# Talk:So Far, So Good... So What!

I'm not at a point where I feel I can evaluate this for WP:GA (or even B-Class), but I can offer some advice for making this article ready for at least one of those levels. It is possible in the future that a proper reviewer may disagree with changes resulting from my suggestions; again, chalk this up to my inexperience at reviewing. I hope the following is helpful.


### Lead
The first sentence is too long. It should be split into two sentences, probably at the comma (the first sentence explains what the article is about, the second sentence talks about when it was released and re-released).
Is there a release date (January Xth, 1988)?
"it also charted in several other countries as well" – Redundant. Remove either "also" or "as well".


### Background and production
"A new guitarist, however, would take a while to emerge." – Awkward. "However, a new guitarist would take a while to emerge."
"It was discovered however, that Reynolds was not up to the task of recording," – "It was discovered" is grammatically questionable at best. "However, Reynolds was not up to the task of recording,"
"Mustaine has since stated" – This is the first instance of Mustaine's name in the article proper (ie not the lead or infobox). It should be "Dave Mustaine" and be wikilinked here. All future mentions of his name in the article should be unlinked and just "Mustaine", except for his first mention in the Track Listing section and the Personnel section (in other words, apply this from "Background" to "Touring"). This also applies to all other people mentioned in the article proper.
"Reynolds' firing." – Belonging to Reynolds is "Reynolds's". Only omit the second "s" if the sentence refers to something belonging to several things ("I went to my parent's house" means I went to the house that one parent owns, "I went to my parents' house" means I went to the house that both of my parents own). Or change to "the way he fired Reynolds."
"To mix the album, the label had turned to Paul Lani," – "had" is unnecessary, omit.
"To mix the album, Lani had relocated" – "had" is again unnecessary, omit.
"Mustaine has since criticized his "pedestrian" mixing efforts," – which "his"? Lani's or Wagener's? "Mustaine has since criticized [name]'s "pedestrian" mixing efforts,".


### Music and lyrics
"According to music critic J. D. Considine, So Far, So Good... So What!" – Mention where Considine is from (Spin): "music critic J. D. Considine of Spin magazine".
"According to music critic J. D. Considine, So Far, So Good... So What! displays music performed at "volumes approaching the threshold of pain",[9] featuring fast guitar solos, multiple tempo changes and technical proficiency.[10]" – This sentence makes it look like Considine also spoke of the solos, tempo changes and proficiency, when it was someone else who talked about that. Maybe rearrange the two halves, or split into two sentences.
"Despite the positive overview, "Anarchy in the U.K." received some negative criticism, partially because it lacked the rebelliousness of the original version.[14]" – This sounds like it belongs more in the Critical Reception section than the Music and Lyrics section.
"The lyrical themes on the album explore variety of subjects," – "explore a variety"
"Unlike the traditional topics related to heavy metal music," – I would remove "the", and wikilink heavy metal music.
"the sixth track "In My Darkest Hour" contains" – Mentioning which track it is is unnecessary. "the song "In My Darkest Hour" contains"
"Dave Mustaine revealed that he tried to write" – "revealed that he" is unnecessary. Just say "Dave Mustaine tried to write".
""Anarchy in the U.K." features lyrics written by John Lydon." – This makes it sound like Lydon was a guest writer for the album or something. In fact, I think this belongs in the Songs section, where the song being a cover is discussed. That would be a better place to mention that the lyrics were incorrectly heard by Mustaine too.
"The lyrics on the Megadeth cover were" – Use "on the Megadeth version" or "on Megadeth's cover".


