# Talk:The Holy Bible (album)

I think one can move this article to The Holy Bible. It would be possible to add a line like "For the Christian book of worship, see Bible.
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.22.64 (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 

A cut-and-paste move was done on this article (and the talk page) on 18 February 2010 to copy it to The Holy Bible. This move created violations of the copyright licensing for our editors' contributions and has been reverted. If anyone wants this page moved to The Holy Bible, they should follow the instructions at WP:Requested moves to start a discussion. If the consensus is in favor of the move, an administrator will help make the move in a way that preserves the page histories. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've history-merged it. That should take care of any problems. Black Kite 20:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Holy Bible (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: BelovedFreak 17:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Some more citations are needed.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
I think some more can be included but I will be able to tell better when the structure is sorted out a bit.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
It's fairly neutral but I wonder if some more reviews would balance it out a little.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
No edit wars; all recent edits appear to be by the GA nominator to improve the article. It's not clear how stable the article is however as editing seems to be ongoing even after nomination.
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): 
One non-free image with appropriate rationale; other images are free and as far as I can tell are properly licensed.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I can see you've put a lot of work into this article recently. It's not quite at GA level yet. I'm not sure if it can be done in one review, or if there will be too much, but we'll give it a go! I will be comparing the article to the criteria at WP:WIAGA.


### Second look
Ok, since you've put a lot of work into this, and it's quite different from how it was. You've pretty much addressed my earlier concerns, so I'm going to review it as if from scratch. I have a few concerns (listed first) and then a few more suggestions that will have no bearing on the GA but you can use if you want to.

