Talk:Welcome to Our Neighborhood/GA4

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

The article seems to have improved somewhat since the last GAN. However a few problems still linger with the article.

• The article is missing a Production and Recording section. I would like to know where and how the band created this video album, for what reasons, and who produced and edited the video album, etc.

I have reorganized the article to have that. Asides from what is in now, I cannot find any references that are reliable. is this ok? Nergaal (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure if fan sites fits Wikipedia's idea of a reliable source. But I think its okay since it contains useful info. —Terrence and Phillip 06:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Added it. Nergaal (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

OpiumofthePeople is a fan site and not genreally considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Same goes for Black-goat and various other Slipknot fan sites. blackngold29 14:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

They were used as backup sources. Anyways, I moved them to the external links section. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• I want to know the full content of the video album other than the music videos for Spit It Out and Wait and Bleed. If it was a recorded live performance; what was the track list and what songs were performed in what order. Also what kinds of bonus material does the video album contain?

how's now? Nergaal (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Better. Looks good. —Terrence and Phillip 06:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Is there anything else for the Reception section? Like reviews from critics, including quotes from the critics expressing their opinion about the video album.

nothing reliable in the critics world. Nergaal (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• The lead could be expanded, summarizing what the video album is.

any specifics? Nergaal (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Voliminal: Inside the Nine and Disasterpieces leads can be an example, although it does not have to be exactly the same. —Terrence and Phillip 06:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Expanded a bit. How's now? Nergaal (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess its good enough. —Terrence and Phillip 18:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Fix the external link properly.

done

• Characterized as a band's "home video"; what do they mean as in "home viedo"? Can it be explained or given a citation if it is part of a quote?

It is a quote. Nergaal (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If its a quote, any reference to who said that? If there's none, then just leave it. —Terrence and Phillip 06:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think the Chart positions section should be between the Personnel section and the Release history section, per MoS.

done

The article seems mostly stable with a minimum of edit wars, a fair amount of in-line citations from sources, and the licensing of the image seems fine by me. I'll put this article on hold for one week for editors to fix any remaining problems. —Terrence and Phillip 05:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The article seems to now meet the GA criteria.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The article is promoted to GA. Great work. :) —Terrence and Phillip 18:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)