Jump to content

Talk:Sarcófago

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSarcófago has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 20, 2009Good article nomineeListed

About Sarcófago

[edit]

Some interesting links: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Musicaindustrial (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interview with Brazilian Black/Death Metal band Unearthly, revealing their Sarcófago influence: [5].
  • Part II of the Novo Metal interview with Manu "Joker": [6].
  • Headhunter D.C. admitting their Sarcófago influence: [7].
  • Mystifier admitting their Sarcófago influence: [8].
  • Blasphemy ".........................................": [9].
  • Dan Lilker: [10], Nifelheim [11].
  • Brazilian heavy metal documentary featuring Sarcófago & Cogumelo Records: [12].
  • Wagner criticizing the "Sarcófago Tribute" [13].

Musicaindustrial (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query

[edit]

I'm unsure about the claim that The Laws of Scourge is one of the earliest technical death metal albums... is the source a reliable one? I can't tell. It's certainly predated by several other albums, and I wouldn't want there to be a unreliable source for an important claim to notability in the lead if the article's a Good Article Nominee. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

 The Laws of Scourge is the third album. The second is Rotting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.181.163.76 (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say yes. There are two sources for the "technical death metal" - one is the source currently being used [14] and another one is a Sarcófago interview on Brazil's biggest metal magazine, Rock Brigade.
The first source is a bio written by Eliton Tomasi, editor-in-chief of the Valhalla, one of Brazil's finest metal magazines. It had been acquired recently by Rock Hard, but is now defunct [15]. This bio is archived on the Whiplash site [16], which is roughly equivalent to a Brazilian Blabbermouth.
In the second source, Sarcófago are asked by Fernando Souza Filho - Rock Brigade's editor-in-chief - if they were steering their sound towards thrash, because their music was now more sophisticated and executed with greater dexterity. Rougly translated, Lamounier and Minelli replied:
Lamounier: "I wouldn't say that our sound has tended toward thrash, what we try to do today is what folks overseas call technical death metal, and lots of people confuse it with thrash. Bands have a natural tendency to make more sophisticated compositions".
Minelli: "We want to show that death metal has it's musical values, so that's why we keep constantly evolving".
Now, I know that Wikipedia doesn't consider bands themselves as a reliable source, genre-wise. Thats why I didn't include this second source.
And yes, I am a skeptic regarding Metal Observer's reliability. When the staff of this site considers Ministry's synthpop debut With Sympathy "punk rock" (synthpop is the polar opposite of punk) and Sepultura's Roots as "death metal", well...
And about The Laws of Scourge being thrash - how many thrash songs have you heard lately that make a nearly constant use of blast beats and death growls? Exactly. Furthermore, that album is packed with those speed-picked, cromatic single-note riffs that are a trademark of death metal. Anyway, I have The Laws of Scourge in mp3 format. I'll upload it here soon so you can judge if The Laws of Scourge is really a thrash record...
Cheers. Musicaindustrial (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re medieval painting bit... I can't read Portuguese. Does the source state which painting it is based on? Would be interesting to include that info if we know. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the source doesn't say, unfortunately... Musicaindustrial (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can download The Laws of Scourge here: [17]. Musicaindustrial (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Musica, thanks for catching that one typo. I'll look at a couple of other sections for proofreading purposes. Oh, I'm downloading that EP and will give you my expert opinion, haha. Listen, I think I'm a bit doubtful also about that claim and the authorities therefore. Besides that, I have two suggestions. The lead needs improving, especially a final, concluding sentence--ending with a note on the third album is not cohesive. You needs something more general. The other thing, the references don't look so good, esp. since the article combines a bibliography with citations in the note. I don't know what to tell you--if I were working on this article, I'd do them all as references in notes with ref templates, or do all of them in a bibliography/works cited list. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Drmies... I've read your comments. Here are my doubts:
  • About the sources: according to Wikipedia, why wouldn't these sources be that reliable? I know that this version of Wikipedia prioritizes sources in english, so that's a definite factor... That's one of the side-effects of being a Brazilian "cult" band - not much is written about you in foreign magazines.
  • Regarding the lead: what do you suggest? Maybe add another paragraph to it, dwelling on the subject of their conflicts with Ratos de Porão and Sepultura or the "Sarcófago Tribute" reunion tour?
  • Could you tell me more about the format you suggested for the references section? Sorry, I didn't quite understand what you wrote.
  • And yes, it is good thing you're downloading the album. If you're willing to, we can discuss at length whether or not The Laws of Scourge could be considered "thrash".
Best regards, Musicaindustrial (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Musica. I think the Valhalla source can stand--though it is unfortunate that it's archived on another site. The other one, that's them saying it themselves, right? That doesn't count--and my feeling is also that if it is such a big deal that it's mentioned in the lead then it should have some seriously reliable sources. In other words, maybe it shouldn't be in the lead... Mind you, I'm not criticizing you, I'm just trying to look as critically as I can, considering you want this to be a Good Article. As for that lead, I don't really have any suggestions since I don't know this band and their story. But the lead should give, in my opinion, a sort of a summary of the entire article with some salient points. At the very least, the lead should end, I think, with the end of the band--I just added a sentence saying that. See what you think. BTW, I think there are different opinions on references in leads, some saying every statement in the lead should be referenced; I disagree. I do note that the "first technical death metal album" is not actually found in the section on The Laws of Scourge, and it certainly ought to be there, reference and all. As for the references, I moved all the titles in the bibliography into templates, which makes them look better and more standardized. But look at notes 1 and 2: note 1 is self-contained (it's ugly, that bot-generated title) and note 2 refers to another section, the bibliography (if you want to find the source for that reference, you have to look up). That's what I mean. Now, Sepultura has that too, and I guess that's fine; I personally don't like the looks of it. I think, for GA, all the refs should be moved into templates--since they're compressed it's hard to see if all the revs are in templates--and they need to be cleaned up (look at note 28 and 31 for instance--and note 38, I don't know what it refers to: there's no "Impaled Nazarene" in the bibliography). It's a bit of work (the bibliography took me a half an hour yesterday), but it looks so much cleaner. Oh, you should look through the 'new' bibliography to check me for mistakes. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I should point out that there is no ImpNaz in the "bibliography" as it was simply to a CD track-listing, which isn't really appropriate for a section like that. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Baz, I know that...my point is that that reference, as it is, should refer to an entry in a Works Cited or a bibliography, OR it should be a more complete note. I'm just playing devil's advocate here, with the MLA style book in my hand--don't y'all use style manuals in genetics? ;) Drmies (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Musica, nice work on the lead. It looks pretty good. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the next day or two I'll finish the lead... Thanks. Musicaindustrial (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, The Laws sounds plenty tech death metal to me, but I'm hardly a reliable source, haha. Drmies (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Laws of Scourge is thrash metal, in the vein of the Coma of Souls album by Kreator. It is not technical death metal no matter what the band says.

