# Talk:VIVIsectVI

Who exactly is the 'Green guy' referenced?  Might be worth noting. 66.191.19.68 (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Skinny Puppy FAQ can't decide if "green guy" is a marijuana dealer, marijuana itself, or Phil Spearpoint. http://home.earthlink.net/~coreygoldberg/faqraw.txt  Kaleja (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyone care to post the band photo contained in the album? Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs)

According to this interview the band photo is by Kevin Westenberg, not Gilmore. Most album articles don't go into artwork/layout credits... Kaleja (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on VIVIsectVI. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sloth.org/samples-bin/samples/group?entry=Skinny+Puppy
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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 02:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Just following up here. Whups you are right, it was for the Ministry album stating that. Regardless, its still better not to interpret sources like this. Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, it states ". Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context." I do not actually disagree with you on this genre for the album myself, but I also want a source that is more explicit. Does that make sense? Genres are so tricky to do on wikipedia sometimes! Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely, that makes perfect sense. I appreciate you wanting to make the article more accurate. I'll change the genre now. CelestialWeevil (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Hopefully we'll get more details and specific info about the genre for the album in the future. Great work with the article by the way. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

cEvin put this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOzZIY_A2VM&feature=youtu.be video up unlisted on his YouTube account. It's neat for anyone interested in the 1988 arrest story. I would cite it, but I can't find what news station broadcast it CelestialWeevil (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:VIVIsectVI/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 00:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be reviewing this over the next couple of hours. Just skimming the article, it looks to be in pretty great shape. Will write more here as I go... did it all in one go: Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Infobox and lead:

Sources for everything in the infobox found in article prose.
"Despite tackling controversial topics..." reads like a run-on sentence, and there's quite a hefty chunk of the article's content squashed into that one sentence. Maybe everything there could be expanded slightly? For one, it'd probably be better if you could find a way of explaining that "Dogshit" and "Censor" were actually the same song.
Background

All grouped references should be in numerical order, i.e. at Mushroom Studios, Vancouver in mid-1988.[7][6]. I see other instances of this happening in 'Composition' (refs 19 and 18), in 'Themes and lyrics' (ref 42 followed by 12), in 'Live performances' (ref 53 followed by 39; ref 56 followed by 14; ref 54 followed by 52), 'Critical reception' ("[39][53][48]") and in 'Track listing' ("Sample(s)[37][62][20][25]")
"to something more abrasive, industrial, and complex." sounds a bit Weasel-ish. Can you change this to "... to a more elaborate form of abrasive industrial music."
I don't really understand "The lyrical and thematic elements of the music were refined and made more of a focus on the album." Can you find a way to re-word?
"(Ogre's)" can be removed, since he's name-checked earlier that same sentence so it's obvious the sentence is referring to him.
Composition and content

"...album that is at once rhythmically simple and deeply layered, repetitive and aurally complex." Again, this reads quite weasel-y. Can it be rephrased to be a bit more blunt/direct?
I'm happy with the prose for rest of this section, including 'Samples' and 'Themes and lyrics'
Artwork

I once seen a user going through every single Wikipedia article and removing every use of the word "comprised" from the website. I didn't understand why they bothered doing that, and I personally have no problem with you using it. But if you see a random user coming along to the article after promotion and changing that word alone, now you know why. ;)
Live performances

"doing vocals" and "manning the synthesizers" seem a bit too informal/colloqual... "with Ogre on vocals, Goettel on percussion, and Key performing synthesizer." maybe?
Brilliantly written section. Fascinating, even. The level of hypocracy left me shaking my head.
Release, Track listing and Personnel

Nothing I'd change here.
Chart positions

Made a minor edit to this section.
References

Please see the point in 'Background' for an issue related to this section.
Is ref 7 ("Wired Special – cEvin Key of Skinny Puppy") a TV special or web/magazine interview? If it's web/mag, then this ref needs an ISSN, which are both available at Wired (magazine).
Ref 14 ("A Doggone Close Call for L.A.'s Skinny Puppy". Chicago Tribune.) is available online, here. Probably a good idea to include the URL if it's available.
I'm happy with the rest of the references (both formatting and quality), although I'm not too keen on ref 62 (skinnypuppy.eu: a fan site). It's only used to confirm the samples, but if a better source can be found, I'd suggest using that. I'm not gonna make a big deal about it if you keep it, though.
Images

Infobox image has appropriate FUR.
Sound files have appropriate FURs also.
I was sketchy about the band photo in 'Composition', but I see from the FUR that Dave Ogilvie is camera-shy, so I'm happy to leave it there for identification purposes. Maybe you could expand the caption to state who is who?
The "test shot" in 'Artwork' could use a more descriptive caption too. Why is it important to have another non-free image there?
Copyright

Earwig's Copyvio Detector tool: "No matching sources found." 5 sources hovering around the 20.6-26.5% range (green/"no violation likely"); all direct quotations, which the article keeps to a minimum.
I'm happy to pass this once the key issues are resolved/responded to. Well done with the article, @CelestialWeevil: I listened to some Skinny Puppy's work years ago, but couldn't really get into anything other than "Assimilate", "Fascist Jock Itch", "Tin Omen", and a couple of songs off their then-recent album ("Politikil" and "Ugli"). Knowing a bit more about their history might inspire me to give all their albums another listen... starting with this one. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: Thank you so much for this review! You brought up some fantastic points, and the article is better now for it. I believe I addressed everything. I agree with you on the dubious sample reference, by the way. I've been looking for good alternatives for a while. If I can't find one soon, I'll take it out. Thanks again, and let me know if I missed anything! CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @CelestialWeevil: I'm satisfied with the changes you've made to the article. Happy to promote now. Well done! Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Formatting

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: