Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Wave of British Heavy Metal/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2016 [1].

---

New wave of British heavy metal

Nominator(s): Lewismaster (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The New Wave of British Heavy Metal was an important musical movement of the 1980s, which was pivotal for the development of extreme rock music styles in the following decades. I thought that it deserved an in-depth article and I spent a lot of time reading and researching sources related to the time period, to heavy metal subculture and to the music. The article was recently promoted to GA status and has since received a Guild of Copy Editors' revision. I believe it is now ready for Featured Article status and look forward to other editors' comments and reviews. Lewismaster (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Support – This is one of the best written popular culture articles I have seen at FAC. Intelligent and perceptive, it covers an aspect of our musical heritage that has been somewhat neglected by the mainstream media. The images appear to be suitable – there is one "fair use" album cover but I haven't checked the rationelle. There are problems with the Harvard linking of some reference to the sources. These are numbers 95, 291, 334 and 336. I look forward to reading further reviews. Thank you for engaging in our FA process. It is clear that many hours of effort have been put in here. Graham Beards (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the kind words. I checked and fixed the references you mentioned. Lewismaster (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment: I'm struggling with the use of the album cover. I see that the cover's appearance may actually be a significant part of the story (given the response in the US) but, first, the value of the cover should be made clear in the rationale, and, second, the caption should make clear the significance of the cover, rather than just the album. At the moment, the use comes across as somewhat decorative. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I see the problem and changed the rationale and caption to convey the meaning of the cover. During the NWOBHM cover art was directly connected to the contents of the songs, which were about fantasy, science fiction, horror, etc. as described in another part of the article. Unfortunately, the theme of heavy metal iconography and cover art would require a separate article to be explained properly and a caption is not enough. Lewismaster (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I have left a note on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal, asking for comments and contacted the following persons who have been involved in previous discussions:

  WP:GOCE reviewer User:Twofingered Typist

  Talk:New Wave of British Heavy Metal/GA1 reviewer User:FunkMonk

  Wikipedia:Peer review/New Wave of British Heavy Metal/archive1 discussant User:Retrohead

  The page's most active editors: MarkCertif1ed, 3family6, Valenciano, Curly Turkey, Bretonbanquet, Indopug, Nigel C. Fortune, Binksternet. Lewismaster (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

  Am I one of the page's most active editors? I'm pretty sure I've done just some driveby copyediting. I'll see if I can find time to take a look at it tomorrow. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

  My edits were reverting the poor work of others. I have not contributed to this article in any significant way. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

To me, this looks good, but since I was also the GA reviewer, I think I should wait with commenting/supporting until "uninvolved" editors have chimed in. FunkMonk (talk) 05:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey

• I haven't looked at it too closely yet, but:
• The crisis of British heavy rock giants left space for the rise of other rock bands in the mid-1970s,[24] like: Queen,[25] Slade,[26] Sweet,[27] Wishbone Ash,[28] Status Quo,[29] Nazareth,[30] and Uriah Heep,[31] all of which had multiple chart entries in the UK and successful international tours.[20] The British chart results of the period show that there was still a vast audience for heavy metal in the country and upcoming bands Thin Lizzy,[32] UFO[33] and Judas Priest,[34] also had tangible success and media coverage in the late 1970s.[35] Foreign hard rock acts, such as Blue Öyster Cult and Ted Nugent from the US,[36][37] Rush from Canada,[38] Scorpions from Germany[39] and especially AC/DC from Australia,[40] climbed the British charts in the same period.[20]

  This paragraph leaves me wondering how it was put together—why these particular groups? Since they each have their own cite, it looks like they've been cherry-picked—but based on what criteria? Is there some scholarly consensus that these groups are representative in the way they're presented here? The way they're individually cited makes it seem like perhaps they aren't, but rather reflect the tastes of the editor(s). That may not be true, but that 's the impression it gives. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The criteria are: they played hard rock, they charted high in the UK and they were internationally known. And of course sources. I did not select the band according to my tastes (I know very little about Slade or Wishbone Ash and would never had picked up Status Quo), but multiple sources indicated them. About foreign bands, I thought that Aerosmith and Kiss, for example, had had some chart sucess in the UK in those years, but they did not. What you read is what I found. Lewismaster (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is the issue: it's a list of what you found, rather than a list of what a RS found. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I have some lists from reliable sources of successsful hard rock bands from the mid-70s:

Ian Christe pp.16, 23 - Blue Öyster Cult, Hawkwind, King Crimson (?), Queen, Rush, The Stooges, AC/DC, Kiss, New York Dolls, The Runaways, Scorpions, Thin Lizzy, Robin Trower, UFO

Malc Macmillan p.19 - UFO, Judas Priest, Thin Lizzy, Budgie, Bad Company, Nazareth, Status Quo, AC/DC, Kiss, Aerosmith, Montrose, The Runaways, Rush, Blue Öyster Cult

John Tucker p.32 - AC/DC, Judas Priest, Scorpions, UFO, Thin Lizzy.

When I compare this lists with the bands' UK Album Chart entries, Blue Öyster Cult, Hawkwind, Queen, Kiss, Bad Company, Budgie, Nazareth and Status Quo reached at least the Top40 before or in 1975; Thin Lizzy, Judas Priest, Rush, AC/DC, Scorpions and UFO from 1976 to 1979.

I probably picked up the names of Wishbone Ash, Slade, Sweet, etc. from interviews to musicians or directly from the Official Charts Company site. I removed them. Lewismaster (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Is NWOBHM really best described as a "movement"? Like, with manifestoes and rallies and stuff? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I think movement better describes the term and has closer meaning to "wave" (from the title) than scene or something third. Not that the bands were proclaiming manifestos or some ideology, but movement indicates it was happening in a certain period of time and can not be repeated, unlike scene, which can still exist (Florida death metal or Bay Area thrash metal, for example).--Retrohead (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not a music genre for sure. The music genre is heavy metal. I think that to reduce the NWOBHM to a regional scene would be reductive for the impact that it had on musicians and fans. The movement did not have a manifesto, but a clear ideology, moral and behavioural codes, visual identification and "stuff" were provided in spades. Lewismaster (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

When I see the word "movement", I imagine a social movement or political movement, and you can be sure I'm not the only one. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

From Wikitionary - Movement = A trend in various fields or social categories, a group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals. Lewismaster (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Is that the definition readers will have in mind? This reader didn't. Rock in Opposition was a contemporary rock social movement, so don't think I'm just splitting hairs. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears that we are stuck in a very old diatribe. Macmillan in his introduction to the New Wave of British Heavy Metal Encyclopedia writes "Twenty years on and the debate still rages: was it a movement or a musical style?". I checked all my sources and they are not very useful, because most authors are quite elusive in giving a clear-cut definition of the NWOBHM. Various citations from interviews to musicians and journalists call the the NWOBHM a movement (Tucker) and so does Ben Mitchell of Esquire [2] and Sam Dunn, but others call it "scene" (Bushell), a "genre" (Christie), a "phenomenon" or simply "a wave of new heavy metal bands" (Bayer et al.). I think that opinions on this matter from other editors could be helpful. Lewismaster (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

"Art movement" is a very real term, and it is applied to music as well as the visual arts. That's actually what stylistic shifts in classical music tend to be called: "movements". I see no reason why, if enough sources describe NWOBHM as such, the term "movement" should be avoided here. It's not our fault if readers are unaware that the term "movement" is used outside of politics, if indeed most readers are unaware, which has not been demonstrated.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

What has been demonstrated is that the term is ambiguous, and ambiguity is best avoided in encyclopaedic writing. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, both Geoff Barton and Neal Kay call the NWOBHM a movement and they were directly involved in it [3]. I think that encyclopedias should strive to solve ambiguities, not necessarily avoid them. Lewismaster (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you certain which meaning of "movement" they intended? And how do you propose the ambiguity be solved? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Research and discussion, what else? Maybe starting from Webster Dictionary definition of movement as "a series of organized activities working toward an objective" and also as "an organized effort to promote or attain an end" [4] and discuss if it can apply to the NWOBHM. I think it does. Lewismaster (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

That's looking at things backwards: we don't choose a word and then go through the list of its definitions to find one we like. We consider what we're trying to communicate, and find the words that best get that message across to the readership. "Movement" thus fails. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

We are in disagreement here. In my opinion, "movement" works just fine in describing the NWOBHM. I'm still curious about what term would you use to define it. I didn't need a list of definitions to chose it, reliable sources used the term. Lewismaster (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't need a list of definitions to chose it, reliable sources used the term—sorry, but this type of "reasoning" tells me that the person I'm talking with isn't really interested in understanding the point being made (particularly when you've quoted a source yourself highlighting the issue with the term). There're other things I'd rather be doing than banging my head against this wall, so I'll just leave the review to others. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear this, as you did a very good work in correcting various deficiencies of the article. Obviously your definition of movement if narrower than mine and I still don't know your definition of the NWOBHM. Lewismaster (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• I can't help but think that the Motörhead section could be much briefer, and I'm not sure what the Lemmy quote adds. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The Motörhead section is something I need advice for. The contrast between critics and fans about the band's belonging to the NWOBHM is real and I wanted to summarize the achievements and influence that the band had for both sides. Are John Peel broadcast and the No.1 on the UK chart redundant or are important to emphasize the separation from the new-born bands? They can be important if Motörhead is viewed as a NWOBHM band. And what about their punk friends? Should they be mentioned to underline Motörhead's influence on punk and the band's musical crossover? Please, tell me what you think. Lewismaster (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