### Songs
"The album's opener "Into the Lungs of Hell" is an" – Missing commas. "The album's opener, "Into the Lungs of Hell", is an".
"He was a Metallica member from 1982–83," – "He was a member of Metallica from 1982–83,".
"and was dismissed just before they recorded their debut album" - In American English (which this article should be written in), bands are singular entities. Omit use of "they" or "their" when referring to a band. "and was dismissed just before Metallica recorded its debut album".
"He later admitted writing" – Did he lie about where he wrote the song before? If not, "admitted" sounds like he did, maybe use "He later said that he wrote the lyrics".
"nearby the Loon Lake." – "the" is unnecessary. Omit.
"doomed to prompt death." – "doomed to a prompt death." or "doomed to die promptly."
"during the introduction part." – "part" is unnecessary. Omit.
The paragraph break in this section looks rather arbitrary. Why is it there? I think this could all be one paragraph.
"Mustaine had found out through word spread," – "word spread" is not a phrase. Use "word of mouth".
""Hook in Mouth" is a declaim against censorship" – "declaim" is a verb, not a noun. ""Hook in Mouth" declaims censorship".


### Critical reception
"highly acclaimed Peace Sells... but Who's Buying?." – Omit the period at the end per MOS:CONSECUTIVE.
"He concluded his review by saying "amid today's" – Add a comma after "saying".
"Writing in Spin, J. D. Considine" – "Writing for Spin" or "J. D. Considine of Spin".
"felt that the record was step in "genuine maturity" for the band." – Not sure what "was step in" means here. Replace with "showed a".
I thought Christgau hated metal. I just don't get that guy. (Nothing to do with the article, just something I felt like mentioning.)
"As opposite, Adrien Begrand from" – "As opposite" is not a phrase. Use "Conversely,".


### Touring
"The tour that followed after the album's release" – "after" is redundant. Omit.
"He further revealed that drummer Behler was appointed little earlier because" – "was appointed little earlier" is nonsensical. I'm not sure what exactly this sentence is getting at, so if that can be explained here, I can offer some advice, or feel free to change it to something that makes sense.
"However, some problems did occur during the" – "However, some problems occurred during the".
"Bassist David Ellefson admitted that" – Again, sounds like he was lying earlier. Use "said that".
"before the record was officially released." – Had it been "unofficially" released? Nothing in the article states that, so just use "before the record was released".
"During 1987 they toured with other" – Change "they" to "the band".
"During 1987 they toured with other thrash metal bands" – Who?
"bands at number of European venues." – "bands at a number of European venues."
"The following year they teamed up" – "The following year Megadeth teamed up"
"Later in 1988 the group made appearance" – "Later in 1988 the group made an appearance"
"Later in 1988 the group made appearance at the Monsters of Rock festival, but was dropped from the line-up after one show." – Looking at the MoR article, it looks like there was only one show, so I don't see how they were dropped from the line-up. Omit everything after the comma.
"Los Angeles Times published that" – "Los Angeles Times reported that"
"The record eventually went platinum" – "platinum" should be wikilinked.


### Track listing
Move Mustaine's credit to the Track Listing template. "all_writing = Dave Mustaine, except where noted<ref>...</ref>".
Remove "feat. Steve Jones", this is already mentioned in the Personnel section (where it belongs).
"Johnny Rotten" redirects to "John Lydon", add a piped wikilink pointing to John Lydon.
Uncollapse the bonus tracks per WP:COLLAPSE (boxes that toggle text display between hide and show should not conceal article content) and Template:Track listing (not a long list or several lists).
In the main album track listing, "(instrumental)" is shown in the note parameter. In the bonus track listing, "(instrumental)" is shown in the Lyrics column. Pick one.
Total length for the re-released album with the longer song and bonus tracks?