Concerns
In references, what is currently #15, "Epic Records" - it's not clear exactly what this means, or how one would verify it
This is due to the "cite video" template only reporting one of the fields. I have changed it to "citation". The source is the DVD on the anniversary re-issue, which contains footage of various TV appearances, concerts and videos from the period. --FormerIP (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
You have used "Richey" sometimes, when it should be "Edwards" - in quotes is ok, but surnames should be used outside quotes
I could only find one example of this and it is now fixed. --FormerIP (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Page numbers
Sourcing of clips
I have removed this paragraph and included instead further information about sleeve imagery, which can be sourced to the CD sleeve. --FormerIP (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Further suggestions (not obligatory!)
It would be helpful to have the release date of the previous album in the first section. (eg. its previous album, 1993's Gold Against the Soul or its previous album Gold Against the Soul (1993), just for a bit of added context
Done. --FormerIP (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the structure looks much better, and I don't know if you agree, or if it was a pain to change it all, but it flows better now in my opinion. Further to that, I would consider moving some of the lyrics info (and maybe even info on Edwards' health) further up, purely because some of the info in the recording section would benefit from some addition context. (I'm thinking in particular of Edwards snoozing on the sofa, drinking & crying).
There may be a bit to much quoting, it might be better to try to paraphrase some of the quotes a bit more and not having as many direct quotes.
images tend to be laid out alternating left & right, so you could move, for example, the hospital photo to the right for more visual balance
Done. --FormerIP (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
you should probably convert the weight for out metric friends, (not in the song title of course, but in the explanation about its meaning). You can use {{convert}} for that
Done. --FormerIP (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Your questions on my talkpage
The balance is fine. If there aren't any negative reviews, then that's fine, and I think it's neutrally written, and you're right that the discussion of poor chart performance balances it out.
Don't worry about the citation formats. I've fixed several, but consistent formatting is not required for GA (it would be for FA, and it's generally desirable, but not a GA req.) It's also something that you will ick up after a while. One of the problems is the different templates available. I hope you don't mind that I changed some of your "cite web"s to "citations", just because they do render the citation very slightly differently, and "cite web" doesn't allow a "newspaper" field. Another thing that I think you were coming a little unstuck with, is the fact that the "newspaper" and "work" fields automatically put the title as italics, so there's no need to specify italics in the references, for print sources. On the other hand, for non print sources like websites, in order to get them out of italics, you have to do the opposite of what you would normally do, and put them between ''s.
As for the page numbers, it's not a problem where we have a link to an online version, but it really would be better to have page numbers for the offline reviews and interviews. Don't remove any of the info, but let's see if you can find them somehow. I will try to find out whether it's really vital for the GA criteria to have page nos, but in the mean time, it might be worth asking at relevant wikiprojects to see if anyone has the relevant issues and can provide a page number. There's also WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, where some very helpful folks hang out. Someone there may have the magazines.
Paragraph on sound clips could really do with secondary sources, but it is technically verifiable by checking the album itself.
I think you're being a little soft on me there, but I'll not complain and will try to add secondary sources. Are primary sources for the origin of the clips worthwhile in your opinion, or should I concentrate on secondary sourcing? --FormerIP (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmm.. I suppose I was expecting that the clips are mentioned on the liner notes or something, but perhaps they're not? I was also thinking along the lines of when you write about the plot of a book or a film, you don't necessarily have to add secondary sources, as the book or film itself can be the source. In this case though, it would count as WP:OR to just use the music as a source. Unfortunately I think we'll have to lose that paragraph if we can't source it. [1] for example, doesn't look reliable. Sorry to mislead you there! If we can't source it, I'd move it to the talkpage and hopefully later on, something can be found.--BelovedFreak 08:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
So, really, it's very close to passing. I'll place the article on hold for a week or so to allow you to address the concerns, and for me to clarify how vital page numbers are. Good work, and let me know if you have any other queries.--BelovedFreak 18:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to check the lead; could you add, say a sentence each, about touring and the 10th anniversary edition to the lead?--BelovedFreak 16:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Done. --FormerIP (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, given the work you've put into this, and following various discussions, I'm happy to list this as a GA now. Good work!--BelovedFreak 10:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not know, what the Melody Maker wrote 1994, but the song is titled “4st 7lb” there is no plural s. There should be a “lb” or if the Melody Maker's spelling was “lbs” ther should be a sic! --Diwas (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC) See Talk:Manic Street Preachers#4st 7lb // 4st 7lbs // 4st 7 lb // 4st 7 lbs // 4 st 7 lb // 4 st 7 lbs --Diwas (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but this material is just awful and impossibly subjective. WP is an encyclopedia, not a fansite, and we have guidelines against this sort of thing (see above), which is why I removed it. "The album won widespead [sic] critical acclaim, and is frequently cited as one of the greatest albums ever made" - what does it mean? How widespread? How frequently? Cited by whom? Greatest of all albums, including every jazz, black metal and grime album? Do you know how many pages make that claim about "described/cited as one of the greatest albums ever recorded" and how it easy it is to find one or two reviews or listener polls where a hyperventilating music critic or random self-selecting electorate has claimed as much for most albums at one time or other? Simply saying it is reflected in the body, or that we're not explicitly claiming it is one of the greatest albums, doesn't cut it. N-HH talk/edits 09:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead section of an article is intended to provide an overview of the body of the article, so it's perfectly correct for the lead of this article to include a one-sentence summary of the "reception" section. Aside from the typo, this sentence appears to do a reasonable job of that, and the questions you raise - fair enough in themselves - can be answered by reading the article. They don't all need to be answered in the summary. If you suspect reviews have been cherry-picked, that should be addressed by bringing balance to the reception section. I don't know how many articles make similar claims, but each one just needs to be examined on its merits. Formerip (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