My concern was the level of detail, not any of the actual content. I feel like you could have gotten to the point in a couple of sentences rather than an entire subsection. I'll come back and give you an example of what I mean (I have to take off now). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• meant the achievement of maturity for heavy metal, before branching out into various subgenres—I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed

• commonly known as muthas—really? Can we get an explanation for this? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It was a term commonly used by the British magazines at the time. It is a contraction of "motherfuckers". Lewismaster (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Weinstein wrote that—this is jarring in its suddenness—who is Weinstein, and why do we care? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Deena Weinstein is the author of one of the most cited reference book about the heavy metal subculture, as specified in the paragreaph above. Lewismaster (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• "British heavy metal is neither misogynistic nor an expression of machismo; for the most part women are of no concern." At the same time, it: "is not racist, despite its uniformly white performers, and its lyrics are devoid of racial references."—why is this quoted rather than summarized? Also, it seems to deflate the idea that it celebrated masculinity—if it's neither macho nor misogynist, in what way does it celebrate masculinity?

Summarized. Neither soccer supporters are macho or mysoginist, but their camaraderie and behaviour is masculine. Lewismaster (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Another characteristic of the subculture was its latent homophobia—placing this here makes the homophobia seem pretty prominant. Was it so central to NWOBHM? As opposed to other subcultures, or even mainstream culture?

It is very important for all the heavy metal subculture. Gay musicians and fans were not accepted in the community and the comparison with the skineheads' attitude is not casual. Bob Halford made his coming out only 25 years after his debut as singer in Judas Priest. See Amber R. Clifford-Napoleone - Queerness in Heavy Metal Music: Metal Bent ISBN 978-1-315-85172-3 for more on the subject. Lewismaster (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• "collective affirmation of heterosexuality" or "a reaction against the erosion of traditionally available stereotypes of masculinity"—quotes require inline attribution (not just citation).

Fixed.

• the epiphany of their status—the word escapes me, but I'm almost positive it's not wikt:epiphany

Changed.

• for the young generations—surely this should be singular?

Yes.

• dubbed all rock music employing loud guitars with the umbrella term heavy metal—even punk & new wave?

Fixed.

• an underground phenomenon parallel to punk—"parallel" in what sense?

Fixed.

• and featured vocals ranging from high pitch wails to gruff and low tuned—"low-tuned" vocals?

Fixed.

• I see a mix of the serial and non-serial comma. The MoS requires you to stick with one style.

Fixed.

• 'first pints, first shags and first horror films' —I have no idea what this means, and I imagine I'm not the only reader in this predicament. A case where paraphrasing would be enormously more readable than quoting.

Quoting reduced.

• "the concept of a rock club was pretty much inconceivable around 1978–79"—but, again, why quote rather than paraphrase?

Fixed.

• A II Z were signed by Polydor, Tygers of Pan Tang, Fist, and White Spirit by MCA, More by Atlantic, Samson by RCA, Demon by Carrere, Girlschool by Bronze, and Praying Mantis by Arista.—do we really need such a detailed enumeration? It makes for pretty tedious reading.

C'mon, it's only a line! I think it's important to show how few bands were signed to major labels. Most of them were dropped after their first relaese. Lewismaster (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

"C'mon" is not much of an argument—try reading it. It's tedious. Is there not a better way to sum it up without boring the reader? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I changed the sentence. I thinks it works better now. Lewismaster (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• The success of the music produced by the movement, and its passage from underground phenomenon to mainstream genre, prompted its main promoter Geoff Barton to declare the NWOBHM finished in 1981.—just as it was topping the charts? This needs an explanation.

I added an explanatory sentence and reference.

• American-influenced AOR releases on national polls—what kind of polls are these?

Fixed.

• the more sophisticated glam metal subgenre—"sophisticated" in what sense?

Changed in "polished".

• Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, France, and Spain were the first other European countries—seven countries were "the first"?

Fixed.

• Ping me if I forget to come back. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I addressed most of the problems that you indicated and checked your edits on the article. You did a good work, but actually undid much of the copy editing done by Twofingered Typist in his WP:GOCE review. Different styles, I guess... Lewismaster (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Lewismaster: It appears that CT is trying to improve the quality of the article although in a manner of a GA review which has already happened successfully. Some issues are style and some, like his criticism of the use of "movement", are hyper-critical - IMO. I am no expert on the subject and, for the most part, was simply copy editing what I was given which is the GOCE's role. I'll move on. Regards Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Twofingered Typist is implying with "a GA review which has already happened successfully". Does this imply I should just rubber-stamp my support already? Not as long as I see ambiguities and readability & accessibility issues in the text: I can't in good conscious call such an article one of the "best articles Wikipedia has to offer". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Haven't read this entire discussion, but according to the GA and FA criteria, all that matters is if reliable sources call it a movement. So do they? FunkMonk (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

If that's all that matters, then the bronze star is worthless. Whatever---nobody seems concerned with trying to understand the point. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, the FA criteria/Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth are pretty clear on this. As long as the claim is verifiable by multiple reliable sources and is not disputed, there is absolutely no problem. If you can find a reliable source that disputes this is a movement, then we have a problem. Personal criteria (unpublished opinions) are a whole different matter. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Like I said: no effort to understand the problem. And no effort to see the FA criteria as more than a checklist. I'll say it one last time: "movement" is an ambiguous term, and using an ambiguous term in the opening sentence is a poor choice to make; a poorer choice is to defend its use on the grounds that readers should be expected to read the editors' minds. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 14:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Apparently plenty of authors used that "ambiguous" term in their texts without invoking telepathy. Assuming that we are all wrong, in your opinion what would be the right description? Lewismaster (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

"If they can get away with it, then so can we" is not an argument I have any respect for. But whatever—who cares how well the article communicates, as long as it gets the bronze star? I'm de-watchlisting this thing now. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Another case of Righting Great Wrongs here, using Wikipedia to spread the "truth". Instead of leaving with the ball, it would have been better if Curly Turkey had contributed to FA promotion simply writing "Oppose" and stating his reasons. This is my first FAC procedure and I thought that commenting editors would suggest changes rather than bluntly modify an article or try to impose their will instead of promoting consensus. My mistake? Lewismaster (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Another case of Righting Great Wrongs—the fuck is this? You want me to oppose now?! You've turned this into a much bigger thing that it is. The ambiguity is a poor writing choice—I've said no more than that except to express my disappointment that nobody appears to even be trying to understand why I voiced such a concern. If everyone else decides I'm full of shit (which you all have) then the coordinators will pass over my concerns as "unactionable", and this article will become another example of the "best articles Wikipedia has to offer". What exactly is the problem? Why is my shitty, ignorant opinion causing you so much anguish? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I checked again the sources and actually almost everybody uses the term "movement" to describe the NWOBHM. "By 1980 the movement was fully realized..." [Christe p.41); "What happens is that when you get a movement like the NWOBHM, a big net is cast across the whole musical spectrum..." (Tucker p.33); "Barton's run of articles documenting the NWOBHM are valuable sources... for tracking the fortunes of the movement..." (Waksman p. 173); "But the ruthless surge of creativity unleashed as the movement gathered pace..." (Thompson p. 213). You should add the already cited documentaries by Sam Dunn, the article of Esquire, the articles and interviews by Geoff Barton and Neal Kay. I really can't understand neither the insistence of CT in denying the validity of the term, nor his claim of self-righteousness. Lewismaster (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, that should be enough for Wikipedia at least. If it can be argued that it does not count as a movement by whatever criteria, it doesn't really matter here, as we only go by published sources. FunkMonk (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The broadest term within the context of music would be cultural movement. Only political movements and some social movements have manifestos. If ambiguity is a problem, than a wikilink to cultural movement can be provided. It's clear from the context of the sources that they are referring to a cultural movement, at least broadly construed if not more specific in definition.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Fellow humans, I really think this is now quite pointless. Curly Turkey I seriously cannot understand your vehement apposition to the term 'Movement'. I've read through your concerns about the meaning that it implies. You think that it is Ambiguous, but your starting to come across as being argumentative for the sake of, I'm sorry to say. Everything on WP is about consensus, am I right? We work towards that through such debate. 99% of contributors to the article have stated, that in nearly all the literature on the subject it is called a 'Movement'. People who liked Motörhead, or Saxon, or King Diamond, or Iron Maiden (probably the most famous band out of it except Motörhead) all wore the same clothes, all over the world! (eventually). I'd call that a 'Movement' just like the Hippies did on 1967, or the Beatniks in 1955, or the Sharpies and Mods in 1962. Non of which had any of the concerns you've raised either, but are still considered a Movement. I truly not trying to start an argument with man, but I think you've allowed this to become something you don't want to give into for the wrong reasons now. We all heard you concerns, and Lewis addressed a lot of them quite humbly and sincerely, but also voiced his concern about the integrity of the article as a whole, and I agree with that. Nürö G'däÿ 23:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm so "vehemently" opposed that I've agreed to let you all work it out for yourselves? You all keep pinging me after I've left, but I'm being argumentative? I haven't argued it wasn't a "movement"—I've argued that "movement" has more than one meaning that could apply (as in Rock in Opposition), and thus is a poor word choice. Your argument doesn't address that—you keep trying to convince me it really was a "movement" (which I haven't denied). Three of you have now pinged me so you could have your chance to beat into my head an argument that entirely misses the point—and you accuse me of being argumentative. Let me fuck off already. You're wrong, but you win. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Coord note -- Let's try to stay cool. Any comment at FAC is fair game for eliciting a response, that's in the nature of discussion and trying to achieve consensus. That said, it shouldn't be necessary to ping a reviewer often -- if they want to pursue things, they'll keep the page on their watchlist. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

New Section

• I have been invited to contribute, after a comment of mine on the article itself recently.

1 - Motörhead are in a significantly special position with regards to the Movement (yes I'll get that out of the way quickly, though I support the term Cultural Movement as a secondary choice) and deserve the attention that has been given them, as it is because of the argued position they held at the time, that the opinions need to be clarified (for mine they are a significant part of the movement, even if they had played in other significant bands prior to 1975, which is the year they formed).

Which opinions need to be clarified? I thought that the Motörhead section explained already the positions of critics and fans about their beleonging to the NWOBHM. Lewismaster (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, this was to support the entry as it is, not to say it needs more. Nürö G'däÿ 01:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

2 - The questions about Ethnicity and Female participation are a concern. Which by, I mean, this needs to be handled very delicately. I don't want the article to come across as promoting Misogynistic attitudes or of Ethnic exclusivity, but as a White Heterosexual Male aged 39 who was (still is) one of these dudes in Australia, agree that their is merit to the claim (though this straying into WP:OR teritory I'm aware). I also realise that the source material puts this as a significant element of the movement. As Motörhead have their significant position, so does Girls School and Thin Lizzy, and feel that they should have a explanatory. I also think the Japanese and Brazilians should get a section, because the bands in question who went on to have a prominent career, had them to thank also. It is furthering the point that as much as the British White Kids were the Face of the Movement, their were plenty of exceptions.

During the NWOBHM there were only a handful of female musicians playing heavy metal. I'm well aware of Girlschool, having written their article on Wikipedia, but they (and Rock Goddess) were the exception among hundreds of male bands and received a mention as such in the article. The NWOBHM was essentially a white male club, not mysoginist, but neither too welcoming for women. This article is not promoting anything like racism or mysoginy, it tries only to state the facts according to multiple sources. To use an hyperbole, it would be like saying that a WP article about Nazism promote the Holocaust. Thin Lizzy are cited as a successful band which pre-dates the NWOBHM. Bands from other countries than the UK are cited in the "Influences and legacy" section. Lewismaster (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you or the article of Promoting anything, I'm stating this needs to be very well versed and described, and not in some Stub style format. Nürö G'däÿ 01:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

3 - As to the external part of the whole movement, the other parts of the world need some significant mention. The term NWOBHM has always been somewhat ignorant of the fact it made it around the world, and is more of a Homage to the birthplace of the whole thing. I'm not arguing the term though, I've never called it anything else, just pointing out that all you have to do is cross the Channel and you found the same sorts of kids.

Again in the "Influences and legacy" section. Lewismaster (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll reserve judgement on this until I've re-read again. Nürö G'däÿ 01:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

4 - I didn't have a concern with the bands that had been listed in the original section. As I have worked on articles of three of the bands in the list, I think that a comprehensive list of the bands around at the time is good for the historical perspective of the musicians that played their part in it all, if anything to maybe give some credit where credit is due.

I wrote the List of New Wave of British Heavy Metal bands to accompany this article to give an idea of how many metal bands were active in the UK at that time. Lewismaster (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree that it should be a seperate page for those that want to read it. Nürö G'däÿ 01:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• In general I think the article is looking very sharp, compared to the version I read some years ago, to settle a drunken argument at a, wait for it, after party from which we had all been to see Motörhead in Sydney (no joke).

I'll add some more when I've had a look at some of the issues raised by others, as I'm working on another article in a mediator capacity to attempt to have a more neutral tone, before it just gets AfD' for lack of credible source material.

Nürö Drägönflÿ, G'däÿ Mätë! 07:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Lingzhi

Resolved comments from Lingzhi

Nolo contendere. With supports from Graeme and ceoil, this obviously will pass. This page has ballooned into a mess; it will take me a while to sort through it. Very quick and initial thoughts: I'm probably with CurlyTurkey on "movement". I will need something more than "three guys said so", especially if those three guys happen to be musicians, promoters, or anyone else with a personal stake in puffing up their band. Those big blue quote boxes look... just....really... garish. Yep, "garish" is the word. Aside from adding blue boxes to the page and (again) lionizing the people who are being quoted, do they actually add content to the article? And I have a hard time, too, with long lists of bands all with cites. I dunno. Just as a very initial take, this looks very GA and not very FA to me. That is, at least on first glance, it very much has the look and feel of hagiography... I will try to look harder.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC) This page has ballooned into a mess – not the most encouraging introduction, is it? And whose hagiography? Blue boxes are going out of the way, with the exception of Bruce Dickinson's quotation, which can be useful to explain the nature of the NWOBHM. Let's try to settle the "movement" discussion that enraged the previous reviewer. To cast doubts aside, I'm in favour of the term "movement" to describe the NWOBHM and I used it multiple times in the article, following a precise idea of what a movement is and not making it up as this review progressed, as Curly Turkey implied. I understand the claims of ambiguity he advanced because the NWOBHM apparently doesn't fit in any category of movement listed on WP, but I'm still puzzled that the Webster dictionary definition of a movement as "an organized effort to promote or attain an end" is deemed not sufficient. At the same time, I'm not ready to accept neither that the use of the term by so many different authors is quickly dismissed only as bloated self-promotion nor that we, as editors of WP, can decide if they were wrong in using it. Did Geoff Barton manipulate the proportions of the phenomenon to boost the sales of the magazines he worked for? Yes, he did. This fact doesn't mean that the NWOBHM was a cheap fad, because many people believed in what he wrote and followed the journalist's tirades. The Bruce Dickinson's citation in one of the deprecated blue boxes says exactly this: "it did represent a lot of bands that were utterly ignored by the mainstream media. Because of that it became real and people got behind it." I'm not hiding behind the sources and saying that "If they can get away with it, then so can we", as Curly Turkey suggested, but maybe those authors were not completely wrong and we simply need to better analyze those sources to put our doubts to rest. It is also true that some authors were often not specific, used more than one term to define the NWOBHM and sometimes avoided a clear definition. Macmillan in his book writes about the endless debate if the NWOBHM was a movement or a musical style and states that "it's often a fundamental mistake to over-analyse certain aspects of cultural phenomena", but to reach a consensus it appears necessary. For what it's worth, here is my analysis: The NWOBHM was not a political movement, because those headbangers ignored politics. It had elements of an informal social movement, because it involved a precise segment of the British society in urgent need of separating from mainstream society and from other more celebrated trends to enjoy their newfound camaraderie and their music. They aimed at creating what in sociology is called a heavy metal subculture, which Deena Weinstein defines as a community of "proud pariahs". The NWOBHM had elements of an art movement with the scope of creating new music, wilder, faster and different from the bloated and tame hard rock of the 70s. The DIY attitude appears more accidental than ideological. It had also elements of a cultural movement, setting new behavioural, visual and ethical codes based on working class values and ethics, which British headbangers later exported in the rest of the world. Those thousands of young heavy metal fans did not have a manifesto, but Geoff Barton's articles to guide them, their rallies were live shows at a local club and their goal was to get away en masse from a bleak reality. I would call the NWOBHM something like "a grassroots movement for the ethical and musical renewal of heavy metal". Lewismaster (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC) following a precise idea of what a movement is and not making it up as this review progressed—do you seriously misunderstand the point I made that badly? That's flat-out embarrassing. Your whole comment is one wall-of-text of missing-the-point. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Hello there! I thought that you didn't want to be disturbed again! I understand your frustration at our narrow-mindness for not resolving the ambiguity of the term. I'm trying to find a consensus, stating what I think the NWOBHM is and eliciting a discussion. The NWOBHM doesn't have a single definition, so it could be appropriate to remark these differences in the article. However it needs a definition like movement, period or phenomenon, at least in the lede. Which is yours? (this is the fourth time that I ask...) Lewismaster (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Lede: "Although fragmented in style..." Don't you mean it encompasses diverse styles? "fragment" seems wrong. Moreover, you didn't actually define NWOBHM. How can you write an article about a topic without defining the topic? I would suggest re-reading the relevant quote in the Geoff barton page. Err.. OK, so the DIY is the key. Suggest swapping the 2nd aand 3rd paras in the lede (with an eye toward trimming the 2nd) to move something resembling a definition higher up, then adding along the lines that stadium rock prog rock etc. was dismissed as bloated, punk rock rang true, but heavy metal rockers still wanted their heavy metal so adopted the punk rock DIY zeitgeist... see your own link for ideas... need to show it as HM style and punk "just play it" spirit in the very very early going.. but wait, for something that's DIY you've got some non DIY-ish bands in here IMO (see Def Leppard)... I would consider the possibility that your article is not about any clear subcategory at all, because its journalists/promoters (barton) just tried to include as many acts as possible into the definition, to expand their readership...hmmm... Fragmented in style comes from one of the many changes operated by Curly Turkey, maybe the original fragmented in a collection of different styles sounds better and yours Although encompassing diverse mainstream and underground styles even better. Why insist on punk and prog rock in the lead section. It should focus on the main theme of the article and not on the background, IMO. At their beginnings, Def Leppard and Diamond Head epitomised the DIY attitude. They designed their logos, self-produced and self-distributed their first recordings and even managed their meager finances and tours by themselves. The switch of sections depends on how we will define the NWOBHM, a movement or something else. Lewismaster (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC) "about a thousand metal bands" huh? says who? I see one quote only, and it is casual, conversational. Suggest something that doesn't convey a false sense of accuracy...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC) The New Wave of British Heavy Metal Encyclopedia by Malc Macmillan alone lists more than 500 bands which emerged during the NWOBHM and released records. It doesn't count the bands that the author calls a "sheer quantity of amateur-hour acts", which were active but released only demos or limited-issue singles. Countless appears even more inaccurate. Lewismaster (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Was punk rock really dying when this sprang up? BTW, you can call it a genre if it has its own distinctive publications (plural) and vocabulary etc. that are distinct from heavy metal.. not distinct musical style; distinct other (linguistic) things...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Punk was not dead (was it ever?), but it was quickly losing its charm for the media and the fans in favour of New Wave when the NWOBHM took flight in 1979. In the history section it is mentioned how the first new metal bands contended space in the clubs to punk acts during its peak in 1976-78. Lewismaster (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC) And speaking of that soundhouse link, there's an awful lot in this article (too much IMO) about Neal Kay. Is the soundhouse article the only source that foregrounds kay so much? maybe Kay and the author of the article (barton) are BFFs? I dunno about giving so much space to KAy, even in the lede...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Neal Kay and the Soundhouse are mentioned in all the sources as the link between the new bands scattered all over the UK and their only initial media output, the paper Sounds. He is pictured as a central figure to the NWOBHM, second only to Barton. Lewismaster (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC) OK, wait, now who is copying from whom? You'll need to prove to me that you haven't copyvio/plagiarized from "New Wave of British Heavy Metal: The Bands of the Nwobhm 1978-1982" and "Subgenres of the Beast: A Heavy Metal Guide" (look on Google books). More specifically, you need to show that they copied from Wikipedia (which is very possible), since I see extended stretches of identical text. If not then of course the FAC ends there...OK, the latter book is a downstream ripoff...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Look at the formatting of the book—particularly the refs. It's pretty obviously one of the seemingly millions of books that recycle Wikipedia content. It would be nice if Google Books would filter out that shit. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Sorry, that refers to Subgenres of the Beast, which you've struck out. Can't access the other one, but it smells like a duck, and there are no reviews at all of it online. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Amazing! To see my words on the backcover of a published book is quite chilling! I wrote the words found on the backcover of "New Wave of British Heavy Metal: The Bands of the Nwobhm 1978-1982" for this article in August 2015 and the book was published in November 2015, so it should be pretty obvious who copied who. Lewismaster (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Subgenres of the Beast is just a re-publishing of Wikipedia content. The sections are organized the same as they were on Wikipedia.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC) I will have little time this week to discuss your comments (real life commitments!), but please go on with your review and I'll try to answer to your questions and start corrections by Saturday. Lewismaster (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Waksman p. 175 is full of stuff that jumps out at me as being, in my mind at least, key points: they suggest that NWOBHM fans saw Def Leppard as being non-members [IMO if any band this side of Camel (yuk) has not jot one of punk in their soul, it's Def Leppard]; it calls the NWOBHM a subculture rather than a movement (and makes the point that the mags do not cover subcultures so much as pull them together & construct them; it says "one could cynically claim that NWOBHM was little more than hype designed to boost the paper's circulation". I think the mags boost NWOBHM as a movement; I strongly urge Wikipedia (via FAC) not to function as a shill boosting publication sales by adopting their self-aggrandized term for their own commodity.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC) He uses the term movement and grassroots at p. 174 and again at p. 179. So much for consistency... Lewismaster (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC) waksman again 173-74 says two distinct mainstream and underground components in heavy metal (the whole genre, I think, not just NWOBHM); this bears on "fractured" in the lede... but... I easily see and agree that heavy metal had those two streams but I think if there is any qualitative def of NWOBHM it must be crossover punk/hm.. which certainly leaves out the more subtle styles of blues-inspired rock (Zep, the best band ever, of course).. but also leaves out radio friendly def leppard (yuk, sorry, are my biases showing?).. so.. two strands/streams, if you are determined to keep both, but I think the magazine disingenuously included the mainstream groups in their definition of NWOBHM purely to boost sales by displaying those bands' names on the cover  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC) I don't think that the inclusion in the NWOBHM distinguished between mainstream or not. The new bands acted in the same way recording demos, self-producing singles and sending them to Kay or Barton. So did Iron Maiden, Def Leppard, Diamond Head and hundreds of other bands. Although they had very different styles they were all dubbed heavy metal bands belonging to the "new wave". Lewismaster (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Those unpalatable chunks wherein various bands are listed as examples of this or that, with each band given its very own inline cite: can we just footnote all that? It's a bit of an eyesore, truly. As are the blue boxes. Which should just go away, because WP is not a mass-circulation magazine like Kerrang..  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC) I suggest subgenre. I agree with CurlyTurkey-- "movement" is just buying into hype and self-promotion.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC) But the term "subgenre" is used very rarely to describe NWOBHM (though it has been used). Might I suggest the term "period," as I elaborated below?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC) waksman 178 also mentions emphasis on instrumental proficiency as a litmus test.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Well, many metalheads still profess their hatred for punk and considered punk musicians "not musicians". That was a unifying trait of the NWOBHM. Some metal musicians now acknowledge their debt to punk in the form of energy, DIY attitude and will to change the system. Lewismaster (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC) May I suggest {{sfnm}} for your multiple cites [1][2][3][4].  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC) I used {{harvnb}} for multiple references of published sources. I can't use it for websites. Lewismaster (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC) I like the point in "The SAGE Handbook of Popular Music" from 3 family6's link below about hm's "phase of being critically unpopular in the UK and elsewhere during the mid-seventies before its resurgence". In fact, I like the word "resurgence". It isn't a movement, it's a somewhat-modified resurgence.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC) That could also work. I've found five other sources that use the word "resurgence," ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9]), so it's definitely supported by multiple reliable sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC) Resurgence or renewal could be easily used in the description of the NWOBHM. Actually the passage in the lede about "the emergence of new heavy metal bands in the late 1970s" is a less-emphasized form of the same concept. Lewismaster (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC) here's a first cut at a re-written WP:LEDE, with comments below: The New Wave of British Heavy Metal (commonly abbreviated as NWOBHM) was a period of resurgence of both critical and popular interest in the genre of heavy metal music in the United Kingdom in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Journalist Geoff Barton coined the term in the May 1979 issue of the British music newspaper Sounds to describe the emergence of an underground phenomenon growing during the period of punk rock's decline and the dominance of new wave music. Starting from the local club scene in cities and towns, NWOBHM grew to achieve international attention and success. Although encompassing diverse mainstream and underground styles, the music of the New Wave of British Heavy Metal is best remembered for drawing on the sound of heavy metal of the 1970s and infusing it with an ethic—borrowed from punk—that eschewed musical virtuosity and emphasized loud volume and high speed performance. The DIY attitude of the new metal bands led to a diffusion of raw-sounding, self-produced recordings and a proliferation of independent record labels. Song lyrics were usually about escapist themes such as mythology, fantasy, horror and the rock lifestyle. These reflected the concerns of its audience: generally young, white, male and working class musicians and fans, who suffered the hardships brought on by stagnant employment opportunities that plagued the country for years after the 1973–75 recession. The resurgence spurred the creation of countless metal bands, but only a few survived the advent of MTV and the rise of the more commercial glam metal in the second half of the 1980s. Among them, only Iron Maiden and Def Leppard became international stars, although Motörhead and Saxon also had considerable success. Other groups, such as Diamond Head, Venom and Raven, remained underground acts, but were a major influence on the very successful extreme metal subgenres of the late-1980s and 1990s. Many bands from the New Wave of British Heavy Metal reformed in the 2000s and have been still active with live performances and new studio albums. I took out neal Kay until I see many sources emphasizing him. *"Other mediators were initially more significant to the crystallization of British heavy metal. London’s Heavy Metal Soundhouse (lending its name to Iron Maiden’s first EP, released in 1979) was the genre’s major venue, emerging as the alternative to punk and new wave venues. Neal Kay was in charge of booking the bands; he helped compile and wrote the liner notes for the first major British heavy metal record compilation, Metal for Muthas" (Weinstein in Bayer p.22). Waksman cites Kay dozens of times in the chapter on the NWOBHM a "keeper of the hard rock flame", a concert organizer, an opponent of punk, a promoter allied to Sounds, a man attempting "to codify his influence as heavy metal tastemaker" (Waksman pp.172-185) "The headquarters of this Big Rock uprising (The NWOBHM) was a heavy metal disco in London called the Soundhouse, run by DJ Neal Kay (...) Kay mixed current hits and sacred metal classics on the turntable with demo tapes by ne local HM outfits" (Fricke p.37) entrepreneurs like Neal Kay duly identified a previously-unexploited niche for rock discos with his legendary 'Heavy Metal Soundhouse' where many of the NWOBHM upstarts were introduced to the masses." (Macmillan p.21) "in 1979 The Soundhouse was unique for a number of reasons (...) but what made the place really special was the guiding light and guru, DJ Neal Kay, the man who really established the place on a national scene (...) for him the Soundhouse wasn't a disco, was a crusade"; "It's important to stress just how crucial his support for the band (Iron Maiden) was during 1979".(Bushell p. 23) Neal Kay is also prominently featured on the listed documentaries as a key figure for the movement. Lewismaster (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC) I took out the subculture bit... because.. are we sure they had a subculture separate from heavy metal? I see all the biker stuff (military stuff was more common where I was from).. but is that new wave, or is it just heavy metal? The subculture was not separate from heavy metal, but an evolution of it. I checked again my sources for the sociological stuff: Weinstein's Heavy Metal: The Music and Its Culture and Bayers Heavy Metal Music in Britain. To keep a very long story short, Weinstein describes heavy metal in three phases: formation, crystallization and fragmentation. The first phase happened in the 1960s and preserved many behavioural and visual elements of psychedelia (including drug use and fashion trends) and strong musical ties to blues rock. The second phase coincides with the NWOBHM, where heavy metal "crystallized" its own codes, the subculture became fully structured and heavy metal definitely separated from other contemporary genres. (Bayer pp. 20, 21) She wrote that "British heavy metal’s era of crystallization lasted about three years, from 1979 to 1982", exactly the period of the NWOBHM. You are right in saying that the heavy metal subculture was not created by the NWOBHM, but during the NWOBHM it evolved into what it is today. I will change the sentences accordingly. Lewismaster (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC) I sorta don't like the word "concerns". I'm also concerned that "that started" is ambiguous about what started, but if you make two sentences of, it becomes choppy. Still need to consider the possibility that other details need to be added. I will consider  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC) Just a fast comment after a rapid glance at your work. I think that you missed something important in the structure of the article. I focused my attention not only on bands and music, but also on the fans and the subculture that they created. The heavy metal subculture as we know it was born in the NWOBHM, generated by a young generation of fans and musicians, which infused it with their working class ethics in contrast with the 1970s' psychedelia. Musicians and fans came from the same mold and were in a sense interchangeable and equally responsible for this renewal. Maybe I did not stress this fact enough, but I thought that the description of how and why they "coalesced in a closed community of peers" in the "Identity and Style" section was quite exhaustive. The way you want to introduce the topic is too reductive of the importance of the phenomenon – or movement – which involved thousands of British kids and profoundly influenced heavy metal fans all over the world. More comments and a discussion to finally settle the "movement" matter ASAP. Lewismaster (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC) @Lewismaster: I didn't miss the subculture; I deliberately elided it... until you can establish that the NWOBHM subculture was in any meaningful way different than the overarching heavy metal subculture.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC) @Lingzhi: I answered to some of your comments and solicited a new debate. I hope to not be too intrusive in asking a comment to my analysis of the term "movement". I'll try to answer to the rest of your review tomorrow. Lewismaster (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC) @Lewismaster: [Long reply, sorry, many issues covered]. My biggest problem, perhaps my only problem, is the celebratory format/tone. WP is not (or at least, should not be) here to support any cause (oh wait, it actually is quite overburdened with political propaganda... but that's another story) or any group or identity. NWOBHM is not a cause, but it is a group identity, and there is (key point!) a celebratory palimpsest beneath the veneer of objectivity. The word "movement" is but one symptom, but it is one of the more readily apparent symptoms. I could readily call punk music a social movement, because they were actively engaged in social protest ( a sort of "Fuck the Establishment, give us anarchy" thing), and at the same time I could think of them as an artistic movement, because they were in explicit protest against a previous musical style (see "Pink Floyd Sucks" etc.). They were protesting at least two things at the same time. Intuitively put, they were moving somewhere; they had a definite set of things in the past that they explicitly wanted to move away from. NWOBHM wasn't a social movement and (more to the point) not an art movement. Did NWOBHM folks characteristically spraypaint "Zeppelin Sucks!" or "Black Sabbath sucks!" on their t-shirts? I don't think so. I think they embraced/accepted Zep and Sabbath, but would say, "But I prefer Iron Maiden". It was an evolved expression of heavy metal, not a rejection of heavy metal. But "movement" just sounds cooler. It sounds like they stood for something, but they didn't, neither politically nor artistically. They just liked something, that's all. And as for subculture, you have never established that a Zep or Sabbath fan (that would be me) would look or act any differently than a Tyger of the Pan Tang fan, nor would the former be automatically excluded from hanging out with the latter. The subculture you are describing at length is not distinctively NWOBHM; it is heavy metal. That is an important distinction. If you credit it to NWOBHM, then once again you are exaggerating their role. (Another key point): They neither created nor owned the subculture; they participated in it. And the extended list of bands that sprout like mushrooms across the page are the same kind of thing. This article is not objective. It functions rather as an extended "shout out" to everyone connected to NWOBHM. [I think there may be room for mentioning Kay, but... in the lede? Maybe "Metal for Muthas" can go in the lede... this is a point I am very willing to be more flexible about].  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC) Well, I guess that working on a topic for so long and immersing in so many books celebrating the NWOBHM may have influenced some choices. But being accused of being partial and hiding "a celebratory palimpsest beneath the veneer of objectivity" (after being accused of plagiarism) means that you consider my work as an editor a failure, which is hard to swallow. I recognize that I made a mistake in using the term "create" referred to the subculture which I corrected. But the term movement for the NWOBHM don't sounds just cooler it sounds true to me for the multiple reasons explained above and for the changes and evolution it brought to heavy metal and its subculture. It's not punk, it's not a-dozen-people "movement" like Rock in Opposition, but it moved thousands of people and changed things, allowing heavy metal to survive, thrive and dramatically expand, remaining the largest underground movement almost no one knows about. A compromise definition for the NWOBHM could be "a grassroots movement for renewal within the heavy metal subculture", even if it sounds too elaborate for the casual reader. A mention to the other definitions of the NWOBHM could also be added. It is also the first time I was accused of writing an article with too many details in it. I think that the level of detail, which includes lists of a few bands divided for periods, is set to a degree that could satisfy most readers. Other Featured level articles use the same system. All bands are referenced to verify their notability, which is something that can hardly be challenged on WP. Imagine that 3family6 implied below a lack of comprehensiveness for not including influential albums and expanding the presence of bands in the article. You can't satisfy everybody. I provided above a few references for Neal Kay's role in the NWOBHM. I think that he deserves a mention as promoter of it all.Lewismaster (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC) "ranging from high pitch wails to gruff and low" is missing a noun at the end, and should be "high pitched" Meanwhile, following the citation to that sentence, I see a potentially useful paragraph re fashion distinctions drawn on p. 36 of Christe IIRC. I did 'not see anything about wails or whatever, in the cite that led me there. fixed and added reference. I certainly think Neal Kay deserves mention. But not glorification. I note Lewismaster's regrettable personalization of the discussion above. Trust me, it's not about you. It's about text on a page. You can see my non-!vote !vote above. In the cosmic scheme of things, if one article with a fannish tone gets FA, civilization will not end. I do hope this FAC process will make the nominators a bit more aware of that aura of fannishness, and impel them to dial it down more than a little. I continue to suggest {{sfnm}} for bits like this: "playing international arenas,[151][152][153] " or "Samson from London,[156][157][158][159] " This template cannot be used for websites. I continue to suggest the possibility that lists of bands be relegated to footnotes. Oftentimes, the bands themselves are footnotes! 'Nuff said. I moved three lists to a Notes section. Others remain... perhaps more nitpicks later, but as I said at the top of this section, the writing is on the wall, so arguing is pointless.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC) "Probably the most important of those compilation albums..." Citation needed  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC) Citation provided. Lewismaster (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by 3family6

