Talk:Chinese Democracy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleChinese Democracy 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
December 23, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
August 20, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
April 17, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
May 8, 2018Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
August 19, 2018Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Merger proposal[edit]

The article history of Chinesse Democracy was created several years ago in attempt to control the constant flow of rumors and leaks while this album was in it's decades long recording process. I'm not sure how wise a move this was to begin with and now the two articles are basically redundant of each other. I propose all information be moved to this article -I'm pretty sure it is all here already-- and that article be redirected here where it should be and where it can easily be maintained.

Source for industrial and nu-metal[edit]

http://www.fasterlouder.com.au/features/35134/Guns-N-Roses-Dizzy-Reed-Im-very-proud-of-Chinese-Democracy I call the big one bitey 22:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Chinese Democracy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Retrohead (talk · contribs) 17:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I'll be glad to review the most expensive rock album in history that reached mythical proportions. Comments to follow soon.--Retrohead (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First reading
  • Ok, the most obvious thing that I see from first look is that the lead is desperately short, and does not summarize the entire article. Please expand it and remove all cites from there because the lead should not contain exclusive information (cites should be featured in the body).
  • Why is there an audio sample in the track listing? As far as I know, they should be featured if a certain song is discussed in the article.
  • Can you find informarion such as second week sales in the US, or sales bu the end of 2008 in the US or worldwide? I think that section is not entirely researched.
  • Chart positions on promos and singles does not belong in the album article. "Chinese Democracy" has an article of its own and its position should be there.
  • Please take a look at Justice for All on how to organise the chart section. Refs are next to the chart name and move the year in the first field.
  • Not to open a genre debate, but I don't think that the opinion of Dizzy Reed should count as a reliable source. Suggest leaving only hard rock in the infobox because only Rolling Stone explicitly labeled the album as hard rock, unlike The Observer, which says GN'R mimicked Trent Raznor.
  • You should definitely rearrange the critical reception because it is bloated with quotes. Please summarize some of the reviews, and avoid citing every single reviewer.
So far, I've expanded the lead & fixed the citations, expanded information on second week and year end sales, removed promos & singles & fixed the refs on the charts section, added an extra source to the Industrial Rock genre and removed Nu-metal, trimmed down the critical reception section, expanded the music section to discuss some of the songs on the album including the title track. Let me know what else can be done. RF23 (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Second reading
  • I've noticed many "&" in the lead, which aren't encyclopedical. Please check if the rest of the article has more.
  • Check the formatting on the references from Blabbermouth (it should be under "publisher" with the first letter only being capitalized). Also, please check refs 10, 47, 100 because the article titles shouldn't be all in capital letters.
  • The charts are usually alphabetically sorted, not by position.
  • What is the particular use of the audio sample? Does it demonstrates something?
  • Can you also remove the references from the infobox and elaborate on recording and music in the article's body?
  • The critical reception should definitely be expanded. There are many reviews on this album and you can try paraphrasing some of them.
  • The song titles should be in quote marks, not italicized. There are many errors of this kind in the music section.
  • How is "Oh My God" related to the album's music when the song is not on the album? I see this is largely disscussed there, but I think it belongs to the background,
  • Can you search for the album's lyrics? Also, I prefer to describe the songs per the track listing.
  • I'd avoid structures like "current [or former] Guns N' Roses members" because they seem to frequently change over the years and will require regular update.
  • Also check the overlinking issue in the article. I see you've got Axl Rose linked several times in the body.
  • There are wiki templates for Discogs and Metacritic from the exrernal links section.
  • What's the purpose of the alternative cover in the infobox? I haven't seen it being disscussed in the article.
I've cleaned up most of the mechanical stuff mentioned. I'm not sure what else to to with the critical reception section, first it was bloated now it needs expanding, I honestly have no clue how to summarize most reviews without using direct quotes. The audio sample demonstrates the shift in style the band took with the album's lead single. Not sure what you mean by "can you search for the albums lyrics". Sometime in the next few days here I'm gonna make one final big push in expanding the article, I plan on mostly expanding the music & recording sections to mention things like the 15 studios, other albums recorded concurrently to CD (CD 2, the remix album), and some other stuff. RF23 (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can help with the reviews. Regarding the lyrics, I wanted to know if there is interpretation or inspiration (song's backround) on the tracks that are not discussed in the music section.--Retrohead (talk) 08:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Third reading
  • I've noticed that you have several dead links in the references. Check the external links on this page's box (top right) for details. The dead links are in red, and the ones which change domain are in green.
  • I don't see summaries on the reviews by The Guardian, Mojo, Pitchfork Media, Q, and some others listed in the reception box for details. When you're doing these, please avoid quoting the authors (unless it's something amusing or witty) because the sections reads like a quotefarm.
  • You haven't addressed the issues with the non-free media. Why is the alternative cover needed for and what does the sample demonstrate (I don't see "Chinese Democracy" disscussed anywhere in the article)?
  • It isn't a GA criteria, but you really need to work on the reference formatting. Duff McKagan, Axl Rose and Sebastian Bach have only the first letter capitalized (refs 44, 118, 135). Second thing, Blabbermouth should be Blabbermouth.net, billboard.com and billboard.biz should be Billboard, etc. And you have ref 162 unformatted.
I tweaked the article a bit more now. Still working on the refs. Unfortunately, several dead links aren't archived anywhere. Not sure what the protocol is for that, whether it's to leave as is, tag with a deadlink tag, or remove. Removed the alternate art as I couldn't find a ref talking about the alternate covers, expanded on the sample in it's description box to validate it's existence. Infobox refs are gone now as well.RF23 (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, can you find some other sources that report the same information? I wouldn't have made an issue if there were two or three dead links, but having over 20 dead links in a potential GA doesn't seem right.--Retrohead (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that tool isn't entirely accurate, it doesn't seem to account for dead URL's present in the article that are archived. But I'm looking into alt. sources right now to get that part fixed up. I'm also considering merging the recording and delays section into one single "recording and delays" section, but I'd like to get some input on that before I do. RF23 (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are the dead links I checked myself: 2, 35, 37, 119, 120, 155.
