Talk:Xtort

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleXtort 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 4, 2010Good article nomineeListed
April 30, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
May 13, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Move?[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Xtort. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
XTORT → XTOЯT — (move)

  • This is the actual spelling of the album. See image on original page. Torchiest (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MOSTM about the Cyrillic letter used as a decorative form of 'R'. Or move to Xtort? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The work styling in necessary. I think Anthony is on the right track with Xtort.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose According to MOS, the correct name of the article should be Xtort (unless "XTORT" is an acronym). TJ Spyke 17:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to reasons given above. Agree to move to Xtort. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per WP:MOSTM guidelines on use of all-caps and non-standard characters for decorative purposes. Support move to Xtort. --DAJF (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose current proposal per WP:MOSTM. Support move to Xtort. — AjaxSmack 05:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no mention of notability is in the article. Oppose per MOS:TM, WP:USEENGLISH, WP:Cyrillic. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is assumed if the performer(s) are notbale, i.e. have an article at Wikipedia. See WP:NALBUMS. — AjaxSmack 19:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Xtort. it's not an acronym, and we don't use capitalization for simple stylistic choices. Jafeluv (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Xtort. I found all-caps pointless without using the proper Cyrillic letter, but I'm fine with moving it to a normal capitalization heading. I also did some research and determined that the supposed Russian word this represents, want, is spelled XOTЯT, not XTOЯT, thus, this appears to be solely decorative.Torchiest (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Xtort, for reasons already given. This should never have been changed to all capital letters in the first place. 206.180.38.20 (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discogs as source[edit]

Discogs is used by other pages that are listed as good articles, e.g. Madonna's Ray of Light, so I would guess that it's acceptable. However, I did add a couple references from KMFDM's official page for the U.S. releases. Any ideas what other sources would be useful? I've seen amazon.com references get removed for being considered spam, but I think that's a reliable source for some information. Torchiest (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] This was posted November 2009, which is recent enough to be valid now. That's why I removed the reference. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Xtort/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    There are many stubby sections in this article. The sections, "Video", "Singles", "Promotional material", and "Charts" could currently be combined into one section called "Release". See articles like Hybrid Theory for examples.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should not generally have citations. The lead should also summarize the information within the article which it currently does not as skips information about the release and reception of the album. Do not forget Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Italics as Rolling Stone is missing italics in the infobox. Per Wikipedia:WTA#However.2C_although.2C_whereas.2C_despite, words such as "However" should be removed. Try simply removing the however and changing this to "Stephen Thomas Erlewine of Allmusic said" yadda yadda yadda. Be sure to use the correct dash in the Personnel section (see WP:DASH for more information). Per WP:TABLE, there is no real reason that the chart history should be formatted how it is, as this can be more easily explained as prose.

    The article needs cleaning to live up to the standards of Wikipedia:ALBUMS. You need a better ALT tag description than it currently has. See WP:ALT for details. The genres should be " delimited by a comma" and remember that these are not proper nouns, so the second genre should not get a capital letter. The Label that the album is one should be noted as the earliest label of release. Which one is it? Also, I'm not sure in this case but WP:SLASH might come in to play here. The list of producers should also be delimited by commas. WP:ALBUMS not longer uses reviews in the infobox. Continue to use the template used on articles such as Homogenic or remove this section. You may also want to try using template:singles in the infobox.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Look over Wikipedia:Citing_sources. try using items such as template:cite web to at least use an access date for these web articles you are citing.The "April Fool's Day" message needs a bit of context. That message does indeed appear but so what? If we can expand on this or find information why he did it or who the message was aimed for, then we'd have a better fact. Otherwise, it just comes off as trivial. Also, which one is the joke one? What was the serious one? I can only see on in the cite.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    Lots of information here is uncited. Citation is needed for the where the album was recorded, it's release date in the infobox and recording period, the singles released from the album. Much of the information about it's various releases is not cited either.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    This article could use some background information. Is there any information about production? style? guest musicians? choice of production location? etc.? This article will not pass without some sort of production history or background section.
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This article needs quite a bit of work and cleaning, but with proper information above, I think it still has the ability to become a GA with a lot of work. Good Luck! Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the comments! I'm actually in the middle of working on it right now. Torchiest (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of style issues[edit]

  • Removed citations from lead
  • Improved summary
  • Fixed other minor errors
  • Removed extra label on release, however, I think the slash is required, as the label that released the album was Wax Trax!, but they had been purchased by TVT at that point, while retaining creative control. I'm not if that explains it, or if I would need to cite the label name somehow. Torchiest (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's looking much better! I still would like to see some sort of information about the production of the album. A lot of the "history" section could be moved to a "Promotion" section. (See articles like The Fame for examples). Some information still needs citations like the release date of that single and much of the information in that box for Release info. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good job on the article! It could use some re-organizing which I make just do myself since it's easier to tackle that way. The only things I'd ask you to pull over before I give it my final review is that some sections of the release box are not cited. I'd honestly try to change that section to prose and ignore the rest of the uncited information. As this is the English wikipedia dealing with a German band, the only real points of interest release wise would be it's earliest release, it's release in Germany and it's release in the English-speaking market. Other than that, I think the introduction to the article could be expanded as well as it's only one paragraph with no much information. Great work though! This article has come a long way. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final version?[edit]