There's ways of summarising information for an encyclopedia lead without borrowing the hype of music reviewing and random polls. The point of asking the questions was not because I wanted to know the exact answers, but to demonstrate how meaningless such descriptions are on their own terms. Anyway, I read through a few of the reviews cited here. Most of the ones selected are, unsurprisingly, favourable, some very much so. However, despite all that, none I saw talked about "one of the greatest albums ever made". Four random polls - out of the 1000s of such polls and critics' lists that presumably have taken place around the world - 100s in the UK - over the years are cited, one with it at no 18. Even allowing for the general pointlessness and capriciousness of such polls, and contemporary bias, that is not "frequent". As our guidelines suggest, we should either pick a specific, attributed piece of praise or poll-topping, or summarise what is there more broadly, but factually - eg something to the effect that it has appeared in the top 20 in some recent best album polls. N-HH talk/edits
No, "frequent" does seem to be fair. If you browse through this (not RS, but nontheless it seems fairly reliable), you can see that, since The Holy Bible was released, the NME did all-time polls in  2003 (THB didn't rank) and 2006 (THB ranked 37). Q did one in 2011 (THB 21), 2008 (THB 27), 2006 (THB 69), 2003 (THB 18), 2001 (THB 10),1998 (THB 41). Mojo did one in 1995, which didn't include THB (although, let's face it, that poll was never going to include an album less than a year old). Kerrang! did one in 2005 (THB 10). Melody Maker did one in 2000 (THB 15). Classic Rock 2006 (THB 43). The Observer 2003 (THB 99). Uncut, Metal Hammer, Vox, Select, The Word and The Face appear never to have done an all-time poll.
As far as the British press goes, at least, I don't see how this can fail to justify the "frequently cited" wording. Formerip (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Or, as I suggested, something more simply like "has appeared/continues to appear in [several] magazine best-album polls". That's just as valid a conclusion and wording - the problem is that this whole issue is far too subjective, at every level. Critics or readers contributing to these polls are not defining some objective level of greatness, they are simply telling us what their favourite albums are, most likely from a fairly limited genre pool. When, in turn, the page here uses the words "frequently" and "greatest" and therefore talks about it being rated as one of the Greatest! Albums! Ever! we are adding our own interpretation onto the bare facts. As noted, it's simultaneously boastful and staggeringly uninformative. Are we seriously going to have some variation on this wording for every album that's been noted in the top 100, say, in more than four such polls, including those run by MixMag, Classical Music Listener, Barbershop Monthly et al? Having said that, we seem close to that - this problem is a plague across WP and doing anything about it seems a lost cause. People have too much invested in their favourite bands and albums. It looks as daft as finding "muesli is regularly cited in food polls as one of the best breakfasts ever" on that pageN-HH talk/edits 15:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd say general questions about how many appearances in what polls justifies what language or about how comparable albums are to popular breakfasts belong on some other talkpage.
In the particular case, we have two proposed wordings:
...in the UK, it is frequently cited in polls as one of the greatest albums ever made. (current wording)
...it has appeared/continues to appear in [several] magazine best-album polls. (your proposal)
I really can't see much difference between the two. The main difference is "several" vs "frequent" but, as I said above, I don't see how "frequent" can possibly not be justified in the case of an album that features in 11 out of 12/13 polls it could have qualified for in what seems like a comprehensive survey. Then there's "best" vs "greatest", which I'm happy to give you. There's "appear" vs "cited" which, again, you're welcome to. And there's the word "magazine", but one of the polls cited in the body was for TV. I think "UK" should be specified. Formerip (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I get what you're saying... your point is very valid; this article is styled quite different to, say, an article on muesli, which is merely a factual description of the product. I suppose that's because the majority, including me, are more interested in art in this way than, say, muesli (generally). In that sense, though, shouldn't the mere fact that people are so interested in it and that it is one of, if not, the main focus of interest around the subject overwrite any obligations we may have to be strict and make Wikipedia mirror Encyclopedia Britannica, or the like? It's an interesting dilemma: should we be completely factual and write all articles like the one on muesli, or accept that our human nature makes us interested in reading certain things, and just go along with it?
I am personally in the latter boat, as it's this very aspect of Wikipedia that made (and still does) me appreciate the website and join in the first place. I think it's one of the things that makes Wikipedia better than the text book-style stuff – personally.
But then again, this could all just be entirely because I'm an art fan... Lachlan Foley (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
And some people are food fans ... anyway, look, I'm a music fan. But whenever I come across this kind of wording, which is transparently put there to squeeze as much out of some critics' descriptions short of actually claiming it as WP's own, my heart sinks. For an album I like, it comes across as desperate or defensive; for an album I dislike, it simply makes me laugh. Pretty much every album, even in obscure backwater genres, has WP editors and critics who rate it - the former will seek out and cite the latter and we end up with thousands of albums reportedly described as "landmark", "a masterpiece", "most influential/best album ever made" etc. As for the comparison noted above between the current wording and my proposal (which btw is not necessarily exactly how I'd prefer it - for example, on reflection, I would add some reference to "rock"; and am more comfortable with the limitation of the claim to the UK), I think there is a difference that goes beyond mere semantics - noting simply that it has appeared in best-album polls reads far less bombastically than explicitly asserting it has been cited as one of the "greatest" albums "ever made". The latter addition in particular is, surely, redundant? N-HH talk/edits 09:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


