keerllston 20:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not uncivil, but merely stating the truth. If you do not like the truth, you're speaking to the wrong person. For the record, I take personal issue with editors wasting nominators times. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Am I to interpret that you believe I am wasting your time? - You do not have to respond, let alone this many times, to an objection or to an editor. If you believe a comment doesn't warrant a response I suggest you do not respond. This lessens your stress and also therefore the chance that you'll make a rash comment whether in response to that comment or elsewhere that you'll later regret. In my opinion or point of view -I can only waste my time, never yours, and you can only waste your time, never mine.--Keerllston 11:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Request for (request for) input from a member of the copy-editing league.--Keerllston 12:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't need copyediting, and you're only asking for this since I told you that you were wasting people's time. Stop trying to derail my FAC in the way you tried to do so at "The Sweet Escape". LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, I see the above concerns as either inactionable or justifed by the nominator. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Cricket02. It's really not worth getting involved though (I'm still trying to figure why I've kept responding). When it's time to cast judgment on this FAC, more experienced people will see through these inactionable concerns. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

“ a more thorough copyedit would probably be helpful. 17Drew (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC) ”

I'm not the only one. OK?--Keerllston 17:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You must have little to stimulate you during the day, since your antics become more and more annoying. And for the record, your oppose did not state anything actionable. Which specific statement needs a copyedit, and why? Tell me. Otherwise, go and annoy someone else. I'm really getting fed up of your rubbish, and I have better things to do with my time. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My comments were mainly copy-edit complaints -(and wow at uncivil remarks: "go annoy someone else"-"I'm getting fed up of your rubbish").--Keerllston 17:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As you stated earlier, FAC is not a vote. This means nobody's opinion really matters. What's important is whether or not the objections are actionable. I supported because I don't see any more copyediting issues, but I personally can't say for sure that there aren't actionable issues. Had you found some, then LuciferMorgan would likely be fixing those issues, but it's unreasonable for LuciferMorgan to be trying to address unactionable concerns. 17Drew (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Objectionable Nominator Attitude nuff said--Keerllston 17:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind good faith comments, but I think you writing at this FAC arose from me telling you to curb your comments at "The Sweet Escape" FAC for being a nuisance there. I find that objectionable, and your mocking attitude is objectionable too. If you wish to goad here, please invent funnier comments. If you're going to be annoying, you can at least make it entertaining for all involved. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I said "nuff said" -meaning that was it for me-
given this latest comment I wanted to say that it seems that you took my comments in this FAC as in bad faith from the beginning - having disliked previous actions of mine regarding my comments of impropriety. If so - I understand where you're coming from - it seems my actions in that occasion were understood, by you among others, as intentionally disruptive. I ask you to note that I have made positive contributions elsewhere - including in the Preque Isle State Park FAC, Angolan Civil War FAC, and Brown Dog Affair FAC, and -at least to note my assurance that my comments are in good faith.
--Keerllston 12:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Responded via my talk page. LuciferMorgan (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - interesting read, well referenced. Peter Fleet (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - as an (inactive) Slayerproject member. Nice work. Ceoil (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support too, and nice to see you on Wikipedia (it's been awhile). LuciferMorgan (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.