  • Why do you have quotes in references such as 46 and 64?
  • Ref 112 is not properly formatted. If you don't know the author, drop it. Also, the "website" field should be filled with The Sun.
  • Blabbermouth.net should be placed in the "publisher" field. Also check refs such as 40, 104, 138, for capital letters in the titles.
  • You still haven't corrected the charts as explained above. About the proposed merging of the recording and delays sections, I wouldn't do it because those sections are already large enough.
The only dead links left in the article are now tagged with the Dead Link tags, and I'm working on finding replacements for them. I removed the quote from one of the refs, it's in the other one because it's a print source, since there isn't a website to click on to check info from the citation. I cleaned up the capitalization in the refs. Still working on the chart section and more ref formatting. RF23 (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a ref foermatting problem in the second paragraph of "Delays". Also, can you expand the lead a little bit with information about the recording and the numerous delays?
  • I thought the genre issue was cleared some weeks ago. Nu metal isn't explicitelly supported by any reference. An author being reminded of Nine Inch Nails doesn't really counts as nu metal.
  • Can you incorporate alternative text on the images used in the article for non-screen readers?
I expanded the lead to include more info on the recording and delays. The nu-metal genre was added back in by an editor who initially added it in the first place, I don't really want to start an edit war over it. Industrial rock genre is supported more by multiple songs on the album being described as industrial in the reviews & info about them. I don't see the ref formatting problem you were talking about, maybe I'm just looking right past it? I'll put the ALt text on my list of to-do's (I actually have a word file keeping track of this, which is kind of insane.)
Also, I have a question regarding the songwriting credits. The credits from the booklet vary greatly from the actual registered credits (via the American society of composers authors and publishers site's search.) For example, The song Chinese Democracy's credited to Rose and Freese in the album booklet, but it's registered writers on ASCAP are Rose, Freese, Eric Caudieux, Caram Castanzo, Robin Finck, Dizzy Reed, Tommy Stinson, Paul Tobias as well as a separate listing for Marco Bellatrami. Album booklets are notoriously inaccurate, and ASCAP lists the people actually registered as song writers via their respective publishing & royalty companies. Should I keep the section as is, essentially providing false or incomplete information, add another part explaining the registered composers or replace what's there with the info from Ascap? RF23 (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I usually go with the album's liner notes for credits and personnel, but if you think they are inaccurate, go with the ASCAP. I have the CD with the booklet, and must say, I find it incredibly messy to list different personnel for every track on the album.--Retrohead (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys. Just wanted to clear it up that nu metal was covered by refs, the only thing is that there's only one reviewer who says so. He has two articles mentioning it [1] and [2]. The second one seems to have some stronger support, but the only place they mention it in the first one was when they talked about "Better". I seem to trust this, but what do you guys think? DannyMusicEditor (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FasterLouder.com is an Australian blog, which describes itself as "the premier destination for online music debate and discovery with a uniquely Australian perspective". Secondly (this is just my personal opinion), Chinese Democracy doesn't sound anything like nu metal, or bands like Linkin Park or Limp Bizkit. It doesn't feature rap verses, sampling, or electronic-based instrumentation. Sure, it has some industrial influences (though I think industrial metal could be removed as well), but I think listing nu metal is misleading.--Retrohead (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I noticed some electronics scattered around here and there, but you're right, it's certainly not the most prevalent thing happening here. "Better" and "Shackler's Revenge" seem like they're good examples of what the reviewer was trying to assert (to me). If there's that little of it here, I suppose we could remove it, if all of you agree on that. Oh, wait, it's a blog? I thought they had a professional review there...but then again, that nu metal was mentioned before the interview with Dizzy Reed. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the final word to Ringerfan23. I know it's hard to believe, but that's how the website describes itself. You have a point, nu metal can be heard here and there, but it doesn't seem like the album's definitive genre.--Retrohead (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be included because the album's so diverse that 'hard rock' doesn't really define it well enough. Personally, Scraped is the song that really comes to mind in regards to numetal with the opening vocals and Buckethead-yness of the guitars. Shackler's is another one, too. I've always pegged nu-metal as a kind of 'it's an aggressive hard rock but with experimenting around with different genres' thing, and with the grunge influences & heavy amount of synths mixed with the hard rock & electronic bits, I guess the album could be described as having bits of numetal in it. If it's sourced I don't see the point in removing it, even if I don't completely agree with it. It's pretty subjective, like how Sebastian Bach described Sorry as "doom metal". Also, I'm trying to find a good reference to sum up the songs that don't really fit in the 'hard rock/industrial/electronic/numetal" vibe like the piano ballads such as Street of Dreams and This I Love.RF23 (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Music" section

Something sounds wrong with that section's heading. It seems somehow....inadequate. Something more specific, like style or composition or something like that. I'm in no way a reviewer, but I want to help, and when I returned from vacation, I saw that this album was being reviewed already, and I went straight on looking at what could be fixed. And this section was the first thing that really popped out at me. It makes me feel like it's of a lesser quality, which is not what GAs are about. In addition, we need to expand on the genre classification for that section. For example, just saying it's nu metal with a citation doesn't mean that makes for good quality. End of rant, please consider. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input Danny, I'm sure your note will be considered by the nominator.--Retrohead (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm closing the review. I believe that a fresh evaluation is needed because the article was significantly expanded since this review started. It went from 70k bytes of information to over a 100k as of this day. While it is broad in its coverage and neutral, it fails the stability criteria.--Retrohead (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The stability criteria is "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." The article did not change significantly from day to day because of an edit war or content dispute, it was expanded. RF23 (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd nominate it again and see what another reviewer thinks, Ringer. If you don't wish to re-nominate, I'd be glad to. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a bit more work and a little bit of time before re-nominating.RF23 (talk)
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.

Is this "genre warring"?[edit]

Is this really "genre warring"? Here's a test: "Chinese Deomocracy is a <———> album." Can we say: "Chinese Deomocracy is a nu metal album."? Can we say: "Chinese Deomocracy is a hard rock, electronic rock, industrial rock, nu metal album."? How does that compare to "Chinese Deomocracy is a hard rock album."? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Chinese Democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 29 external links on Chinese Democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Chinese Democracy/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 14:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hello. I'm Calvin999, and I am reviewing this Good Article nomination.  — Calvin999

Okay, this is ridiculous. Calvin, are you ever going to do this? It's now been over three weeks. dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 13:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I completely forgot. I will do it today. You should have pinged me!  — Calvin999 09:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I forget things too. No prob. I meant to. '^^ dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 16:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can the album be three types of rock and one type of metal? I find it concerning when info boxes list more than one genre.
I've been involved in this part. Critics can have different opinions, not all of them will always agree on one; surely you've heard this? Strangely enough, nobody has called it simply "heavy metal" that I can find. Side note: Everyone has come to consensus that GnR are both rock and metal on the main page, at least. dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 00:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So it's essentially rock?  — Calvin999 09:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, but these genres have been cited in the prose of the article. dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 12:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nu metal needs to be removed for sure if you can't source it.  — Calvin999 21:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is sourced. Several times. dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 00:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry misread your previous comment.  — Calvin999 09:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link studio album
  • , released on November → . It was released on November
  • (1993), and → in 1993 (add the month two, as you do later on in sentence)
  • Despite debuting at → Although it debuted at
  • domestically undersold expectations. → Why? Briefly.
  • I feel like the opening of the second para in the lead is coming too late. The lead needs restructuring. It should reflect the layout of the article.
  • perfectionism caused → Comma needed in the middle
  • Personnel and legal reasons, as well as Rose's alleged perfectionism caused the album to be delayed multiple times, including missing an announced March 2007 release date, before being released in November 2008. → Long winded and too many clauses
Lead appears to be  Done by Ringerfan23. dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 13:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't re-sorted the layout of the lead yet, but the rest is done. RF23 (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pass by comments: The charts need to be by alphabetical order per MOS:CHARTS. —IB [ Poke ] 15:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get someone to help me with that part? I've never figured out formatting on charts on tables on wiki and anytime I've tried to edit them I end up just hilariously breaking them. RF23 (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) WP:GACR 1b: it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Compliance of MOS:CHARTS is not required. sst✈ 04:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Calvin999: any update to this? SSTflyer 15:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry been caught up in other things and was away for a while. I will finish this week.  — Calvin999 15:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carrying on[edit]

Some article wide points:

  • Most paragraphs consist of very short single clause sentences. It makes for a fairly disjointed read because there is no flow or fluidity from one sentence to another. This is particularly evident in the Background section.
  • Paragraphs significantly vary in length. Some sections have two or three line paragraphs, followed by a five or six line paragraph.
  • Avoid single sentence sections, such as Censorship in the People's Republic of China and Awards and nominations.
  • It's a very large article which a lot of detail. Couldn't some parts be trimmed down and told more concisely? Just streamlined more.

More specifically:

  • Some problematic links
  • Make sure there is appropriate linking, such as Duff McKagan and Gilby Clarke (and more) in the Background section, as this is the first time they are mentioned.
  • The last two paragraphs of Style and composition are huge.
  • The fourth para of the same section has an overload of citations after the genres. There shouldn't be that many citations lumped together like that.
  • I don't think there's a need for five sub-sections in Controversy and lawsuits. Surely this can be amalgamated more efficiently?
  • All lyrics written by Axl Rose, "Madagascar" → Full stop not comma, and link sample
  • I'm sure the Personnel could be better organised? You don't need to list each and every engineering assistance separately. Just write Engineering assistance: and list the names separated by commas
  • Charts table should be alphabetical. US, not U.S.
  • No certifications table? IMPORTANT: I tried to make one, but it was erased because some problem with the references (sorry, im no expert). The important thing here is that the certifications and sales information in this page is absolute BS. For example, the commercial performance section cited blabbermouth as source about that Chinese Democracy have been certified with LOTS of sales in different countries. But most of them are not true. It says that Chinese Democracy have a x3 Platinium certification in Canada, but thats nuts, because CD is not even Gold there. A 1 minute search in Google and at the canadian album certificartion page for GNR (http://musiccanada.com/gold-platinum/?fwp_gp_search=guns%20n%20roses) is the evidence. I uploaded a certification table with the very few certifications that i found. It would be great if someone with the knowledge could erase the blabbermouth lies in the commercial section and re-do my certification table with the actual certifications and properly cited sources. Thanks for your time and i hope that if this should not be here, someone could move it and not just erase it and let the lies intact.
  • Picture of Ulrich Schnauss doesn't add anything.