As the term "movement," though the mentioned in the majority of reliable sources, is proving contentious, perhaps "period" could be used instead? That term is also frequently mentioned in reliable sources. That would also be more consistent with how other forms of music are sometimes broken up into periods, such as Western art music into the Baroque, Classical, Romantic, et al. periods.

Some sources supporting the term "movement:" [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]

Some sources supporting the term "period:" [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]

I'm pinging Curly Turkey to ask if they'd be comfortable with using "period" instead of "movement".--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• You can quit pinging me. I can reformulate why "movement" is problematic only so many times. The fact that you're desperately trying to hunt up sources that use the term tells me that you haven't tried to understand the point, and it's obviously beyond my powers to get it across. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you misread my comment: I'm proposing changing the term "movement" to "period."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• • It isn't a movement because it doesn't stand for or against anything. It is neither a style nor a subgenre (I need to strike through my suggestion above) because it has no defining characteristics (if we let groups like Def Leppard and others be included...as seems inevitable). I think "period" may in fact be the only reasonable alternative.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @3family6: I solicited a new debate for my analysis of the term "movement" above. You are welcomed to give me your opinion. I agree that the NWOBHM can also be defined as a "period", but that word sounds to me as devoid of significance and social implications in the light of the subculture in the making of that period. Lewismaster (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• I think this is seriously over stating the relevance, or significance, of the inclusion of the word "Movement" IMO. But my suggestion, however, is that in the lede it is spelt out that it has been referred to by some sections of the media and the recording industry as a 'movement', but just as much by other media and commentators as a 'period'; of musical expression and new styles. Then never utter either again. Seriously. I understand the points being raised, and fair enough that the debate is held, but it has turned into a POV battleground, really.
  I do however, after some further thought and re-reading, think that there is potentially legitimate concerns about the Promotional issue raised.
  I'm slowly going through the links provided to reminisce my childhood/adolescence and will get back to this.

In good tidings and regards to all Nürö G'däÿ 01:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• • • @Nuro Dragonfly: I solicited a new debate for my analysis of the term "movement" above. You are welcomed to give me your opinion.Lewismaster (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that there should not be unique statements in a lead section, so it has to be mentioned at least once in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• • • @FunkMonk: I solicited a new debate for my analysis of the term "movement" above. You are welcomed to give me your opinion. Lewismaster (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

More comments

• AllMusic (on the site and in published books) and the Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal Music by William Phillips and Brian Cogan consider Judas Priest to have spearheaded the NWOBHM with the albums Stained Class and Hell Bent for Leather. Is that a minority opinion? And even if this is contested in other sources, shouldn't those albums at least be mentioned?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It is true that Judas Priest were a major influence for the sound of the NWOBHM, but so were Black Sabbath, Thin Lizzy, Budgie, UFO, Mötorhead and so on. If I had to insert and comment the many albums which influenced the NWOBHM I risk an endless loop of wounded fans requesting their favourite album to be included. The analysis of which old band influenced which new band in such detail is beyond the scope of this article, IMO. Lewismaster (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Lewismaster (pinging because of the massive wall of text): Are those other bands you mentioned described in sources to have had the same impact as Judas Priest? Or are the two sources above among only a few to credit Judas Priest as spearheading the movement, and thus a minority opinion? I genuinely don't know, which is why I ask. Featured articles are to be comprehensive, so I just want to make sure that all important aspects are included.

Comprehensiveness depends on the level of detail that this article needs. Other editors have already lamented an excessive level of detail as it is and to dig into the influence of single albums would be frankly too much. About JP's albums, it has been established that the NWOBHM was a hodgepodge of styles, so it appears preposterous to consider one album as "setting the sonic template for the New Wave of British Heavy Metal more than any other single recording" like AllMusic reviewer did.Paranoid, Overkill and Strangers in the Night could easily be defined in the same way and to delve into album reviews would mean a long and often contradictory work. Deena Weinstein, for all that matters, considers Stained Class as a template for speed metal (Weinstein p.53). Judas Priest and the other bands that I cited were major influences (Bayer p. 23 [24]), but so were many other bands. Steve Harris cited UFO and Jethro Tull as his influences. Def Leppard cited Mott the Hoople. A minor band like Mama's Boys cited Horslips and so on. Lewismaster (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Full review

• Cultural origins section of infobox: Why is it extended to 1982? That's pretty much the length of the entire period. The origins, from reading the article, would be 1978-1979, at the cusp of the burgeoning period's breakout.

Fixed

• From "Social unrest" section: "The explosion of new bands and new musical styles coming from the UK in the late 1970s was a consequence of the economic depression that hit the country before the governments of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher." How was this a consequence? What is the connection between the explosion of new bands and music styles and the economic depression?

This pargraph was rewritten by at least three different editors in the last month. Now it should make more sense. Lewismaster (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• The reference style is inconsistent - all refs should be converted to {{sfn}}, {{sfnm}}, or {{harvnb}}. Sfn works with websites, too - see Viking metal (which, by the way, I'm hoping to nominate for FAC, once it's peer reviewed).

Fixed

• "Music and lyrics" - maybe change this to "Lyrics and sonic traits" or something similar - lyrics would be part of "music", whereas "sonic traits" is distinctive from the lyrics.

I don't understand this one. Music and lyrics seems to me very understandable even to the casual reader. Lewismaster (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a matter of accuracy. There might be some debate on this, but I would consider lyrics very much a part of music. There are entire genres based mainly or solely on lyrical focus - Viking metal, National Socialist black metal, Rock Against Communism, Christian music, gangsta rap, political hip hop, pornogrind, anarcho-punk, etc., you see my point. You also have music forms such as tone poems and spoken word which are very much dependent on the lyrics. While most readers would understand the topical focus of each section, the titling is inaccurate (this titling issue is something that I used to do myself and am trying to move away from now).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

At this stage in the development of heavy metal, lyrics had secondary importance in comparison with loudness and sound. Most LPs had no lyric sheet and many words are unintelligible. Weinstein wrote that "in heavy metal the lyrics are less relevant as words than as sound" (p.26) and it sounds very true for many NWOBHM albums - I'm still trying to decipher the texts of many Girlschool songs. This changed in later years, arriving at lyric-based subgenres. I changed the structure of the sections and the titling, comparing this article with Punk rock and Heavy metal music. Lewismaster (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Setlists.fm is a user-generate wiki, and is completely unacceptable for use in a featured article.

Replaced references with Garry Sharpe-Young articles. Lewismaster (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Neal Kay was one of those DJs who started to work in 1975 at a disco club called The Bandwagon in Kingsbury, North West London, housed in the back-room of the Prince of Wales pub and equipped with a massive sound system." - I'd included "aforementioned" prior to the mention "one of those DJs," as the sentence currently seems to say that he was one of the DJs who started work in 1975 in a disc club at Kingsbury.

Done

• "The new releases by these bands were better produced and, together with intensive tours in the UK and Europe,[208] definitely promoted the movement to a relevant national phenomenon, as evidenced by the good chart results of many of those first albums." - This appears to be original research, as it is not attributed to any reliable analysis, just some chart positions.

Changed the sentences and added a referece. Lewismaster (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• "The immediate consequence of that success was increased media coverage for metal bands, which included appearances on the British music TV shows Top of the Pops[214][215][216] and The Old Grey Whistle Test.[217]" None of these videos were uploaded by any kind of official or educational source, and they don't support the analysis that the media coverage was a consequence of charting success.

Garry Bushell wrote about the increased media coverage for Iron Maiden and Saxon. The videos were replaced with other sources, with the exception of the Girlschool one, uploaded by the webmaster of their official website. Lewismaster (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• The footnotes should also have citations, if not for each item on the list, at least at the end of the sentence.

Fixed

• "Black Sabbath got back in shape..." - seems rather colloquial in tone.

"were back on track" sounds better? Lewismaster (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't like "back on track" either. "regained stability" or something similar I think would be more encyclopedic in tone.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixed.

• "1980 stands out as a memorable year for hard rock and heavy metal on the British charts, with many other entries in the top 10: MSG's first album peaked at No. 8,[227] Whitesnake's Ready an' Willing at No. 6,[228] Judas Priest's best-seller British Steel[33] and Motörhead' s Ace of Spades at No. 4,[46] while Back in Black by AC/DC reached number one.[39]" - Who says it was memorable? All that is cited here is a bunch of chart listings.

Removed the adjective. Lewismaster (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Is this really the best source available for NWOBHM bands appearing at the Reading and other festivals? It does have a lot of primary source material, but it is not collated together in a reliable way, as the site is a fan site.

Fixed with the posters of each event. Lewismaster (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Kerrang! was a huge success and soon became the reference magazine for metalheads worldwide,[246]" - does Christe call it a "huge success," or is that an extrapolation? I agree with some of the other editors that this article does have issues with having a promotional tone, and this is an example. If Christe uses the term "huge success," then I would put it in quotes, so it's not Wikipedia-voice making such a statement.

