Wikipedia:Peer review/Meshuggah/archive2

Meshuggah

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is an article about a Swedish experimental band. I want to know what does the article need to be fully ready for a FAC. Every suggestion or comment is welcome. Thanks everybody, who helps with this!  LYKANTROP  ✉ 10:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC) First off, I don't know the band or their music, I can just try to give some impressions of the article. Also, as a disclaimer, I didn't read the article from the beginning to the end.

• I would in general not put the <ref> elements in the middle of sentences. For example "Meshuggah was originally formed in 1987,[3][4] comprising vocalist Jens Kidman, guitarist Johan Sjögren, bassist good referencing, but the text becomes less readable).

• PS After reading most of the article, this is really disturbing. I don't know what MOS says, but please do consider changing that layout issue.

I am currently figuring out how to solve this "refs issue". Yes, the article has in some sections an abnormal concentration of references. But it is because I had to pick many sources and put them together like puzzle to create a smooth text. It often happens that every single subordinate clause in a compound sentence has a different source. If I move all the sources to the end, we won't recognize which part of the sentence has which source. But I'll do something about it very soon.

I reduced the number of the inline citations using Template:ref label and also with putting more sources into one "ref". It looks much better now.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 17:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Good.

• However, the lead section contains some statements where a ref would be nice (e.g. among the ten most important bands ... according to Rolling Stone).

You are most likely right, but I'd like to know opinions from more people, because I don't like refs in lead section :)

OK. I also see that you have that same statement referenced in the text body. So it should be OK. But this brings me to another point I remark just now:

• The lead is somewhat unbalanced. Their musical gets only one phrase ("They have become renowned for their complex, innovative and precise musicianship and songwriting, polyrhythmic song structures and technical prowess. "), while the public acclaim, as manifested by various mentions in journals etc., gets thrice as much. My rule of thumb, somehow every subsection should be in the lead with approx. one sentence.

The musical style is also metioned several times in the second paragraph of the lead section "Destroy Erase Improve (...) fusion of death metal, thrash metal and progressive metal.","use eight-string guitars with two extra low strings and incorporate downtuned groovy riffs.", "experimented with one 21-minute song on the I EP and a "one song album" Catch Thirtythree". This part indicates the history in relation with their musical experimentation. It is kind of both history and style. But I changed this paragraph a bit: "(...)progressive metal. The album Chaosphere, released in 1998, used fast tempo death metal with Thordendal's typical free jazz-like solos. With their 2002 album Nothing, Meshuggah started to use eight-string guitars with two extra low strings and incorporate downtuned, slow, groovy riffs."

OK. Sounds reasonale, though I don't have the time right now to re-read. Just an idea in general: try to match the article structure in the lead, too.

• Lead section: "and are currently on a world tour."- "currently" is problematic. I'd prefer an absolute way of telling the time.

I've put "2008" in to the sentence instead of "currently". Does it seem allright?

OK.

• The "Members" section is redundant. Everything written there is already in the history section. Also the template at the article's top has this. I would simply delete that section.

Well, this section has become some kind of non-written standard in musican-articles. I have never seen a non-stub musician-article without that section. So I would rather keep it...

• Something else you could consider is making a more graphical timeline (I figure something where time is depicted on a number line, below are shown the changing members of the band, together with the albums).

This is actually a good idea... It would be an upgrade for the article. If I'll do that, I'd do it later (maybe).

• Who said the quotation "is simpler and more straight-forward than ..."?

True... I fixed it.

• A general problem I, being someone not listening to metal, have: you don't seem to explain the musical terms very much. Example "alternative metal category, rather than into progressive metal". Phrases like this don't convey any meaning to a reader not into the stuff.

Well, alternative metal and progressive metal are two subgenes of metal and the sentence says that the album (or the mentioned music) is rather alternative metal than progressive metal. It is not alternative but progressive.

I don't really know how to explain it in the article (maybe wikilinks to the alternative metal and progressive metal. Could you tell more exactly what is weard about the statement? And you can also give me more examples of what you don't understand and how don't you understand it. I would appreciate that... I want everybody to understand the article...

I understood that alternativ and progressive metal are two "subspecies" of metal (fairly obvious, given the name). I give you a completely unrelated example: "the set of all integers forms a group, but not a vector space". Let's assume you have no mathematical training, so you will get that there is some difference between groups and vector spaces, and that it is possible that something (in this case the integers) belongs to the former, but not to the latter. Fine. However, you have no clue what the notions are about. You can look up the wikilinks, but a promising almost-FAC (as your article) has more to do than that. In my, I would rewrite: "the set of integers forms a group, a structure related to familiar number systems, but not a vector space (a generalization of Euclidean space)".