### Still POV/weasel problems with lead
After noting recent genre changes (see section below) I can't help but notice that this phrase is still here. Sorry, but it really is problematic as currently phrased. It offers no context or even the vaguest attribution. N-HH talk/edits 12:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"The Holy Bible received significant critical acclaim, and is considered one of the best albums ever made in the history of music." - Ummmmmm, is this a joke? I mean, it's one of my all-time favourite albums too, but this phrase made me laugh out loud. Is it really appropriate for Wikipedia? Seriously? Why not "It is considered the absolute bestest album anybody anywhere has ever made in the history of the entire universe - BY MILES."

If that phrase has ever been in the article, it probably lasted about two minutes. Formerip (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, no, it has lasted a lot longer than two minutes, and these sort of weasel phrases have been removed in the past and re-added by manic Manics fanboys (see what I did there?) who wish to assert forcefully that they are the "BEST BAND EVA!!". I think this page, a long with the other more popular Manics articles, need to be consistently monitored for this. Lachlan Foley (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The infobox recently acquired a whole set of extra genres here. I know these things are subjective and a little random at the best of times (let's leave aside whether there's even much point when it comes to micro-genres), but I'm not sure about some of the additions: it's not really a punk or gothic rock album as such, and post-punk as a genre is surely fairly time-specific? There may be elements of or nods to those styles/genres on the album but I think it's hard to argue that it falls within them outright. Even if one or two writers have noticed the links – and I'm not sure what the page of the Simon Price book cited says exactly – wouldn't it need something a bit more than that? Otherwise pretty much every album, for example, that features a lap steel guitar on one track suddenly becomes a "country" album. N-HH talk/edits 12:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

NME source notes the "goth music" elements. I also remember reading a book source in which this album was classified as gothic rock; however, I think that'd not be enough for classification. I also think that the hard rock classification is somewhat contradictory to what has been written about this album's style (considering that it is actually a shift from the band's previous hard rock sound). The best would be to keep it as solely "alternative rock", I guess.Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that the personnel section was actually adapted from the CD sleeve. Allmusic gives also credits Wire as composer. Does anyone have copy of the album/album sleeve to justify the actual credits? Myxomatosis57 (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to contradict, but the personnel section was actually adapted from the CD sleeve. It looks like AllMusic are not distinguishing between words and music and have just listed all band members as "composer". Formerip (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the Background section in articles, specifically album-related articles in this case, is to provide a summary of the events leading up to the creation of the album. Does this differ from other people's understanding? Lachlan Foley (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

And the Background section is present, it is divided in Sound and recording so it meets the definition of Background: a summary of the events leading up to the creation of the album. It is my opinion, I am very much open to hear other opinions in order to improve the article. User:Rhanas Sing! 23:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but there is currently information on the album's recording included under this heading, whereas "leading up to the creation of the album", in my view, means prior to recording. On most articles I've contributed to there is generally a separate Recording heading. Lachlan Foley (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Disagree, I tend to include the recording in the  Background  section because the album is not finished after the recording, many changes can occur during the recording, and the recording leads up to the album itself. Other people can contribute to this discussion and decide, I made my point. User:Rhanas Sing! 00:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
At the moment, though, we have a section with only one sub-section, so the section could safely be retitled and the second-tier heading removed. I'd also note that, although the section-sub-section is titled "sound and recording", it doesn't actually talk about the "sound" of the record. It says a bit about music that influenced it and then talks about the recording process. So I would say just title the whole thing "recording". I don't agree that "background" should include the recording of the record. It would be about things leading up to the recording, some of which we have in the article, but not organised into a single section (although I'm not proposing it should be). Formerip (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I propose the merging of 4st 7lb into this article. The song lacks independent notability, and looking at that article's sources there is no reason why this track should have its own article and not any other non-single track, since the sources are all from articles about The Holy Bible and not the track in particular. 165.228.231.15 (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose merge. When Lachlan Foley was indefinitely prohibited from adding notability tags (broadly construed) to articles (discussion on ANI), he took 4st 7lb to AfD the same day. Consensus was clear. It was not delete. It was not redirect. And it was not merge. It was keep. I see that Binksternet on your talk page writes that you are Lachlan Foley logged out. --Sam Sailor Talk! 23:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this suggestion is from Lachlan Foley logged out. Nothing has changed since the AfD resulted in keep, so there's no reason to raise this suggestion. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)