### Personnel
Per WP:MOSALBUM, don't use multiple columns unless the number of people involved is more than 20. Remove all the v-align stuff.
Per WP:MOSALBUM, show all personnel using the same format: Name – role. Don't use "Engineered by so-and-so". Role means "production", not "producer" (like how we say "drums", not "drummer").
Use ndashes (–), not hyphens (-).
Per WP:ACCESS, do not use pseudo-headings using semicolon markup. Instead use equals signs (in these cases, 3 on each side, ===Megadeth===). If you don't want those subheadings to show up in the Table of Contents, then add {{TOClimit|2}} to the article, immediately after the lead.
Change the heading "2004 remix and remaster" to "2004 re-release". That it was remixed and remastered is already mentioned earlier in the article.
Instead of having random hanging references, include a sentence above "Megadeth" that says "All credits taken from [source].<ref>...</ref>"
"Lead vocals" redirects to "Lead vocalist", include a piped wikilink.
"Backing vocals" redirects to "Backing vocalist", include a piped wikilink.
"Audio engineering" redirects to "Audio engineer". Change the piped wikilink.


### Charts
Looks fine, I will assume you have double-checked each individual chart position with the given source.


### Certifications
Looks fine, again, I will assume you have double-checked these.


### References
Ref 18 – Pillsbury 2006, p. Figure 3.6. – Is there a page number where this Figure can be found?
Ref 29 – Ultimate Guitar is not a reliable source per WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. Find a replacement or remove that info.
Ref 34 – Use Template:Cite AV media notes, not Template:Cite book.
Check that all sources comply with WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. It's probably okay if a source is not listed there (although it wouldn't hurt to ask at WT:ALBUM), but if a source is listed there explicitly as a source not to use, don't use it.


### Bibliography
Other than Mustaine's book, each other book is cited only once. I personally would include those solely as References, not as part of the Bibliography. However, a proper reviewer may say that this is OK, I honestly don't know.
If all books are kept in the Bibliography, they should be organised alphabetically by last name.


### Other
The article is part of two hidden categories: [[Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters]] and [[Category:CS1 errors: dates]]. See if you can figure out where these are coming from and eliminating them.
Anyway, I hope that helps improve the article to the point where a GA or B-Class reviewer can come in and have little to say before promoting it to that level. If there are any questions about what I've said above, feel free to ask. As I'm not a reviewer, there is no obligation to follow what I have said above, but consider why I have made that suggestion (and ask if unclear). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


### Some comments of my own
First of all, thanks for the review. I'm really glad that more experienced user had gone through the entire article, and must say, all of the points make sense. I've took care for 90% of them, and here are some questions about the remaining.

I haven't found a reliable source mentioning the exact release date of the record. The back cover only says "Ⓟ 1988 Capitol Records, Inc. © 1987 Capitol Records, Inc."
Sounds good.
Any suggestions how to split the opening sentence in the "Music and lyrics" section?
According to music critic J. D. Considine of Spin, So Far, So Good... So What! displays music performed at "volumes approaching the threshold of pain".[9] Duncan Strauss of the LA Times described the album as featuring fast guitar solos, multiple tempo changes and technical proficiency.[10]
OR
Duncan Strauss of the LA Times said the album features fast guitar solos, multiple tempo changes and technical proficiency.[10]
Again, suggestion how to re-formulate "features lyrics written by John Lydon".
I don't think you need the sentence saying who wrote the lyrics at all. Move "The lyrics on Megadeth's cover were slightly mistaken because Mustaine claimed he had heard them wrong.[17]" to after the sentence ""Anarchy in the U.K." is a Sex Pistols cover, which quickly became a staple of the band's live set.[20]" in the Songs section. This way you keep all the information on the song in one place (easier for readers), and the sentence saying it is a cover shows that the lyrics weren't Mustaine's (plus the track listing credits explicitly say who wrote them).
The first paragraph in "Songs" discusses tracks 1-4, while the second discusses 5-8. That's why they are separated.
Sounds good.
Is it necessary to list all five bands that accompanied Megadeth on their European tour?
No, but if any were bigger bands (I don't know that they were), it might not hurt to list one or two. But it's up to you, I just was wondering as a reader of the article who they toured with.
As for the Ultimate-Guitar source, I'll leave it until I find a more suitable one.
Alright, but that might hurt a GA review; I doubt many GAs have unreliable sources supporting their information.
Listed the books from "Bibliography" per author's surname. I think its better to leave them that way since it doesn't significantly affect the quality of the article.
Sounds good.
Choosing between the "piped link vs redirect", I think I'll go with the second one.
Why? What's wrong with having piped links linking directly to the article in question?
I'll leave the arrangement in the "Personnel" section as it is because of aesthetic reasons and per WP:IGNORE.
I really don't think you should WP:IGNORE WP:ACCESS (nor do I think you should ignore WP:MOSALBUM). It exists to make articles accessible to everyone, not just to able-sighted readers. Can you give a good reason why sight-challenged people should not be able to fully enjoy the article? If not, you should fix the headings there. Per WP:IGNORE, you should only ignore a rule if it prevents you from improving the article, and I don't see how making the article harder to read for sight-challenged people is an improvement. (In case you're wondering, it's based on how screen readers read the information given and speak it to the person on the computer.)
I also don't think you should WP:IGNORE WP:COLLAPSE (nor do I think you should ignore Template:Track listing). Again, this is to allow all readers to read WP articles, not just some of them. Really, does uncollapsing the bonus tracks really make the article harder to read?
And again, I don't think you should ignore WP:DASH. Incorrect punctuation just makes the article look poorly written.
Again, thanks for the help. It was a nice experience.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

