Talk:Jihad (song)/Archive 1

Archive 1

GA nom

It looks a well referenced article. It'd look at the following:

• expand the 'Music and structure' section, especially to include a discussion of the lyrics?

The article cannot discuss what does not exist. In other words, I cannot discuss lyrics unless it has been discussed or else it's original research. This song was never released as a single and it's by a Metal band. Furthermore, it's your opinion the "Music and structure" should be expanded, and not in GA guidelines. Finally, since the lyrics are discussed in detail in the "Origins" section, the "Reception and criticism" section and the "Controversy" section, your request frankly takes the piss.

Everything that can be found has been included in the article, so the article is as comprehensive as it can be. LuciferMorgan 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• work some references into the lead, especially where you are quoting a living person or group's reaction.

What? The lead of any article isn't even meant to be referenced. "Christ Illusion" is FA and doesn't have a referenced lead section, nor are other articles meant to. The lead is meant to be a summary of what is in the body, and any info in the summary is cited in the body. There's no need to cite it twice whatsoever. LuciferMorgan 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• some informal phrases in there: e.g. "gagging order"

Well done so far. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, how else can it be phrased? Also, what other "examples" can you find? LuciferMorgan 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No offence to you, but if you wish to learn how to review articles don't learn it on articles I've put my effort into. This review is lacklustre at best. LuciferMorgan 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What an odd reaction to constructive criticism. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd? This isn't constructive criticism, this is downright lunacy. If you think this shambles can be called a review, then think twice. I'm fuming, because the fact that bad reviewers like you can get away with such awful reviewing due to the GA process being so flawed actually riles me. At least with FA a crazy review like this could get ignored, but here it cannot. LuciferMorgan 20:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. I note that you have a history of responding to reviews in this antagonistic fashion. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh I bet you do. In fact, I bet this is what this is all about. An admin wouldn't usually write such a lame review, so I reckon you did this on purpose. Quote WP:CIVIL all you like - your review was crap, and I won't say any different just cos you're an admin. I tell you what I note - if you're as bad an admin as you are a GA reviewer, then God help Wikipedia. LuciferMorgan 21:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

In response to a couple of your queries:

1. According to WP:LEAD, it should be "carefully sourced as appropriate." This is especially important when quoting or asserting the opinions of living people, and even more important when those opinions concern a controversial topic. If there are FAs without references in the lead: they are deficiencies of those articles.

As appropriate it says, and in this case it's inappropriate since everything is sourced in the body - there is no point in citing the same source twice. I am not doing it no matter how many times you quote WP:LEAD, as in this case it isn't appropriate nor it isn't appropriate in any other case if the body cites the info. WP:LEAD is a guideline and you're trying to enforce it like a rule. Also, while the song was controversial in that it upset some people, the facts concerning the song itself are not controversial. LuciferMorgan 22:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The lead section is the first thing the reader sees. It should be the pinnacle of our standards, not subservient to the remainder of the article. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

1. A discussion at the first level of signification does not require a source, as the song is the source. In other words, you are merely describing the lyrics: is there a clear narrative, etc.? Without sources, interpretation and analysis would be original research. For an article about a song, it seems reasonable to have such a section.

Ok: first of all, describing lyrics is like telling the story, and you're encouraging copyright violation. And what you don't seem to get is the article has used every source available - everything regarding the lyrics has been used in other sections. There are no more sources to use. And anyway, your not asking for an analysis but a description - like a retelling, ie. copyright violation. I am in no way committing copyright violation for you or anyone else, and it's not reasonable. It's very clear your expertise on Wikipedia aren't in music. If copyright violation and needless regurgitation is befitting of the community, I don't wish to be befitting. LuciferMorgan 22:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Depending in how much detail. There should be a balance between description and analysis. Are there any comments in reviews that you can use? The JPS^{talk to me} 22:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah there are. There was a ton of feedback for "Christ Illusion" - Yannismarou, Seegoon, Metalhead, Jeffpw and a few others had some constructive feedback before I got it to FA. ShadowHalo put "Eyes of the Insane" on hold. For this one, Metalhead's got a few things I need to address. LuciferMorgan 08:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

1. You comment that I have failed to clarify my third point: 'some informal phrases in there: e.g. "gagging order"'. There are more formal phrases such as 'censored'.

You said this is an example - where are the other examples so I can address them. LuciferMorgan 22:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That attracts my eye for now: the rest appears fine. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope you can accept these comments in the good faith in which they were offered. My goal, like yours, is to improve the quality of Wikipedia. You are welcome to disagree, but I would appreciate it if you did so in a more polite way befitting of the community. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

GA review

This article has been passed as a Good article per the now archived Good article review. It was time for a decision, consensus supported it. IvoShandor 12:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)