Talk:Those Once Loyal/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 03:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I had to come back for another one of these. I'll have the review written within the next few days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

dude thanks so much lol Chchcheckit (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Chchcheckit It looks really good, not much needs to be changed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Heyo, Thanks once again for doing a thing like this.

Notes:

• Agreed, changed (posiitve aspects)
• Me personally? i'd say the "ww1" thing was a lot of judging a book by its cover. But consensus says....
• Agreed, changed (recovering his health)
• just feel, not "feel". Idk a better way to put it
• effects it is
• redid this part somewhat (killchain)
• consistency fixed in reviews
• fixed
• 2016 edition
• rewoded the aftermath thing

Verifiable with no original research

• AllMusic review says: "one would be hard-pressed to find a better use for the term heavy metal."
• rocklistmusic.co.uk: since I do have some magazines, I can confer that a lot of what it lists is true, albeit i understand the concerns given.
• ehhhh.... i couldn't tell you what makes AoP reliable. but removing it may compromise the title meaning and things so idkkkkkkk. I did mitigate the piracy thing in response to this though.
• A users poll, but held by site staff. It's gone now.
• just "critics" then
• No changes are needed for this, but independent sources are preferable to interviews when possible. I know sources can be harder to find with more obscure bands, but it's worth keeping mind. (I do understand this, and i did try.)

Spot checks:

• [16] BraveWords does not say they entered the studio in April 2005, that would be Stratchan 2005, p. 15. Inferred from this part where Thomson says: "[. . .] we booked [Andy Faulkner, producer] out for five months. We were in the recording studio rehearsing before recording anything so that it didn't feel like an alien environment and I think we recorded and mixed the record in about three and a half months. [. . .] it was about nine hours [of recording] every day." The point I made here is inferred from both BraveWords and Strachan sources together, although this is not obvious. please tell me what i could do here, if anything.
• Diminished the "new website" thing.
• [39] Harrold. Bench says: "I loved the idea of that and the fact no-one had ever used anything similar, so we [Bolt Thrower] commissioned a photographer to go and take some photos of it, and the photo was worked on by Jan Meininghaus and made into a cover." December 2005 thing is removed

Broad in its coverage

• couldn't find anything additional on lyrics. Believe me, I tried.

--

Aight. That's what I got. ---Chchcheckit (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Chchcheckit, looking at the changes:

• varying from its effects on individuals and groups to its positive aspects – This could be reworded for readability, but more importantly, I'm not sure if "positive aspects" should be stated in the lead at all since it's a subjective descriptor.
• I have to be the bad guy on this one: I need to know that all of the sources are reliable before passing, and that includes rocklistmusic.co.uk and AoP. Do any of those magazines confirm the specific info being cited from rocklistmusic.co.uk? That would be a much better source.
• Inferring from sources generally counts as WP:original research, especially if it's a case of WP:SYNTH that makes an inference by combining info from sources.
• Harrold is listed as one of the sources for The plaque itself, crafted from melted cannons, shows a World War I QF 18 pounder field gun and its crew in action. Is it necessary here?
• It doesn't really matter for this review since it's fairly short, but as a side note: when a review is written as a bulleted list, reviewers are usually fine with indented replies directly under each bullet point; since there are usually only two people in the discussion, talk page formatting is a little relaxed.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

okayyeeee thkanks again.

• Redid (from an old idea)
• they are both gone (aop, rocklist)
• okay redid the synth thing to make it not synthy yes
• no. redid the section anyway
• bullet points are faster and use less mental energy lol sorry

Chchcheckit (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Well-written

I've made some copyedits, feel free to change them to your liking.

• to its "positive aspects" – Scare quotes. For the lead, keep it simple and just list the aspects without describing them. For the body, maybe describe these as aspects that the band thought of as positive.
• Is the World War I theme important enough for the lead if it's just something that critics said, rather than an integral part of the album?
• on recovering his health – This can just say "on his recovery" or "on his health".
• of what the album should "feel" like, according to Thomson – Even if this is technically a quote from Thomson, having the quotation marks here double as scare quotes. This could just be reworded.
• its effects and impacts – These mean the same thing. I'd keep "effects" as it's slightly more formal.
• the lyrics of Those Once Loyal do not attempt to glorify war, nor do they have any specific bearing or meaning on modern events – This reads like an analysis of the music, but it might be more direct to say that the band did not wish to have the lyrics do these things
• and how "targets [have] email addresses" – Does the source explain this lyric in more detail?
• commented on Bolt Thrower's innovation—or lack thereof – There's probably a simpler way to say this. Maybe consistency?
• over the production of ...For Victory, Mercenary and Honour – Valour – Pride—although its songs lacked – The formatting makes this hard to read. Should we avoid this by just saying "of their previous albums"?
• In the 2016 revised and expanded edition – This can just say "In the 2016 edition"
• However, the band's attempts at writing new material that would live up to the "response and status" of Those Once Loyal proved to be fruitless – This makes it sound like the article itself is evaluating what happened. This should be reworded so it's clear that the band came to this decision.

Verifiable with no original research

• Avoid using AllMusic to verify genres. It's good for critics' reviews, but outside of that it's generally unreliable.
• rocklistmusic.co.uk doesn't seem to be a reliable source. We can't trust that it accurately recorded the information.
• What makes AoP's blog a reliable source?
• A users poll probably shouldn't be included, as with any other user generated content.
• Those Once Loyal was well-received by both critics and fans – An interview with a band member is not a reliable source for whether it was well received. If you're going to change or remove this, make sure it's updated in the lead as well.
• No changes are needed for this, but independent sources are preferable to interviews when possible. I know sources can be harder to find with more obscure bands, but it's worth keeping mind.

Spot checks:

• [7] Smit: Good.
• [16] BraveWords: The source doesn't say they entered in April, it says they plan on entering in May. It looks like the second use is only used to support "newly established official website", which isn't really that important of a detail.
• [30] Lee: Good.
• [39] Harrold: Does this support anything in the second sentence of "Title and artwork"? Also, does it support December 2005?
• [78] Blabbermouth: Good.

Broad in its coverage

Includes all of the main aspects of an album article. I doubt there is, but I have to ask anyway: Are you able to find any more information about what the lyrics mean?

Neutral

No ideas are given undue weight, and the article does not inappropriately present ideas in a positive or negative light.

Stable

No recent disputes. No major changes are expected.

Illustrated

Licensing checks out and captions are sufficient. Note that captions don't need citations if the same fact is cited in the body of the article.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.