OK, a lot of ado. I just want to say: try hard(!) to spot notions unknown to the lay, and try to explain them along the text. In the alternative vs. progressive metal, I could think of mentioning two or three important facets of the genres, tell a key band that came up with the style, ... OK?

Three examples:

• He is also known for the usage of a "breath controller" device. -- what is a breath controller?
• "angular riffing" ??
• "Meshuggah showed calculated fusion of death metal, thrash metal, progressive metal and extraordinary technical polyrhythmic math metal." -- none of the term means something to me. (But probably better to explain them where they first show up).
• Your explanation of polyrythm in their work is well done. Go in this direction.

• The word "technical" is used several times in the article. I tried to make it clear with using "technically skilled" or "technical prowess". The word "technical" is not special term used only in this kind of music. It can be used in every style or art category - for example jazz, which has much more "technical" musicans. It says that the musician uses some special or demanding "technique". It is very similar to "skilled". It is not meant to be something more than "skilled".
• I changed "angular riffing" to ""angular"-like" riffing. "Angular" is absolutely not a real musical term. It is a word that is sometimes used by music journalists to describe a riff, which just makes an impression of beeing angular. Several quick tones separated by very short rest. But this definition is total original research because the term is just an idiom. Is the ""angular"-like riffing" clearer?
• I rewrote the sentence you mentioned above to "Meshuggah showed accurate fusion of death metal, thrash metal, progressive metal and technical polyrhythmic math metal." I hop that it is a bit more clear.
• The "breath controller device" is a little black box that Fredrik Thordendal blows into sometimes when he plays, to create a special smooth almost saxophonic sound with his guitar (this is what I observed). But I have only 1 source that mentions its bare existence and Thordendal's usage of it. I really would like to say more about it in the article, but I can't. Pity.

• Angular: no, that is not clearer. To make it clearer, you will have to put some of your explanation into the article. 2nd: Do you refer to "In general, Meshuggah have been labeled as (often a combination of) thrash metal, death metal, avant-garde metal, experimental metal, extreme metal, math metal, progressive metal, post-thrash metal, alternative metal, grindcore, or even terms like tech-thrash or hi-tech metal."? In that case, I just reiterate my above comment. Wikilinking all the sub-metals is nice and good, but far from perfect. Really, do take the time to come up with short explanations of these terms. Find things that the subspecies have in common, find contrasts, make the text lively by telling what makes it so extraordinary to unify all these styles ... This is not a thing which can be adressed by quick rewording, it needs deeper mining ;). 3rd: Well, at least you have to explain the breath controller, right? If you can't explain it (either cause you don't really know, or you know but can't find a reference (but frankly, you don't need a ref for every word)), then you should scrap it.

I will do somthing about this soon--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 11:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I reworded the paragraph with the list of the genres. It is not a "list" anymore and the genres are explained in relation with the band. That is it. Thanks for co-operation.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 19:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote it again. I wasnt happy with it after the first re-wording. But now it is good I think. This is all I can do yout this... Thanks for helping me...--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Some things are extremely detailed (e.g. "During the tour, bassist Peter Nordin became ill and had problems with the balance nerve in his inner ear. ")

What are "some things"? Can you give more examples please?

Hm, right now I just don't find more...

• In " polyrhythmic structure" (Musical style section), the wikilink to song structure does not seem appropriate to me, or at least I don't understand the relation of polyrythm, which is something on a level of one or few bars (right?), to song structure, which describes the song as a whole.

You are right, the article song structure does not mention rhythm. I unlinked that.

• Which languages are they singing in?

They use English. Their lyrics are mentioned in "Lyrics, songwriting and recording" with some examples (which indicate that their lyrics are English). I was thinking about this some time ago already, but I simply did not find an explicit source which says that.

Well, if you can cite some lyrics, and they are in English, then you won't have to prove that it is English. However mentioning might be good. I wondered when reading.

• Who or what is "Rockdetector"? ("Rockdetector says: ...")

I used a wikilink (as for other sources).

• "Drummer Tomas Haake is considered to be one of the most technical drummers in today's heavy metal." - I don't understand the meaning of "technical" here. Do you mean he has a good technique? Same with "They are known for their technical, complex and innovative musicianship" (I'm not a native speaker, though).