References:

  • What is the reliability of "Blabbermouth" for example? I've never heard of it and it doesn't sound terribly reliable.
Your work that I've seen appears only to pertain to pop music, mostly. That would explain why you don't know it. Blabbermouth is a hard rock/heavy metal webzine. It has been accepted in most cases, but it should be avoided if it's the only one reporting a subject. It's also not allowed for BLP statements. But it's listed on the acceptable source list, so it seems okay. They just don't list authors, which raises skepticism in a lot of people. dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 21:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't WP:SHOUT
  • The first time a magazine/paper etc (i.e. work or publisher is mentioned) it needs to be linked. None here are.
  • 10 for example is missing an access date
  • MTV is formated in multiple different ways. Be consistent.
  • 35 is missing a work/publisher
  • Some have work, some publisher, some work and publisher, and some have neither. Be consistent.

I think this needs to go through a peer review really. It's not the job of a GAN reviewer to suggest whole sentences and paragraphs for re-writing and in turn providing re-writes, and that is what I feel like needs doing. It all feels a bit jumbled and messy. That's the problem with this much detail. If it's not done right it's hard to read and people lose interest. I'm asking for a second opinion.  — Calvin999 18:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for second opinion. This is a difficult one. The bibliography and reference sections are substantial and show a good amount of research put into the citations. This is normally ample enough as a basis for Ga nomination. However Calvin999 is raising multiple points concerning the Prose quality of the article from top to bottom, with which this second opinion would need to agree. Even if one looks at the lede by itself, which should be a straightforward summary of the article, then one finds sentences such as: "In 1994, Guns N' Roses' progress on a follow-up to "The Spaghetti Incident?" was halted due to creative differences between members band." This seems wordy for the lede and appears to be the equivalent of "Guns N' Roses progress on "Chinese Democracy" was halted due to creative differences between band members." Calvin999 has already listed many such prose issues. A very modest suggestion would be to call for a simple re-draft of the full article in straightforward prose to enhance readability of the narrative. There is a very substantial citations section for the article which should make this easier to accomplish for the nominating editor. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your second opinion Fountains-of-Paris. I'm going to stick with what I originally suggested: that this would be better of going through a peer review or having someone from the GOCE go through it. As a result, I'm failing this article. If you do one of the aforementioned suggestions, then this should be able to pass third time around.  — Calvin999 17:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese Democracy. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chinese Democracy. 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) 12:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese Democracy. 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) 12:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chinese Democracy. 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) 22:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chinese Democracy. 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) 06:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese Democracy. 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) 00:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too many reviews in the review box[edit]

I believe the limit is 10; I count 11. One should be chosen to be removed and just mentioned in prose instead. dannymusiceditor oops 03:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. RF23 (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed images[edit]

I've removed the following images from the article; they are oversized and don't illustrate anything about the album or it's making and thus don't help the reader's understanding of the article.

{{multiple image |total_width = 900 | align = center | footer = bassist [[Tommy Stinson]], keyboardist [[Chris Pitman]], keyboardist [[Dizzy Reed]], lead guitarist [[Robin Finck]], drummer [[Josh Freese]] and vocalist [[Axl Rose]] (along with rhythm guitarist [[Paul Tobias]], not pictured) were the first lineup of the band to start production on the album. | width1 = 353 | height1 = 666 | image1 = Download Feastival 2006 -Stinson (cropped).jpg | width2 = 224 | height2 = 349 | image2 = Guns N' Roses (48) (cropped).JPG | width3 = 572 | height3 = 800 | image3 = Dizzy_reed.jpg | width4 = 430 | height4 = 748 | image4 = Download Feastival 2006 -1 (cropped).jpg | width5 = 1042 | height5 = 1650 | image5 = The Vandals 2011-12-18 06 (cropped).JPG | width6 = 220 | height6 = 300 | image6 = AxlRose_cropped.jpg }}

The second set contains images that might be useful as singles or in a gallery; I probably should re-read WP:MOSIMAGES as it's been a while, but I'm sure that mentions image sizes. Baffle gab1978 02:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

{{multiple image |total_width = 900 | align = center | footer = Lead guitarist [[Buckethead]], rhythm guitarist [[Richard Fortus]], drummer [[Bryan "Brain" Mantia]], drummer [[Frank Ferrer]] and lead guitarist [[Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal]] all joined the band at various points during production and worked on the album | width1 = 353 | height1 = 666 | image1 = Bucketheadgnr.jpg | width2 = 224 | height2 = 349 | image2 =Richard Fortus 2013.jpg | width3 = 572 | height3 = 800 | image3 = Primus copenhagen 1998 (cropped).jpg | width4 = 430 | height4 = 748 | image4 = Guns n´Roses Palacio de los Deportes 30-11-2016 (31366316670) (cropped).jpg | width5 = 1042 | height5 = 1650 | image5 = Ron Thal 2013.jpg }}

Cheers, Baffle gab1978 02:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions[edit]

As you might have noticed, I've been doing some copyediting on this article. I'm not a GnR fan and knew nothing of the history of the album, and it's been interesting learning about it. Two main thoughts:

  • It strikes me that there seems to be a lot of information out there on the actual recording history (of which this album has more than most) that isn't in the article yet. For example, I just added some information I found about the drum recording. This kind of thing is really interesting and should be included where we can find it.
  • I don't think the current structure of having Recording and Delays as separate sections works. It means you have to explain certain things twice (like Roy Thomas Baker being hired) and tell the story from beginning to end twice in different ways. Instead I think we should have a single Recording section, incorporating delays, which can be divided into subsections where appropriate.