I converted the release section to prose, and added some more to the lead. I think it accurately reflects the contents of the article, brushing over all subjects in brief but adequate detail. Not sure what you want to do as far as re-organizing, but since I think all other issues are addressed, feel free to move things around if you think it would help. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 04:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of re-organizing. Sorry about the lateness of all my replies. Great job! The article is much better. It is a pass! Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and thanks for passing my first GA! Torchiest (talk | contribs) 05:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: BRD[edit]

The info given in the paragraph about Nihil is unnecessary, as this is a page on Xtort, not Nihil. All that should be there is "In late 1995, the band was coming off two tours in support of their last album, Nihil.[1]", and perhaps a second sentence mentioning that they were getting big: "Nihil's success prompted Carrie Borzillo of Billboard Newspaper to state that KMFDM was "poised to make a significant commercial breakthrough."[2]. A wikilink to Nihil can tell the reader all about how great Nihil is, and can keep this page sticking to info on Xtort. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, but I think stats do a better job of showing the increased exposure and popularity, whereas your suggested second sentence, particularly the word "prompted", sounds a lot like WP:OR to me. Like I said, my main goal is to get this to GA status, and I'll do whatever is necessary to achieve that. As outlined above, the history and production sections are the remaining weak points, and I'm trying to find a way to appropriately build them up. We need a third opinion on this. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 23:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"particularly the word "prompted", sounds a lot like WP:OR to me." Agreed. Having re-read the source, she thinks it's the new album, not the success of Nihil, that made them poised etc. So since that phrase has nothing to do with Nihil, how does it support your keeping the extraneous info on Nihil ("moved Carrie Borzillo quote to connect this fact")? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a progression. Nihil was a success, and had a hit single. Borzillo thinks Xtort is bound for greater success. We can't know her reasoning, but we can see that it fits into the history of more exposure and commercial breakthroughs. If you really think it doesn't fit, I'd love it if you could figure out another way to expand the history with new content. I've been digging, stretching, and googling like crazy to try to put the pieces together. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 02:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look and see what I can find this week. Hopefully we can flesh out the history and clean out the in-depth Nihil stuff simultaneously. Other than that, it's starting to look pretty good, hopefully it'll be up to GA status soon! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think I've got a plan to re-arrange it. Check it out and see what you think. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 04:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, I'm still very open to any more good information you can find that you think would add to either the history or production sections. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 04:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Credits[edit]

Fixed the credits based on what the 2007 booklet actually says. If a source is being used as a reference, that source should actually be used. If other sources are also being used as references, they should be cited. Any questions about these edits should first be discussed here (including if the 1996 booklet says different). One thing I did notice is that Connelly is not credited in the booklet as having sung on "Craze", but I think he may have (I have noticed occasional errors in these re-releases, such as FM Einheit apparently does sounds on the track "Dogman", whatever that is!). I changed it based on the booklet, but if the old booklet or another source says he did sing on it, then that should probably be re-added. I left the mixing and mastering info in, but since it doesn't appear in the 2007 booklet I added a couple cite tags. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the credits mix-up. I saw that you had cleaned up the credits a while back, and I thought you'd used the 2007 booklet as a source to check them at the time. I hadn't actually double checked, and since I know you've used the re-release notes before, I thought they were accurate based on that. The original 1996 liner notes give credit to Connelly for vocals on "Craze", as well as writing credit. He also gets writing credit on the website. I'll add another source for the mixing. The mastering is a little iffy, as I originally got it from discogs.com. I might just pull that. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 02:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I just was confused when stuff was missing/added etc! I do plan on finishing up cleaning up credits for the rest of the albums (Angst-Adios) soon. Sounds good on the assorted missing credits from the 96 book, I kinda wondered about that! I can't say I'm very impressed with the assorted errors I've found in these booklets, you'd think a band that prides themselves on quality could get this sort of thing right! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit surprised myself. I thought the new credits would be the end all be all, but apparently not. Oh well, such is life. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 04:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KMFDM FAQ as a source[edit]

That FAQ has been listed as a source on the main KMFDM page for four years, and it's been linked to from KMFDM.net as an official band-endorsed source of information for years as well.Torchiest (talk | contribs) 12:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that makes it a reliable source, however I've asked at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard here, hopefully they can give some guidance. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and it can stay. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found a reliable source, amazon.com, for that release date (some Russian site that appears to have no real editorial control isn't the best source). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I didn't look there first. For some reason I was thinking it wouldn't be there. I got my copy for free way back in the day, and with the whole limited edition thing I didn't think about them actually being sold. Thanks for fixing it. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 01:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xtort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xtort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference KMFDM History was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Billboard Newspaper was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xtort&oldid=1211583836"