My replies are in-line. Glad I could be of help! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I've addressed some of the points that were left. Replaced Ultimate Guitar with Blabbermoth (although I don't understand why is Blabbermouth a more reliable source than Ultimate-Guitar, since their report is not even authorized) and listed the more notable bands from the tour (with no disrespect towards Lääz Rockit and Virus). As for the issues that weren't addressed: I believe that adding piped links is unnecessary since it only overloads the article with bytes that aren't needed; furthermore, it makes the existence of redirects pointless. The "all_writing" template is ignored because it displays a comma after the reference, which I can't figure out how to remove it.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Redirects also exist for when someone types in something in the search bar that isn't the correct article title. Also, Wikipedia isn't worried about a few bytes here and there. Regardless, you should change the Audio Engineering link, as it is already piped and pointing to the wrong article.
Have you come up with a good reason yet to make this article harder to read for sight-challenged people? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
It should be pointing to audio engineering. Furthermore, I retrained the Ultimate Guitar reference. It is an interview with Jeff Young done by a member of the website. The text is authorized and is not self-published, which makes it good to be included on Wikipedia. As for the remaining two issues, they apparently are not listed on WP:GACR. Anyway, if the reviewer insists on having the list of personnel done the way you propose, I guess I'll have to change it then.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Why should it be pointing to Audio engineering? The correct article is Audio engineer. Audio engineering is just a redirect.
Using the Ultimate-Guitar source (which is definitely not a reliable source) will cause the article to fail WP:GACR, 2b. Just FYI. Blabbermouth, on the other hand, is considered a reliable source, and changing it to Blabbermouth was the right move. I recommend changing it back.
Can you explain what your problem is with changing the headings to proper headings? It won't affect the layout of the Personnel section, just make it more accessible to all readers. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Did two of the three notes you had. As for the personnel arrangement, it is separated into columns for rationale use of space and better overview. If you look at other GAs, you can notice that some of them also use fake headings. Anyway, since that is not listed in the good article criteria, it probably isn't worthy for further discussion. Must say huge thanks for the grammar corrections. I was a little surprised to find out there were so many of them.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
No problem, glad I could help. Good luck with the review!

This review is transcluded from Talk:So Far, So Good... So What!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: LazyBastardGuy (talk · contribs) 18:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I think I'll take this one. Stay tuned.
I'm looking forward to collaborating with the editor with the coolest username. And sorry if the recent changes somehow disrupted the reviewing process.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks, haha. More people seem to like it than are offended by it, which is weird considering how I was warned about it early on... Anyway, sorry I haven't actually started the review yet, for what it's worth it's looking pretty promising. LazyBastardGuy 06:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I just did an overall edit for grammar and tone, but along the way a few things confused me.