I may make these changes myself if I continue to read about the history of the album, but there's no guarantee of that happening... Popcornduff (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the recording. I just added a bit about Frank Ferrer's recording. There's some information from Background section that can be incorporated. I'm gonna try and scour from interviews from other members, because like half the article is Tommy Stinson interviews.RF23 (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this podcast/audio interview probably has some info from Fortus. RF23 (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
interview with producer Sean Beaven also has a lot of info.RF23 (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another one; an interview with Josh Freese. I don't have the time at the moment to transcribe or listen to any of these audio interviews so I'm listing them here, they probably have good details in them.RF23 (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these links. I think the article has the potential to be great, but right now it's really hard to follow the chronology... I really think we need to straighten out the whole story from beginning to end. Popcornduff (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the recording and delays section can be all combined and subsections can be for era's like a band article would be (like Early recordings (97-00) Delays and Member changes (00-06), final recordings and release (06-08) ). It might be untraditional but I think it'd benefit the complicated timeline. RF23 (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I'm proposing. I think it'd be a huge improvement. I don't think it'd "untraditional" either - is there a tradition of separating Delays into a different section for music articles? Don't think so... Popcornduff (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sections where previously split a while back (by me, I think, it's been a while) because of how large the sections are. Most articles don't have sections on Delays, but then again most albums don't have the kind of history Chinese has. Only other album I can think of off the top of my head is Smile and it has an entire page about the dissolution of the album. If you have any ideas for how to re-combine them, let me know because I messed around with it last night in draft mode and couldn't figure out a good way, the section ended up too choppy and back and forth since the sections have two separate themes (recording and delays). RF23 (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can have a go at it.
One of the reasons it's difficult to merge the sections currently is the same reason why the page is currently difficult to read. It's really difficult to get a sense of the timeline. Examples:
  • The "Delays" section begins: "Producer Youth stated that in 1997 Rose was not ready to record the album" - OK, in 1997 what stage was the album at? Had they begun recording yet? You have to cross-reference another section to find out.
  • The "Recording" section begins: "Longtime Guns N' Roses producer Mike Clink was reported to have worked on Chinese Democracy during its conception". When was "its conception"? Is that before or after 1997, when Youth said Rose was not ready? It's really difficult to get a clear sense of time in the current state.
  • "Guitarist Richard Fortus said all but his contribution, the chorus to "Better", had been written by the time he joined". When did he join? This information is in a different section...
Do you see what I mean? Popcornduff (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've restructured it. I think it's an improvement, more or less, but still needs lots of work to make it cohesive and flow well, and there are still lots of tags where things need citations or clarification. Still lots more work to do. Popcornduff (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, in the "Style and composition" section, there are quite a few quotes where third parties describe the album as it sounded while it was in development. These should be moved to the recording section. The "Style and composition" section should only describe the final album.

I also notice the article mentions a few leaks, but doesn't go into detail. More detail is needed about these. Popcornduff (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought: we should really have a paragraph, no more than two or three sentences, establishing the background leading up to the album - explaining that they were a hugely successful band with the previous lineup. This sets the stage for the next stuff. See Songs from the Black Hole for an example. Popcornduff (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An issue I'm having right now is finding info that's tagged for clarification on the Final Recording section. I can't find when Costanzo joined the album or when the harpist and conductor worked on it. I would assume mid-00's, but can't find the info.RF23 (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch for taking the time to look. Let's leave it for now; the information may turn up eventually, and there's still work to do elsewhere. In the end, there may be a way to incorporate the information naturally without the dates.Popcornduff (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Chinese Democracy/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 10:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Crikey, has it been ten years already since this was released? It was a standing joke at one point that it would never happen - where does the time go? I do confess I am not a particularly big fan of Guns 'n' Roses, and my main interest in them recently has been watching video clips of Axl Rose stopping the show and heckling some idiot as I think they're funny.

Anyway, I'm happy to review this. I see a lot of work has gone into it recently, and I suspect there's a campaign to get this to FA at some point, which is no bad thing. I'll have a proper re-read of the article now and check the sources, and come back with detailed comments hopefully later today. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

* "In the mid-1990s, amid creative and personal differences...." - for context, it would help explain who these people are (ie: founding members or people playing on the last studio release)

Reworded, though I think it could be done better. I'm not the best at re-wording stuff (the opening has gone like 20 different variations from copy editors and other editors)

* "it was delayed and completely re-recorded in 2000" - but it wasn't released until eight years later, so recording could have only restarted in 2000

I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Having read through the article, I understand what "re-recorded" means in this instance

Background[edit]

What makes tsort.info a reliable source?:

Replaced with a better source.

What makes www.heretodaygonetohell.com a reliable source?

Its been around for 22 years and has accurate re-publications of interviews, timelines of things, ect. A lot of the info is not readily available (ie, print sources, websites that no longer exist). I'm not the most up-to date on what's considered a reliable source, but most of the info taken from the website is reprinting of previous published material, which I think is allowed (please correct me if I'm wrong)
I had a look in WP:RSN and it's not mentioned anywhere. I don't think this source will fly at FAC, but for a GA, provided the reference clearly states it is an interview, and specifies exactly where the original source is, we would be able to trust it. I do know several fansites produce facsimiles of old magazine and journal pieces, and provided the original reference is stated, the source is verifiable as being factually accurate and not just made up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"however, bassist Duff McKagan said the band "was so stoned at that point that nothing got finished"" - the Time Off citation does not seem to work, so I cannot verify this quotation.

I'll look into finding an alternate source. The archive worked when I added it way back when, but it's not working now, so idk what's going on with it.

"Guitarist Slash criticized singer Axl Rose for running the band "like a dictatorship"" - the source says he said it seemed like a dictatorship, which is not quite so strong.

fixed wording.

"Multiple musicians were auditioned, including guitarist Zakk Wylde, and drummers Dave Abbruzzese and Michael Bland." - do we need four citations to cite one sentence?:

fixed.

What makes audiohead.net a reliable source?

Not 100% sure but it's a site that has many interviews with notable artists, and the source used as an interview with Vrenna.

What makes providermodule.com a reliable source?

I'm not seeing that URL in any of the sources.
It's citing the sentence "Former Nine Inch Nails drummer Chris Vrenna worked with the band for a few months shortly afterward." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
that's weird, control+F failed me earlier. anyways, that's a reprint of an interview Vrenna did that's lost to time. -RF23

"At the recommendation of Freese, former Replacements bassist Tommy Stinson joined in early 1998,[30] followed by second keyboardist and multi-instrumentalist Chris Pitman" - according to the Blabbermouth source, Pitman was already in the band when Stinson joined.

reworded

"By the end of 1998...." - from here to the end of the paragraph is unsourced.

sourced.

Recording[edit]

"Early in the recording process, the band was reported" - by whom?

fixed.

"Early in the recording process, the band was reported to have 60 songs in development." - the source given doesn't seem to verify this; I can see a reference to "60 guitars" but not 60 songs

fixed

"In February 1997, electronic producer Moby entered talks to produce" - I'm confused by this. Who was Moby talking to, did he actually produce anything, or was this just an idea thrown around? This needs more context.

Reworded

"I think the record had turned into a real labor. He was stuck and didn’t know how to proceed, so he was avoiding it." - the Daily Mail is banned on Wikipedia where prose relating to living people are concerned. This source is used for several paragraphs in this section and needs to be replaced. Mick Wall is also known for being a controversial journalist whose opinion is not particularly reliable enough for a GA (and would be tossed out at a Featured Article review).

Is there some discussion anywhere about Wall in regards to reliability? All I know is he's been doing this since the 70's and has written a biography of Guns N' Roses and Axl Rose before. I know daily mail is generally considered unreliable but considering Wall's history with the group and Rose and the music industry, I think this is a case where it can be used. Can you point me to problems with the article if there are any that prevent it from being used? Either way, I replaced several sources of it with other ones. The first Youth quote, the Geffen sales estimate and the tidbit about listening parties are all that remain from the article now.
Wasn't Wall responsible for "Get in the Ring"? Anyway, if the source has been replaced then that's sorted. I've tagged a few instances where the Daily Mail is still being used. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
removed and/or replaced everything that remained unsourced.

What makes Allstarmag.com a reliable source?

Not really sure, so removed & replaced with something else

"I came in, to start, making sounds for Robin Finck...." - this quotation is overly long and needs to be trimmed or paraphrased

Trimmed.

"By this time Guns N' Roses had recorded over 30 songs" ... "The sessions produced 38 recorded songs" - this needs condensing, it's either "over 30" or "38" but having both together clashes.

removed the Wall source.

"In late November 1999, Rose played several tracks..." - the rest of this paragraph is unsourced :

Sourced

"Rose said in 1999 that the band had recorded enough material for a double album" - the source says "I wouldn't say [emphasis mine] it's like, you know, that we recorded a double album, or that we have all of our scraps to be the second one."

Reworded to two albums, Rose mentions here "The second leans probably a little more to aggressive electronica with full guitars, where the first one is definitely more guitar-based." and in other spots the intent to have two (or possibly more) albums from the "Chinese" sessions.

What makes metalunderground.com a reliable source?

Found the original article & replaced the metalunderground url.

What makes htgth.com a reliable source?

Explained above

What makes gnrevolution.com a reliable source?

The source used is a reprint of an audio interview Beaven did. Original URL is dead.

What makes alternativenation.net a reliable source?

the article includes a reprint of an interview Fortus did with Social Magazine. It's listed as unreliable on WP:ALBUM/SOURCE but with the note "Still usable as a WP:PRIMARY source for interviews, or when covered by other reliable sources (though it is preferred if you use the other reference that covers said content)." There's another use if it later on for the info about the song Silkworms, they seem to be the only website that actually reported on that, info can be deleted if necessary.
Might be easiest to find another source for "Rose's vocal parts were recorded in less than a week" and then remove the other instance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done.

"Commentators suggested the release" - if this is the opinion of Rolling Stone, just say that:

Fixed.

The link criteria says "readers will expect this type of media in the article". I really don't think that can be justified in this instance

removed.

"Shortly afterwards, Josh Freese left to join...." - why do you need five citations to cite one sentence?

trimmed the sources down.

"very digital sounding, there wasn’t a lot of air moving, they were electronic sounding" - the source given does not appear to have this quotation.

The full quote is from the video, the article just has a few brief points. Not sure if it's still there, but a full transcript can be found here

"Mantia had the parts transcribed, then played them from a teleprompter before trying the songs again in his style" - the source given does not mention a teleprompter

Same as above

"In the early 2000s, composers Marco Beltrami and Paul Buckmaster...." - the source given doesn't seem to have this date

removed the date, can't find concrete timeline on that.

"I met with Axl and he played me these songs..." - the quotation here is over-long, can it be trimmed?

Done.

"These fucking people are getting paid shitloads of money..." - as above

Done

What makes www.undercover.com.au a reliable source?

Reprint of stuff form the official Guns N' Roses website, which has been lost to time.

"What really happened was the record company stood back and left...." - this quotation is far too long and is a borderline copyvio, can it be paraphrased?:

reworked, trimmed. I'm not the best at trimming quotes so a second check would be nice if i did it right. Is there any documentation here on wiki or elsewhere on tips for paraphrasing quotes like that?