Christe writes: "Kerrang! instantly became a metal bible" (p.38); Macmillan writes: "The public reaction was unprecedented (and entirely unforseen), the result being that the metallers' bible soon became a regular sight on the shelves of newsagents nationwide" (p.21); Tucker writes: "For emerging NWOBHM bands, a dedicate magazine was a real shot in the arm"; Waksmand defines Kerrang! "the first mass-circulation music publication devoted to heavy metal" (p.171). Is it enough to call it a huge success? Lewismaster (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

No, because "huge success" is not an encyclopedic tone. A more neutral and less informal wording needs to be chosen.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixed.

• "The attention of international media meant more record sales and more world tours for NWOBHM bands, whose albums entered many foreign charts." - Only the charts are supported by the references, not the world tours.

Added references. Lewismaster (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• "The UK had been a music video pioneer. These suddenly stepped up from occasional promotional fancy to an indispensable means to reach an audience when MTV started broadcasting in 1982." - Perhaps re-write as "The UK had been a music video pioneer, and video production stepped up from occasional promotional fancy to an indispensable means to reach an audience when MTV started broadcasting in 1982.

Rewritten by Lingzhi. Lewismaster (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Moreover, music videos exalted the visual side of a band, an area where British metal groups were often deficient.[273][274][275]" - Looking through the sources, this sentence apparently is entirely original research. There's nothing in the AllMusic bios cited to support the claims here.

Actually Rivadavia remarks "a far from attractive visual aesthetic (i.e., they were four crusty English dudes with handlebar moustaches, bad hair, and even worse teeth)"" for Grim Reaper, the fact that Handsome Beasts obtained "more notoriety in their time because of frontman Garry Dallaway's enormous girth than their actual music" while "The idea behind Mammoth was to present an alternative to ‘pouting’ rock bands such as Poison and Bon Jovi, with the music, rather than the image", which was of bald and fat men. I changed the sentence a little. Lewismaster (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• "A few of the best known groups, such as Praying Mantis in Japan and Saxon, Demon and Tokyo Blade in Europe, survived in foreign markets." - Why is "in Europe" mentioned here?

Mainland Europe, outside the UK. Lewismaster (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• "A new publication called Classic Rock, featuring Barton and many of the writers from Kerrang!'s first run, championed the NWOBHM revival and continues to focus much of its attention on rock acts from the 1980s." - Can we please get a better source than Blabbermouth for this?

Blabbermouth is out of the picture. Lewismaster (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

If all of these issues can be addressed, along with those already being discussed but are as yet unresolved, I'd be happy to support this article's promotion to FAC.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I will start working on the issues that you raised. It will take a while to convert all the references. Lewismaster (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm willing to convert the references yourself, if you want, and free you up to work on my other observations.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm still struggling with this style of referencing which I never used. But I'm willing to learn and I think it would be better if I do that work by myself. Thank you for your offer. Lewismaster (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I still need to find more tour info and find out some more references. I hope that this is shaping up better. Lewismaster (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

3family6: I wrapped up the modifications to the text. There are a few issues to be discussed to complete the process. I'm waiting for your input. Lewismaster (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The problems I found have been addressed. The only outstanding issue for me is the "movement" or "period" discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

3family6: We all have noticed that the sources use various terms to indicate the NWOBHM: "genre", "scene", "period" and "movement" are the most commonly found in the texts. I guess that the ambiguity so often reclaimed comes from the inconsistency of the sources in using only one term, but I don't think that they used the terms casually or as a form of promotion. Macmillan and Tucker cleverly avoided in their books to enter in a debate that obviously had engaged many fans and critics for a long time. However, I think that an encyclopedia should be clear about what something is or is not. The NWOBHM is not a music subgenre, because it comprises many styles and influences within the umbrella term heavy metal. It is not a "scene", because it was fragmented in multiple scenes, which remained more or less separated during the period of the NWOBHM, linked only by the articles of Sounds and Kerrang!. The NWOBHM is a "period" if you view it as a time interval when some things happened, like the explosions of new bands. It doesn't convey the info that it involved a mass of people and brought about musical and cultural changes, like "movement" does. I don't agree with Lingzhi that a movement to be called so needs to take a political stance or demand social changes. The meaning and boundaries of social movements are also object of debate among academics.([25] p.8) Cultural and art movements were often made by innovators and experimenters without a political goal. Many avant-garde movements were born from the wish of a few people to create something outside the mainstream and this happened may times in music (see List of musical movements). I think that the NWOBHM fits in the definition of musical movement, because, despite its origin as a promotional tool and its chaotic makeup, brought innovation to a music genre and evolution to a clearly defined subculture that involved thousands of people. Waksman calls it a grassroots movement, which could be appropriate, if the word "grassroots" was not so strictly linked to political movements. Lewismaster (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"Period" within music doesn't mean just a span of time, although that is a large part of it. The Romantic, modern, and impressionist periods within Western classical music overlapped each other, because they weren't just time periods, but stylistic and social choices and changes within art music. Or, as you put it, a mass of people bringing about musical and cultural changes. I personally don't have a problem with the term "movement," but since some other editors do, I think the term "period" is the most accurate term applicable that will also resolve the qualms of objecting editors, since it is a well-established term within musical criticism and conveys much, if not the same, meaning as the term "movement" does.

See also my above comments in my critiques - there are a few outstanding issues that I missed when I checked over the article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand your goal of trying to reach a complete consensus, but I can't agree with you on the superimposability of period and movement. The Romantic period and Romanticism, the movement linked to it, have very different meanings. The NWOBHM was not just a stylistic musical change, it was a movement of working class people striving to better their lives. Apparently other editors agree with me and support this choice, when the nosayers could not produce an alternative to the term. As I wrote somewhere above, you can't please everybody, especially on such debated issues. The term "movement" is supported by many sources, has reached some consensus - maybe even yours - and I would settle on it. I would discuss if it is appropriate to call it "musical movement", or just "movement" instead. Lewismaster (talk) 08:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Support The article is now ready, in my opinion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your great contribution and your support. Lewismaster (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

This is what a quick search has found so far. This is from Ultimate Classic Rock (and mentions Barton and Sounds), this is from Metal Injection, and this is from All Music, this is also a feature article. I'll comment further once I've finished reading them all, I've added after a brief scan for others to also judge the quality..

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 02:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This list is for comparison really.

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 03:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

And this is from The Guardian, with what I think is one of the best lede ever.

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 03:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

What are you attempting to show with these examples?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

In the first article it does list a lot of bands, so its supportive of such issues raised earlier. It is supportive of the comments raised about Barton and Kerrang!, so consensus needed on if it's Production/Promotion or not. The next few are more for the bands who were, or not, part of the NWOBHM and is supportive of those that were the forerunners and pioneers. The Guardian is the Guardian...and the Allmusic is because it's used 'ad nauseum' on WP for a reliable source, but is little more than a stubb with Links to the bands they have listed. Just trying to help with some supportive sources is all...

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 00:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that's what I thought you were trying to do, list some sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Tony1

Comments on the title and lead (without having read any of the posts above).

1. Is there a good reason to cap the title? The fact that it's abbreviated with an initialism is not a good reason, according to our MOS and other major style guides. I see "new wave music" and "heavy metal bands" in the first para. Why not "New wave of British heavy metal" as the title?

   This is a good question. All literature that I consulted uses the capitalization as if it is a proper name. It exists on WP a redirect page [26] leading to the current page and claiming to be in accordance with the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalisation. What do you suggest? Lewismaster (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

   Lewis, books 1970–2008 on Ngram viewer gives this phrase and this, which means we'd downcase by our house style. See also within this book and the NYT Magazine. Tony (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

   Both the ngrams show more occurrences of the capitalised phrase, with both increasing in parallel at the end of the available time range. How do these support the lowercase version? --Mirokado (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

   If by "more occurrences" you mean 98% vs 2%, yep. But it's more like 60/40, in which case we downcase. See WP:MOSCAPS: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. ... words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." 40/60 is not "consistently capitalised". Tony (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

2. "The New Wave of British Heavy Metal began as an underground phenomenon growing in parallel to punk and largely ignored by the media, which, only through the promotion of rock DJ Neal Kay and Sounds campaigning, reached the public consciousness and gained radio coverage, recognition and success in the UK."—This is a hard sentence for the poor readers to digest. What about something like this?: "The new wave of British heavy metal began as an underground phenomenon, growing in parallel with punk and largely ignored by the media. It was only through the promotion of NWOBHM by rock DJ Neal Kay and Sounds' campaigning that it reached the public consciousness and gained radio coverage, recognition and success in the UK." But the end is still uncomfortable ... it reached into the public consciousness and it gained radio coverage etc? Can it be recast into a more logical order? should "coverage" be "radio playtime" (if that's the term)?
3. working class musicians ... hyphen needed.
4. "who suffered the hardships brought on by rising unemployment for years after the 1973–75 recession"—should it be "who had suffered"?
5. "As a reaction" ... maaaybe "In reaction"—unsure. Or " recession; these people created ..." (the causality being fairly apparent).