This isn't important, but it bothered me a bit - is "proficiency" an objective term?
I agree. It doesn't sound quite neutral. I suggest something like dexterity or efficiency? Which one do you think fits better?
Probably should avoid a reference to this outside of the Reception section. Perhaps we should reference another quality the album has? LazyBastardGuy 20:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
So far, the only thing that got my eye was the "improved guitar work", but that is just opinion from Mike Stagno of Sputnikmusic, certainly not suitable for the lead. I think we should somehow modify the controversial word so it can fit the lead since it's cited by the majority of the critics.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I think a good synonym is "ability". It's more neutral and merely implies that one is capable of something wihtout saying to what extent; "proficiency" is too loaded. LazyBastardGuy 00:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
"The same sentiment of disillusion and nihilism" as their previous album, perhaps?
The book cites the previous two albums, so I put two.
Where is Loon Lake?
The story in Blabbermouth says "MN cemetery". I suppose MN is short name for Minnesota. Unfortunately, there are four lakes in Minnesota with that name.
Do you suppose you could use another source and narrow it down to one of them? Otherwise, we could probably say "near a Loon Lake" or something like that. LazyBastardGuy 20:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the sentence should state "near the Loon Lake cemetery in Minnesota". I assume that not all four lakes have cemeteries nearby.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I suppose that would work. I mean, if someone wants to come over from WP:Minn to correct us I'm sure it'll be okay. LazyBastardGuy 00:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
"...the pair of power ballads turn the tempo into moderate pace." What is this trying to say?
Six of the tracks are performed at fast tempos, while two of them are mid-paced.
In my last edit to the article I attempted to clarify it... did it work? LazyBastardGuy 20:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Yep, reads fine.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
"However, some problems occurred during the Australian leg of the tour. The band was forced to cancel these shows because of drug issues." Were they able to do any of these shows? If not, then "problems" can be boiled down into one variety - the drug issues that prevented them from playing the shows. In that case, just say, "However, the band were forced to cancel..."
Well, I removed the source which contained an interview with a band member who spoke about that tour. According to his saying, the band was able to perform the rest of the tour dates, but drug issues along with personal conflicts between the band members were the two main reasons for cancelling the concerts.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The way it's written still implies that all the dates were canceled. Do you want to put "some of these shows" instead of just "these shows"? LazyBastardGuy 00:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll start evaluating by the criteria soon, but I wanted to get these out of the way first. LazyBastardGuy 19:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

All four points have been addressed.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll put the criteria here and I'll make another edit later to evaluate the article.
Is it well-written?

Clear & concise?  Done (that's basically what we were just doing)
Manual of style compliance?  Done
Is it verifiable with no original research?

Is there a list of citations consistent with guidelines?  Done
In-line citations from reliable sources?  Done
No original research?  Done This one's harder to verify considering I don't have the books the article uses as sources, but that's okay. I'll just assume the statements that don't have citations on the end are cited by the closest citation to follow them.
Is it broad in its coverage?

Main aspects?  Done Probably the shortest album article I have yet reviewed. Short, sweet, to the point and it holds your interest. Awesome.
No more detail than needed?  Done Definitely; see previous comment.
Is it neutral?  Done
Is it stable?  Done No reason to say otherwise.
Does it have images where reasonably expected to have images?  Done Only image used is the album cover, and its use is appropriate.
This article definitely passes. It's practically a textbook example of a GA album article - I wouldn't say it's only got the bare minimum of what it needs, but it needs no more than it's got and it's got no less than what's needed. Well done! LazyBastardGuy 18:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Must say I'm a big fan of your reviews. Moreover, you're the reviewer that provided the biggest input in my GA nominations.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on So Far, So Good... So What!. 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.rollingstone.com/artists/megadeth/albums/album/96934/review/5941254/so_far_so_good_so_what
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 08:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)