The quotation from the statement about Buckethead needs to be trimmed

trimmed

"By 2005, Geffen had removed Chinese Democracy from its release schedule and withdrawn funding, stating:" - the statement is from 2004, not 2005

fixed

"Around that time, manager Merck Mercuriadis said the album was close to complete" - the source doesn't seem to say this

From the article "“The ‘Chinese Democracy’ album is very close to being completed,” Merck Mercuriadis, the chief executive officer of Sanctuary Group, which manages Mr. Rose, wrote in a recent statement

What makes bravewords.com a reliable source?

Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles is a famous metal magazine/site edited by Martin Popoff.

What makes thespaghettiincident.com a reliable source? :

replaced it with the original link, an interview with Bumblefoot.

What makes MetalFan.ro a reliable source?

Not sure but it's an interview with Bumblefoot.

What makes rockmymonkey.com a reliable source?

Same as above, but with Sebastian Bach

"and conductor Suzy Katayama also recorded parts" - there is a [when] tag at the end of this sentence

Removed. There doesn't seem to be information available as to when, only that she did it.

"....and Tim Palmer" - why do you need five citations to verify this?

fixed

discogs.com is not directly a reliable source - cite the original works it refers to using (Media notes). {{cite AV media notes}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

fixed

Release and promotion[edit]

"followed by "Street of Dreams" in March 2009. - this sentence is unsourced

fixed

Style and composition[edit]

This is personal preference, but for sections of album articles describing the songs (eg: Led Zeppelin IV, The Beatles (album)), I've preferred putting the prose together without sub-headings for each song, except to split into sides of an LP (which doesn't really apply here).

Re wrote back into prose.

What makes hem.passangen.se a reliable source?

fixed with a different source

What makes metalinjection.net a reliable source?

It's included on the List of reliable sources

"one shooter's preference for the Guns song Brownstone to no avail" - the second citation here appears to be to a forum post (same source re-used later on in this section)

The forum source is a direct link to the chats Axl Rose had with various forums. There are transcripts that can be posted instead if the primary link is frowned upon.
Might be better to do that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

::::Fixed.

"The song features the lyrics “What this means to me...." - why is this important to mention here?

removed.

What makes WickedInfo.com a reliable source?

It's an interview with Keyboardist Chris Pitman

There was a citation to a YouTube video here which looks like a copyright violation, I've removed it

Is it possible to source a quote from a concert. If you see the video it's clearly Axl Rose explaining the meaning behind the song.
It is, but the issue here is that was not obvious that it was an official or authorised YouTube channel; therefore it must be considered a copyright violation source and cannot be used for a GA. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What makes www.a-4-d.com a reliable source?

The quote itself is a direct quote from Rose from the alternate CD booklets. I have a copy of that and can verify its correct, and scans can be found online. Replacing it with the (Media notes). {{cite AV media notes}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) template.

The song "Madagascar" is cited to a scan of the CD inlay. This is a copyright violation, use a proper source.

fixed

"The lyrics feature Rose singing "So if she’s somewhere near me / I hope to God she hears me"" - why is this important to mention here? Same problem with the next song

removed

In general, I think the songs suffer from too much opinion and not enough of explaining the background, style or any other significant facts about them. See the two album GAs I referred to at the top of this section.

It's really hard to find reliable sources on the info of the individual songs. Several prominent reviews don't or barely mention songs on the album. So for example, there might be lots written that can be cited about the style and composition of "Chinese Democracy" or "Better", but there's not that much about a super dense song like "There Was a Time" or "I.R.S." (which for example has the longest high note in the entire GNR catalogue but that's not mentioned by any media or reviewers).
Okay, it's possible nobody's written the definitive G'n'R biography yet, and until that happens, obviously you can't write about what isn't in source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Artwork[edit]

What makes findery.com a reliable source?

It was a website launched by Flickr co-founder Caterina Fake. Their about page indicated they have an actual team, so it's not a self-published site. I'm not 100% sure about it though.

What makes axelrosefaclube.com a reliable source?

it has an interview with the art director Ryan Corey.

What makes gnrontour.com a reliable source?

Not sure, they've been around since at least 2001 (the copyright date lists 1993). They're a site that compiles tour dates and information. I couldn't find the information anywhere else on the web, and I searched for it for a while. If needed it can be removed.
I'd do with removing it - I don't think it's particularly vital Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph starting "Rose stated in December 2008 that two alternate booklets were pending release, saying" has a quotation that is too long and needs to be trimmed. Also the last sentence in this paragraph is unsourced.

fixed.

* File:Chinese Democracy Promo Box2.jpg seems to have several bits of copyrighted works in it.

removed.
I also nominated this for deletion on Commons, by the way. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intermezzo[edit]

I'm taking a break to go and look at some other things; I'll pick up the rest of the review tomorrow. I have to say I'm not feeling inclined to pass it at this stage as there are serious problems with the referencing. You've done a good job with copyediting the prose; I can't find too much to complain about from that angle, but that's only one facet of the GA criteria - you need to have facts presented with the appropriate balance in an article, and cited to reputable sources. In particular, fan websites are notorious for getting things wrong, and citations like the Daily Mail should be avoided like the plague. However, I think it's worth carrying on with the review just to list issues, so you've got a complete set of notes to work off for future. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial performance[edit]

* What makes chartmasters.com a reliable source?

