Talk:Tomahawk (album)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk · contribs) 22:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments: The article's content is well-written, complies with MoS, verifiable, neutral and stable. My concern is with the bredth of coverage:

• Lack of Background and recording section (anything about where the album was recorded?)
• Lack of Musical style and themes (any discussion of the album's content)
• Possible to get hold of a song sample?
• Reception could presumably include many more reviews (tried to find a Metacritic listing myself but was unable)
• Track Listing after Reception
• Provide a reference for the Personnel (CD liner notes usually)
• Provide some genres in the infoxbox

• MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on this review. Unfortunately a good bit of what you're asking here isn't able to be sourced properly—this is a pretty obscure record release by an independent label who deliberately spend next to nothing on marketing. Information on the actual recording, composition or the like just isn't out there (this one took so long between DYK and GAN as I was still trying to find more information). I've moved the track listing around in the article like you've asked but I'm not adding genres as I'm opposed to their use—there's no comfortable way to use them in the article's prose, they're often subjective and they invite constant edit warring or needless tweaking (if it helps, I've put through other album articles without them). Not entirely keen on a song sample as I don't feel it would meet fair use (if sources existed that discussed the composition of the music then a sample would be a great accompaniment to that, but without that kind of material available it would seem more decorative than insightful). I did add a link to a sample from Ipecac Recordings' official site t the external links, though, which should be a good workaround. I've given an AllRovi reference for the personnel as I figured citing the album notes would be too circular (citing an album in the article for the album). GRAPPLE X 00:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thought that might be the case, but I have to ask these things of course. Okay then, a few more things.

• The release date is not mentioned immediately. Is there no way we can have "the 2001 debut album" or "the debut album by [...], released in 2001 [...]".
• Reception: "Tomahawk was released on October 30, 2001." This could go in Production, as it seems slightly non-seq with what follows. Perhaps integrate the tour information and reception with the comments made by Irish Times? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• You could re-title to Release and reception, which would equally solve the issue.

• Yeah, that makes sense. Done now. GRAPPLE X 16:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Final comment: A small article, but which nonetheless comprises all available sources and information on the topic. Highlighted issues have been resolved, and the remaining minor points do nothing to prevent the article passing; the content that is present is of a high standard. Pass: MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I know you're a veteran of this sort of thing, but I would encourage you to review another GAN! Thanks, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review! GRAPPLE X 16:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect reference

The album was supported by a tour in which the band supported Tool; however, Tools fans were unreceptive to Tomahawk and frequently booed their performances.[11]

the reference given is referring to one of Patton's other side projects Fantomas, and also only describes "bewilderment", not the booing described on the album's page here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.244.248 (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Had a look, turns out I re-used the wrong ref when I turned up this fact working on another article; the claim is true but was meant to be supported by a reference from Pitchfork rather than CMJ; the two appear in sequence in the Mit Gas article which was the source of the mix-up. Fixed now, thanks. GRAPPLE X 05:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tomahawk (album). 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130116194402/http://www.allrovi.com/name/fant%C3%B4mas-mn0000795196 to http://www.allrovi.com/name/fant%C3%B4mas-mn0000795196

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)