GA Review

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

Hey there, I'm  GARDEN  and I'll be reviewing this for you. Go easy on me though, I'm pretty new to this process.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    No problems, although you might want to use less breaks with headers for an easier flow.
    Could you give an example of a section that could use less breaks with headers? Musicaindustrial (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, try combining two or more sections at a time for two or more albums?  GARDEN  13:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I'm going to have to assume the book sources are correct and that the Portuguese websites are reliable. I'm sure they are though, just need a little confirmation.
    Yes, the Portuguese sources are reliable... They are Brazil's biggest rock/metal magazines. Musicaindustrial (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, well, I'm not from Brazil, so... :P  GARDEN  13:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the vote of confidence ;) Musicaindustrial (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    It's very short for a band article. Is this due to a lack of sources or because they simply did not do anything?
    Sarcófago is considered a "cult" band - very influential, but relatively few people know them. A "musician's band", so to speak. Although readily acknowledged by a reputed source such as Terrorizer, interviews and articles on the band in English are rare. Even the Portuguese sources took some amount of effort to acquire - I had to dig up some rare, out-of-print rock magazines published 10-15 years ago for their interviews, purchasing them on Mercado Livre, a latin american online auction site. Coupled with that, extreme metal bands generally don't sell much, which might have limited the interest of the mainstream press to cover them. Musicaindustrial (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright then.  GARDEN  13:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Fine here.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    And here.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Loads of fair-use here - any chance you could cut down on this, or find some free-use?
    That's a tricky issue. All of the images I took are promo pictures available on the Cogumelo Records' Sarcófago page [18]. I could in touch with the record company - I don't think they would mind if I user their images - but I don't know how long would it take them to answer me. I could also could try to get in touch with the original photographers, but that might take even longer... What do you suggest? Musicaindustrial (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd probably remove them. If you remove the images the article would not be worse. Remember that by letting you use them they must give up much of the rights to them, so they'll likely be less than happy to.  GARDEN  13:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's bad... I had just e-mailed them on the issue. I used a free-image research tool provided by Wikipedia (I don't recall it's name), and the results yielded only one image, available on Sarcófago's Finnish Wikipedia site. I tried to incorporate it on the article, but for some reason I couldn't use it here. Musicaindustrial (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's alright if you've already emailed them, I just don't think they'll agree to it. The second point is a bit odd... I don't know what's going on there...  GARDEN  14:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall: Some issues outstanding, but it's a semi-decent job so far.
    Pass/Fail:
    Right, after removing the unneeded fair use I think this is okay to pass. Well done!  GARDEN  08:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

[edit]

Why are there so many sources cited in the lead section? This should be a summary of the article, and therefore should not have any citations. Anything that's in the lead should also be in the main part of the article in more detail and sourced there. Timmeh! 21:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there's a guideline on this somewhere... MOS:LEAD maybe?  GARDEN  08:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the sources in the lead section. Musicaindustrial (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.  GARDEN  13:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only Black Metal and Death metal?

[edit]

they're Technical Death Metal too.[1] [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GREYBOYY (talk • contribs) 23:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to find something that passes WP:RS to support that claim (both of the provided sources fail that). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/reviews/compact_discs/sarcofago/the_laws_of_scourge
  2. ^ http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/52625/Sarcofago-The-Laws-of-Scourge/
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarcófago&oldid=1210220812"