Removed as it's actually listed as an unreliable source at WP:ALBUM/SOURCE.
I've made a lot of fixes to the above things. The issues with citations are a lot of them come from reprinting of unavailable material (either print magazines or websites that are not archived) or interviews with people involved in making the album with more obscure sites. RF23 (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also paging several users who have reviewed or commented in past GANs, or worked on the article in the past to see what they think or what can be improved. : User:Calvin999, User:DannyMusicEditor, User:Fountains-of-Paris, User:Retrohead, User:Baffle gab1978, User:Popcornduff, User:Ss112, User:Dan56, and User:Jennica. RF23 (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick update, I've looked through the whole article. I need to merge your comments with the original (and reply to several of them), which I'll do tomorrow when I'm feeling more awake :-/ .... then we'll have an idea of what work is left. I'm more confident now that the article can be improved to meet GA status than I was yesterday, so I think we're heading in the right direction. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ringerfan23: I think we're making progress. I've made some further comments on sources and once those are resolved, I think we'll be there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Made some more fixes to the sources, this round was surprisingly easier.RF23 (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I think we're all done here, so I'll pass the review now. Well done! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Unsubstantiated and Derogatory Comments About Buckethead[edit]

Subject: The Guns N' Roses album, Chinese Democracy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Democracy

Today I deleted the following sentences from the end of the second paragraph of the "Tom Zutaut joins" section. "However, the coop caused friction when Buckethead began using it to watch hardcore pornography, disturbing Rose. After one of Rose's dogs defecated in the coop, Buckethead insisted it not be cleaned up as he liked the smell. After three days, the smell had become overwhelming and the studio staff removed it, upsetting Buckethead.[31]"

Bryan "Brain" Mantia was the drummer for Guns N' Roses on the Chinese Democracy tour and is known as Buckethead's best friend and frequent collaborator. Please watch and listen to the first two minutes of this video. "Are THOSE Buckethead GNR Stories True? Brain sets the record straight!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtcljfmQGEw YouTube channel NatterNet is interviewing Brain, who disputes the derogatory statements from reference [31] about Buckethead which have been in this Wikipedia article for years. The statements in question are disturbing and paint an inaccurate picture of Buckethead.


Another reference in support of removing these exact quotes is given in the following video, also by YouTube channel NatterNet. "Is THAT Buckethead Story Just GNR Lies?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1HszllMqNI Please watch and listen to this video from about 2:28 through about 5:50.

--Green Wiki Thing (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Green Wiki Thing[reply]

YouTube isn't a great source, per WP:YOUTUBE. We don't really want to get into the weeds with the he-said-she-said stuff. I have restored the contentious information, which is well sourced, and added some in-text attribution ("According to Zutaut...") so we're not just stating it in Wikipedia's voice. Popcornfud (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's please reconsider leaving in Zutaut's disputed accusations against Buckethead. If we choose to leave them in, then the refutation could also be added for balance. In particular, Zutaut's claim that Buckethead used his "coop" area of the recording studio to watch hardcore pornography is passionately denied by Brain (that is, Bryan Kei "Brain" Mantia). Brain's interview is well sourced because it is available as an audio track and has also been transcribed here: [3]. The most pertinent excerpt from that interview would be these two lines:

Interviewer: "Tom Zutaut said about this porn story, that Buckethead was in the studio watching hardcore pornography to get inspired and Buckethead fans were like 'that's bullshit'."
Brain: "That's bullshit!!! That's bullshit!!! That's just mean and rude."

The introduction to the interview is also useful here:

Title: Is THAT Buckethead GNR Story True? - Bryan Brain Mantia sets the record straight!
Introduction: Since the mid-2000's former Guns N Roses A&R representative Tom Zutaut has said a number of derogatory things about guitarist Buckethead. Calling him “emotionless”, blaming him for tour cancellations and the delay of the Chinese Democracy album. No other member of Guns N' Roses has spoken of Tom Zutauts claims until now. Today, Bryan 'Brain' Mantia, who was the drummer for Guns N Roses at the time, sets the record straight.

--Green Wiki Thing (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, while I'm sure that's a real interview, it's not a good source by Wikipedia standards. For now I've added this text: Brain denied that Buckethead had acted disruptively.[better source needed] Another editor might still remove it. If you can find a better source from a more reputable website (like Rolling Stone or something) then that would be great. @Ringerfan23:, who has done lots of work on this article, might have an opinion. Popcornfud (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was a minor issue that came up during the GA Process (or sometime in the past, it's been a while); because a lot of the info from people like Beaven or Brain (which is a large chunk of information not covered by other sources) came from direct interviews they did recently, mostly with obscure fansites or youtube channels. While I agree with the general consensus that youtube is not a great source; it's a direct interview with the one of the people that made the album. I do think it should stay as it is now, with the claim's and Brain's dismissals of them.RF23 (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Popcornfud and Ringerfan23 for your efforts to finally bring out the opposing side of Zutaut's accusations that, for years, have troubled those concerned about Buckethead. I understand that a major publication would make a superior reference, but such information is extremely rare, especially because Buckethead is not one to publicly defend himself. There exists a population that follows Buckethead and his collaborators such as Brain, but they are neither mainstream nor powerful. Thank you again. --Green Wiki Thing (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is too long[edit]

The lead of this article has really ballooned since I last looked at it. We don't need this extensive list of all the people who joined and left the band in the lead — it should be trimmed back to the more concise version. See MOS:LEADLENGTH for guidance on this. Popcornfud (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed it down to three paragraphs. I think everyone from GNR who was on the album should be mentioned in the lead [sorry Sebastian Bach you get left out of this one], and as it is now I think it does a good job summarizing the article without leaving out any of the important facts. I'm open to suggestions for further trimming if you have any. RF23 (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks — it's much more readable now. Popcornfud (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chinese_Democracy&oldid=1211162338"