   "As a reaction to their bleak reality" sounds better. Lewismaster (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

6. "It evolved into a subculture"—I think "This" would be better here.
7. The US authority CMOS says use "that" over "which" where you can. It's good advice, in BrEng too: "... values that were quickly accepted". And consider "quickly adopted"?
8. "the almost immediate spread of the music to the US, Europe and Japan"—would "style", or "movement", be good instead of "music"?

   The movement was not exported and remained firmly British; there was not a single style to be exported, so music appears the best term to be used in this case, IMO. Lewismaster (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

9. "and fusing it with the intensity of punk rock, producing fast and aggressive songs"—you might like "and fusing it with the intensity of punk rock to produce fast and aggressive songs"; up to you.
10. "Among them, only Iron Maiden and Def Leppard became international stars, although Motörhead and Saxon also had considerable success." Second "only" in two sentences. It's ok, but consider: "Among them, Iron Maiden and Def Leppard became international stars, and Motörhead and Saxon had considerable success." That would also avoid the repetition with the "but" in the next sentence.
11. "the late-1980s and 1990s"—no hyphen.
12. "Many bands from the New Wave of British Heavy Metal reformed in the 2000s"—I read that as the usual meaning and pronunciation (reformed). I wonder whether "re-formed" might be clearer.
13. Not sure you need the "new" at the end.

I introduced in the lead section most of yours suggestions. Thank you very much. Lewismaster (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It's an interesting topic, and a harder write than a normal popular-music theme. Tony (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

That's for sure. A well developed and deeply informed article on a full blown genre at FAC. Joy. Ceoil (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you justify the capping in the title? Tony (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

What is written above is all that I can say. What should I do? Lewismaster (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Lewis, see my links inline above. Tony (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

A requested move was posted at Talk:New Wave of British Heavy Metal#Requested move 24 April 2016. Lewismaster (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• [27] Tony (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Tony1 on the capitalization thing. The sources do not uniformly capitalize this and similar phrases; if the sources are not consistent, MOS:CAPS has us default to lower case. This was already on my list of over-capitalized article titles to take to RM, and I just noticed the FAC on it. We don't even capitalize entire music genres, so we would not capitalize a sub-sub-genre. Capitalizing this is like capitalizing "Belgian Techno-Industrial Dance Music". We are capitalizing overarching "movements" that transcend specific genres in the arts (e.g. Classical music, and Art Nouveau), though I'm not sure why or whether the preponderance of off-WP style guides would support that. I think this is specifically what leads to the urge to capitalize things like "Dubstep" and "New Wave of British Heavy Metal"; people mistake it for a "capitalize all arts categorization labels" idea, which it is not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Please, support the move at Talk:New Wave of British Heavy Metal#Requested move 24 April 2016. Lewismaster (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, just hadn't got to it yet. Had to hit the train to work.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tony1: The move was executed. Do you have more issues with the article? Lewismaster (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Support

• "The NWOBHM involved both musicians and fans who were largely young, male and white and shared class origin, ethic and aesthetic values." Should it be "shared class origin and ethical and aesthetic values."?

This sentence was changed by at least 5 different editors. I think that it should stay as it is now. Lewismaster (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• "newly-found" ... please no hyphen after -ly adverbs (WP:MOS).

Fixed.

• covered it "intensely" ... I think "intensively" would be better, but it's up to you.

Changed

• "News about the bands and music circulated by word-of-mouth and fanzines, or through interested DJs, who travelled the country from club to club. Neal Kay was one of those aforementioned DJs who started to work in 1975 at a disco club called The Bandwagon in Kingsbury, North West London, housed in the back-room of the Prince of Wales pub and equipped with a massive sound system." I cringe when I see "aforementioned", "hitherto", "wheretofore". Can it just be removed, since "those" is already a backref? Without a comma before "who", it looks like that all started to work in 1975 at that club ... really? Better perhaps: "Kay was one of those DJs; he started to work in ...". That would avoid the same comma plus "who" that the previous sentence has.

Changed.

• Normally I'd object to the density of reftags; but you've fine-knitted specific refs that are typically from different pages and/or sources. Good.

I haven't gone through all of the text, but I think it's worthy of promotion. Well done indeed to the writers. Tony (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Lewismaster (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposals

Ceoil

Not withstanding the semantics and cultural sensitives above, Support for an highly informed and diligently researched article on a subject very dear and close to my aging heart. I'm especially impressed by its awareness of contemporary social and political trends, and placement and evocation of the climate of the not often lamented early UK late 70s / early 80s. Hugely enjoyably read, though I'm more ex Oi! than ex head. We don't see this awareness often anymore in metal, or many pop cult articles. Its a leading example, bough down unfairly, imo. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, Ceoil. Apparently the discussion will go on for a while. Lewismaster (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Nuro

(edit conflict)*Supportive - I have read through Lewismaster's responses throughout the page and have been convinced that 'Movement' is the appropriate term to use. My brief reasoning is this: The amount of other 'Movements' in this 'period' of music, happening at the same time, puts into such a category. The lack of Politics is inconsequential.
The issue of Blue Wikilinks....well I've seen many a FA or just GA littered with them, massively. As to the Promotional use of 'anything' by Sounds or Kerrrang! I think this is nit picking, as the magazines at the time were the only source for the kids to get info on any of it. So that trumps the Promo thing for mine. The list of bands....I suppose my only suggestion to this is that the Pioneers and more Famous acts at the beginning of the movement get a primary mention and the leasers have a separate section. I don't know, I've nothing to really help on how that part of the article reads, it all subjective.

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 01:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I listed the band for periods and I think that this solution works best. Lewismaster (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support - for the record I support the term Movement being used. If this is in the wrong pkace please reassign this post.

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 01:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Lewismaster (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Support from Mirokado

This subject is way outside my comfort zone, so I may notice anything which is not clear from context.

• Lead:
  • The DIY attitude of the new metal bands led to a diffusion of raw-sounding, self-produced recordings and a proliferation of independent record labels. Perhaps "the spread of" instead of "a diffusion of"?

Fixed.

• Social unrest:
  • deprived of the prospect of a job as factory workers or clerks that had befallen the previous generations: people are "deprived" of something they would like, but "befallen" by something they do not like. The juxtaposition of these verbs here is contradictory. How about "deprived of the prospect of a job as factory worker or clerk that was available to the previous generations" (also avoiding singular/plural confusion to make the phrase more readable).

Fixed.

• • not all working class male youths were taken in by the punk movement: rephrase to avoid "taken in by" which means "accepted by" (and in British English can also mean "deceived by"). I think "not all working class male youths embraced the punk movement" ("embraced" is probably better than "joined" here).

The results of a couple of editors... fixed.

• Heavy rock in the UK:
  • two quotes without inline attribution.

Fixed.

• References:
  • Column widths: A fixed number of columns for template:Reflist etc is deprecated in favour of a specified width, which works better with wide monitors. It also seems odd to have the columns for the references (citations) which are all long lines, narrower than the columns for the notes which are a mixture of long and short lines. Please consider one of the following:
    • have full line width for the references (citations) like many other articles. In that case the subheadings could be moved inside the reflist container to reduce the subheading font size.
    • make all the column widths the same (notes are currently 30em).

Fixed at 30em.

More later, it's a long article! --Mirokado (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Identity and style:
  • British heavy metal fans, commonly known as muthas, metalheads, or headbangers for the violent, rhythmic shaking of their heads in time to the music: does the source say that "muthas" is a British term in this context? I am familiar with it as an abbreviation in African-American vernacular and the derivation is different from the other two names. (I see later on Metal for Muthas from EMI so this may be just a usage I have never heard).

The term mutha was commonly used in British comic books and in music magazines to indicate a menacing character or an outcast. I added references. Lewismaster (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Well done. The reference for Muthas helps with that term and also illustrates the occurrence of the NWOBHM phrase in lower case along with its acronym. --Mirokado (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• • In the last part of the 1970s: Would "Towards the end of the 1970s" read better?

Yes.

• • did not translate in ...: Preferring "did not result in ..." or "did not turn into ...".

Fixed.

• • and in a journal British sociologist John Clarke "a reaction against the erosion of traditionally available stereotypes of masculinity".: I'm afraid there is a verb missing in that phrase.

Fixed.

• Visual aspects:
  • long hair and wear jeans: I presume that should be "worn jeans"?

Fixed.

It's fair to say that I now know more about the New Wave of British Heavy Metal than I would ever have wanted to if I had heard of it before now! This is an entertaining read and I am sure I will support it... --Mirokado (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• References:
  • Barton, Geoff (July 1980). "Phil Lewis Interview". Sounds.: Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBarton1980a. You can install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors to see problems like this. --Mirokado (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This was the reference for a removed quotation. Fixed. Lewismaster (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for those updates, everything I mentioned is fixed. Now supporting. --Mirokado (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Apparently there is still much work to do. Lewismaster (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Support I think the article satisfies the FA criteria and is ready to go. I appreciate Lewismaster's willingness to resolve all of the issues raised by the other reviewers and I think the text has been scrutinized in detail and all omissions have been solved.--Retrohead (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Lewismaster (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.