I rewrote this a bit. Is it okay now? (it is once in the lead section and 2 times in the first section of "musical style")

"extraordinary technical polyrhythmic" should be "extraordinarily..." I think. Otherwise fine.

I removed the "extraordinary" one day ago or something. It seemed unnecessary to me.

• You have only three real content sections (I don't count 4 Members, 5 Discography). I don't know exactly, but I could think a section like "Publical reception", or other bands that have been influenced by them etc. could make a reasonable additional section.

I can see this as a possibility. But most of the stuff, which would go to this section, is closely related to the musical style. It would be lots of work - I'll think about it to for future.

Yes, but I do think that is a key step for the article to take. The paragraph "Rolling Stone labeled the "Swedish sonic extremists" as ... In spite of this, Meshuggah is an underground band.[44]" is really not related to "Musical style". So it is misplaced in that section. Other similar facts, how many albums sold etc. are also something related to their public perception.

Well, I did the new section (Meshuggah#Influence and reception). It was simply a great idea from you. THANKS! ! !

Cool. I think that's a great plus!

• In general, it seems that you made a lot of effort to write the article. Prose is good. Referencing is good (see above, though for layout). Please spend more space on explaining "technical" terms that are (only) known to their fans and metal listeners etc. - maybe at the cost of trimming down the details a bit. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for great comments! I will fix it and reply as soon as possible.  LYKANTROP  ✉ 15:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I fixed most of it except for the references

• Another point: sometimes I find the style not very encyclopaedic. At least my personal taste doesn't call for so many "he says" etc. Example ""I usually write lyrics in a once-a-year burst", he says. "After reading ...."" You can as well scrap the "he says" here. Another example ""Sometimes", Haake says, "I’ll sample guitar parts, cut them up, pitch-shift and tweak them until I’ve built the riffs I want, just for demoing purposes."[58] "But most of the time I’ll just present the drums, and explain my ideas for the rest of the song, sing some riffs."[58]". (Also, why twice the [58]?) I would aim for a more neutral point of view. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Those quotations are direct speeches by one band member. If I remove the "Haake says", it won't be clear who said that. For example: (...) Both play guitar and bass while composing (touring bassist Dick Lövgren doesn’t record with the band). "Sometimes I’ll sample guitar parts, cut them up, pitch-shift and tweak them until I’ve built the riffs I want, just for demoing purposes. (...)" If it is like this, we don't know that the drummer said it. I changed these direct speeches a bit. I think they are better now.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Final comment: Again, congrats for the fruitful work so far. I think you have already progressed quite a bit in these few days. I'd suggest going on along these lines. In my view, in order to have reasonable FAC chances, the future main issue is to ensure accessibility to non-metal or non-Meshuggah listeners. (I stress this so much, since I have had similar experiences (in the FAC of a totally different topic). It can be astonishing what other people do not know of one's favourite topic ;) I would give priority to this, especially compared to minute details in referencing. Good luck with the article. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Giggy

I just took a glance at the FAC, so I dunno if you've resolved everything there. Anyways, some comments on the lead (ping me if I don't get to the rest of it soon).

• "(who joined the band after Kidman stopped playing guitar in 1991)" - possibly too much detail for the lead
  • Same with the next band member.
  • and with "a member since 2004."
• "The latest album obZen was released in 2008." - could be a bit smoother, maybe "Their latest album, obZen, was released in 2008."

Giggy (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your engagement! I will adress it as soon as possible.  LYKANTROP  ✉ 15:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I did fix the things that came up during the FAC, but the nomination did not have enough comments for too long time or something. The lead section - hmm - I don't know if it is too detailed. If you imagine the first paragraph without it, then it would be like all of them are founding members.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• With the images; if they weren't taken in the era being discussed it's best to not use them there. (eg. the 2008 image in the Formation and early years (1987–1989) section)
• is it worth mentioning the town's specific population?
• Just refer to people by surname after the first time they're named (and don't mention their job (eg. "lead singer") every time). Example edit.
• Magazines and print publications need italics throughout (MOS:ITALICS) example edit
• "and many likely get involved" --> "and many are likely to get involved"?
• "Kidman described the cover: "The title fits the pictures we cut out and stole from reference books in the library."" - probably shouldn't appear in a biography as you don't have the image in front of you to look at... save for the album article
• "Drummer Tomas Haake, one of the most technical heavy metal drummers, in Stockholm, Sweden on the 20th of May, 2005. He has also been named the #1 drummer in the "Metal" category in Modern Drummer magazine's 2008 Readers' Poll." - somewhat awkward... does the following have the same meaning:?
  • "Drummer Tomas Haake, one of the most technical heavy metal drummers, was named number one in the "Metal" category in Modern Drummer magazine's 2008 Readers' Poll. This photo was taken in Stockholm, Sweden on 20 May 2005."
    • And yeah, it shouldn't be used in the section it's currently in.
• "Meshuggah went on a short US tour and the album was released in November 1998." - was the tour in Nov 1998 too? If not this sounds awkward (... actually, it sounds awkward anyway)...
• "Afterward, the band toured Scandinavia with Entombed.", "After the release of Chaosphere, Meshuggah joined thrash metal pioneers Slayer on their US tour" - maybe merge these together (and put them in the same paragraph).
• "After the new album and the live performances, Meshuggah was beginning to be recognized by mainstream music, guitar, drum and metal magazines" - doesn't sound good to start another sentence with "after". Maybe move the clauses around to something like "Mainstream media... began to recognize Meshuggah following Chaosphere" or something like that?
• "a collection of demos ... was released" - this is plural, so "were released"
• "Meshuggah immediately went on another US tour after finishing the recording, this time with Ozzfest" - kinda redundant to the last sentence?
• "and sold 6,525 copies during its first week in the US and reached no. 165 on the Billboard Top 200" - try to avoid using "and" twice in the same sentence
• "All of this information is available on the multimedia" - on the multimedia? Maybe "on a CD-ROM"?
• "In the end of 2002" --> "At the end of 2002", maybe
• "said about the possible musical direction" - change about to of
• "was released the following year on May 31, 2005." - not a fan of using specific dates in a bio (see comments here, 8th bullet point)
• "The band spent almost one year to create the album, which is the longest they've ever needed" --> "The band spent almost a year on the album; their longest recording session yet" (change if recording isn't the right word).
• "Significant part of the time was used to learn to perform" --> "A significant portion of the year was spent learning to perform"

Giggy (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the great comments. I think I fixed it all.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 15:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• "which form the sound Meshuggah" - if it's only these extreme metal elements that give the band its sound, what are the rest of the genres supposed to represent? (rhetorical question; needs rewording)
• For endnote a you might want to start with something like "Critics calling the band the following genres;", else it's a bit confusing as to what you're doing.
• "The term math metal is used...", "Meshuggah also incorporate elements of math rock" - maybe bring those two statements a bit closer together?

Giggy (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll fix those things.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 09:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote that paragraph again, but I used all of your suggestions anyway. Thanks...--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. Copyediting help can be requested at WP:PRV.

• Article seems to have a lot of content and to be well referenced and illustrated. The main problem I see with this going to FAC is still the language, which has to be at a professional level of English. Some examples follow:
  • The band comprises of founding members Jens Kidman ... how about The band is comprised of founding members Jens Kidman ...
  • Provide context for the reader, explain who / what Nuclear Blast is in Meshuggah returned to the public in January 1995 for a short European tour organized by Nuclear Blast. - see WP:PCR
  • in the caption this Both of them play the bass guitar during the recording in studio. could be more concise, perhaps Both of them play bass guitar when recording in studio. and really not sure "in the studio" is needed
  • Seem to be missing a quote at the end of Killswitch Productions said: "It's extremely cool to work with a band who is willing to allow the music and imagery to speak for itself and who does not insist on themselves being the prominent focus of the video.[?"?][33][40]
  • Tweak On "Mind's Mirrors" Meshuggah used even electronics, programming and "robotic voices". to something like On "Mind's Mirrors" Meshuggah even used electronics, programming and "robotic voices". Not sure, but robot voices probably needs a ref as a direct quote.
  • Confusion here Rolling Stone labeled the "Swedish sonic extremists" as "one of the ten most important hard and heavy bands"[51] and the Alternative Press as the "most important band in metal".[42] Subject of the sentence is Rolling Stone, so it makes it seem like RS is naming "the Alternative Press" "the 'most important band in metal'", when I think what is meant is Rolling Stone labeled the "Swedish sonic extremists" as "one of the ten most important hard and heavy bands",[51] and the Alternative Press named it the "most important band in metal".[42]
• I think the lead could just have the dates the new members joined, with the details in the body of the article. I would also try to use parallel construction more - for example the sentence ending in ... rhythm guitarist Mårten Hagström (who joined the band after Kidman stopped playing guitar in 1991), drummer Tomas Haake (who joined before the band's debut album Contradictions Collapse) and bassist Dick Lövgren; a member since 2004. uses parentheses for the first two new members, but not the third, gives the dates for two, but not the middle one, etc.
• Watch overlinking - I searched on ObZen and it is linked five times in the article.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. It is fixed now.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 15:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As requested, here is my look at the first style paragraph from an FAC perspective:

The level of experimentation, stylistic variations, and progress during Meshuggah's career has caused music journalists to categorize the band under several musical genres: heavy metal subgenres such as avant-garde metal or experimental metal are used as umbrella terms to describe the experimentation of the band. The term math metal is used to signify the technicality of their musicianship; progressive metal describes the compositional complexity. Extreme metal is applied to cover both thrash metal (or post-thrash metal) and death metal, which form the sound Meshuggah. Some critics call their music grindcore, a fusion of death metal and hardcore punk, or use even terms like tech-thrash or hi-tech metal.^[a] Meshuggah also incorporate elements of math rock and experimental jazz. They create a unique and recognizable sonic imprint and distinct style.

The first thing I notice is a lack of references and specifics - who are these critics? Where were they writing (magazines? websites?)? Note a lists many of these refs, but I think these should be in the paragraph itself. I also think the language could be a little smoother, perhaps something like this for the first sentence:

Music journalists, noting Meshuggah's level of experimentation, stylistic variations, and progress during their career, have categorized it with heavy metal subgenres: describing the band's experimentation with umbrella terms such as avant-garde metal or experimental metal. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Allright, thanks. I'll do that.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 09:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not happy with that paragraph so I reworded it again and I think it is better now. I only need the prose to be checked..--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Gimme danger

Initial comments: History section

• The parenthetical notes in the lead clutter up the text. If it's not critically important which year each band member joined, then move that info into the main body of the article.

I deleted them. This information is in the article body.

• Meshuggah recorded several demos before Kidman left the band, prompting the group to disband. This sentence feels repetitive to me. Maybe it's the word disband, I'm not sure. Perhaps see if you could combine this into a single clause?

In a single clause it would be something like "Meshuggah recorded several demos before Kidman left the band and disbanded subsequently." How does it sound like?

Now that I look at it again, maybe dividing the sentences would be better. "...Kidman left the band. Kidman's departure prompted the remaining members to disband." Sounds better, even though there are more words.Gimme danger (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I just used "his departure" instead of "Kidman's departure". Otherwise there would be too many "Kidmans" with the following sentence.--  LYKANTROP  ✉

• Meshuggah returned to the public in January 1995 I don't understand what "returned to the public" means. I've never heard this idiom before.

That statement about the public was not necessary - I shortened it to "In January 1995, Meshuggah participated on a short European tour organized by their record label Nuclear Blast." Is it ok?

Sounds good.Gimme danger (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• In the first paragraph of the Chaosphere section, the part about the fan club doesn't fit with the rest of the paragraph. I would just move it to it's own paragraph. This also needs a citation.

This sentence about the short-lived fanclub in Switherland seems redundant to me now. I deleted that.

• both of which suffered from lack of time because the band was on tour. This is too wordy.

It is pretty difficult for me to reword this, maybe because I am not a native speaker. What if we make this a separate sentence: In November 2005 Haake said in an interview that the band was not content with the productions of Chaosphere and Nothing. These albums suffered from lack of time because the band was on tour.

How about: "Nothing, because, being on tour, the band had little time to devote to them." Gimme danger (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. I just used "they" instead od "the band", because otherwise there would be 2 times "the band" in that sentence.--  LYKANTROP  ✉

• With this album Meshuggah got more media attention and new fans. Different verb. Perhaps "received media attention" and "attracted new fans".

It is now: With this album Meshuggah received more media attention and attracted new fans.

• The level of experimentation, stylistic variations, and changes during Meshuggah's career has caused music journalists to categorize the band under several musical genres. Consider using active voice here.

What about something like "Due to the level of experimentation, stylistic variations, and changes during Meshuggah's career, music journalists categorize the band under several musical genres." or "Music journalists, noting Meshuggah's level of experimentation, stylistic variations, and changes during their career, have categorized it with several musical subgenres."

The latter sounds better. --Gimme danger (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok.--  LYKANTROP  ✉

That's all I have time for at the moment. Great article all considered. Never heard of the band, but I like the clips.Gimme danger (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and for the compliment!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 00:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that so many of my quibbles are over the "sound" of the language, but that's what I'm mostly concerned about when I edit an article. --Gimme danger (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That is ok...we are here to fix the prose...Your comments are very welcome.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 08:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)