Talk:Mythmaker

Leak date

"It was leaked onto the internet on December 20th 2006." - I removed this. It's not necessary to inform people the album leaked and that it can be downloaded for free. This is detrimental to the band as well as cheapening Wikipedia to a storage place for software piracy tips. - User Goneja 12/23

It's a matter of opinion whether or not it hurts the band, plus numerous other Wikipedia articles state that albums were leaked at one time or another. We're not providing links on where to download them, we're simply saying what happened. Let's not prove Stephen Colbert correct by saying that because of Wikipedia's open structure anything you think can be fact or not. Needles to say, unless you can come up with a better reason, I'm putting the information back. --NeoVampTrunks 10:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"Let's not prove Stephen Colbert correct by saying that because of Wikipedia's open structure anything you think can be fact or not."

well, take your own advice. of course the album got leaked. nearly every album released gets leaked. it's not pertinent information. its not necessary information. you think 50 years from now educated people reasearching skinny puppy will be curious to know the exact date the album was leaked to the public when, on average, any given CD will be released a month or so prior to it's official release in the form of a promo? should we also mention that the colors of the album cover are cool because blue and yellow are good? no, no one cares. posting that it leaked also basically says to the viewer "Hey, you can download it for free right now! Go look for it!" and serves no other purpose.--24.45.146.228

See: Kid A, 10,000 Days, [With_Teeth], etc. I'll wait a little bit longer for legitimate, signed comments from registered users and if nothing comes up I'll replace the edits. --NeoVampTrunks 01:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

- You keep putting it up, I'll keep taking it down. The album isn't even out yet, it only serves to promote piracy of it. Spare the anal attitude over it and agree with me on that, have some decency for a band you like. It does not make the article or the album look good when all we have to say about it at the moment is "It's soon to be released. And it's leaked already." --Goneja 06:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Then let's at least shelve the information for now and bring it back after the article has be fleshed out. This information is not entirely irrelevant as it could have a long term effect (both positive and negative) over the sales figures. --NeoVampTrunks 23:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

On one hand, album leaks do not affect album sales at all. On the other hand, every album leaks and the fact that the album leaked is not something worthy of mention in an encyclopedic entry.68.255.172.129 20:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Release Date

You reverted my removal of the soon to be released banner type thing... The album is out in germany (release dates changed because of leaks), and i'm guessing the UK (they were selling one in my local record store), so i'm guessing it stays removed? Unless the USA gets precedence =\ --Oystercake

USA does sort of get precedence. Here's the deal: We're on the English Wikipedia which covers the USA and the UK generally and after consulting amazon.co.uk and amazon.de I've determined that, yes, it is out in Germany, but no, it is not out in the UK. Therefore I'm moving it back to the way it was simply because none of the countries generally determined to be covered on this wiki have released the album. Feel free to make the change on the German Wikipedia though:) --NeoVampTrunks 00:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Seeing as the album has been distributed, it's contents are hardly going to change as the warning states... which makes the warning irrelevent? So i'm taking it down, since everything on here is equal to the final release. Oystercake 15:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations and trivia information

I just noticed someone added another piece of trivia about where the song had been featured. We're going to need some citations on those items or they will need to be removed. I'm not as familiar with Wikipedia policy on trivia in music. Either way, I added a citation to the Saw V reference for the time being. Xe7al (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cavie78 (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): (citations to reliable sources): (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article is in reasonable shape and is on its way to GA but I'm afraid there are too many things to do at this stage so I'm going to have to fail. I've provided a list of several improvements needed below and would encourage the original nominator to resubmit the article for GA review once these have been dealt with.

1. My main concern is that the article is short and stubby. Consider expanding some of the paragraphs and merging others where appropriate. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums for what should, and what should not, be included.
2. Too much reliance on quotes in the 'Background' section. A lot of these need rewriting in your own words and it would be good to cite more than just the one interview.
3. I'm fine with ReGen Magazine been used as a cite for the interview but what makes it a reliable source for news and reviews?
4. The coverart should be resized to 300 x 300 pixels which is the maximum size allowed to meet fair use.
5. Did the album chart internationally or just in the US? The chart section should also contain details about the album's release
6. The reviews section only contains three sources - surely the album received more reviews?
7. Why does the tracklisting section state "Tracks 1–10 from Allmusic" - what about the other tracks?
8. The infobox should not contain flags and should only have the original date of release in Skinny Puppy's own country

GA review response

1. Still working on expanding and merging.
2. Re-wrote background section. Still looking for another interview.
3. I believe ReGen uses editorial oversight sufficient to be considered WP:RS.
4. Re-sized cover art to smaller than 300x300.
5. I don't think the album charted internationally, still researching that.
6. Added additional reviews.
7. Removed unsourced tracks.
8. Fixed infobox.

Torchiest (talk | contribs) 04:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Did some expansion; not sure about what, if any, sections could be merged.

2. Added second interview to background section.

5. Can't find any international chart information.

6. Added another review.

Torchiest (talk | contribs) 14:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mythmaker/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Well-written

• Infobox section
  • When specifically did was the album recorded in 2005 and 2006?
• Background section
  • What personal events and personal difficulties did Ogre have in the first paragraph? Specify if possible.
  • In the next to last sentence of the second paragraph, who is "He"? Key or Walk?
• Charts section
  • For all rankings in the respective Billboard charts, list when they reach their respective peaks in each of those charts?
• Critical reception section
  • For Yücel's review in the third paragraph, change "He" To Yücel at the start of the third and fifth sentences.
• Artwork section.
  • For this album, did Gilmore do anything on this album in regards to the sleeve design and layout? The comments in parentheses does not make this clear.
• Tour section
  • Create article for Justin Bennett.

Factually accurate and verifiable.

• Reference #6: Add Regen Mag and italicize on sourcing.
• Reference #7: Add Metal Storm Plus and italicize on sourcing.
• Reference #8: Italicize Sputnik Music.
• Reference #9: Add RockNWorld and italicize.
• All references listed are verifiable.

Broad

• Covers album's history and impact.
• More detail required in numerous sections, mainly on History, Featured Songs, and Tour.

Neutral

• No issues.

Stable

• Last edit done on 25 April 2010. No issues.

Image

• One image and is valid. No issues.

Overall

• Hold. Needs work, but it can be done.

Reviewer: Chris (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Revisions

I believe I've dealt with all the issues you detailed above. I made all the little changes, added details, and fixed references as requested. In order to eliminate the stubby sections, I re-organized and combined some, while adding a few details here and there. If that's still not enough, let me know, and I'll try to flesh things out more. Or if you have a suggestion for how to organize the sections that would be great too. The only issue I couldn't fix at all, so far, is the dates that the album was recorded. That was already in the infobox before I began editing this article, and I haven't been able to find a source online for it yet. I can continue looking, however. Thanks for the review! Torchiest (talk | contribs) 20:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Gets the GA. Chris (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)