Talk:Welcome to Our Neighborhood

Fair use rationale for Image:Welcometoourneighborhood.jpg

Image:Welcometoourneighborhood.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Just commenting the intro says more than the article itself... and it is not even a B-class article... Nergaal (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles do not need to be assessed as B-class before being nominated for GA. We nominated it for GAN because we believe it is as comprehensive as it is going to get. I'll work on the introduction a bit; I'm sure some can be moved to the body. Gary King (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article is organized this way because if all of the information in the intro was also again mentioned in the body, then it will be repetitive because of the close proximity of the content. Some of the information, such as the list of music videos, is shown in list format in the body but in prose in the lead, so it isn't a problem. Gary King (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Since it is a video, what about runtime, cast? Also, use the official website to add a bit more. Nergaal (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

or this Nergaal (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Slipknot-metal and Opium of the People, are not official sites, or reliable sources. It's good info, I'd like to use it, but we need a better source. Blackngold29 04:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah neither of those sites are official or reliable, they are fan sites. You also ask for the cast and runtime? The runtime is in the infobox and the "cast" is in the (wait for it) "Personnel" section, lol wtf? REZTER ^TALK ø 18:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Welcome to Our Neighborhood/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

On first glance, this seems to fit the criteria of GA. Give me a little time to go through it. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• You can't describe what the "additional concept imagery and interview footage" included? What it was about or what it contributed to an understanding of the band and its music?

• Upon consulting with another editor over the brevity and incompleteness of this article [1] I feel that currently this article does not meet the requirements of GA because it contains no reliably sourced information on the critical reception, impact, oimportance of this release. With more work, if this album is notable, there should be such well-sourced information available to include.

Therefore, I must fail this article as a GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think your reasoning for failing this is bullshit, tbh. Look at the project other work... we go out and LOOK for sources, write up good and featured articles and when we tell you there isn't any more information available... you should believe that. It's like you think we've been lazy just on this article and thought "yeah that'll pass"... this is NOT the case. There are no more reliable sources. End of. REZTER ^TALK ø 17:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Please understand that I am not saying that you were lazy and did not work hard. Perhaps the subject is not notable enough if there is not reliably sourced information available.

As stated in reasons not to pass an article for GA: (from Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles)

1. It appears that the article is as good as it will ever get, and will never meet the standards. (Not every article can be a Good article. If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria.)
2. The editors of the article have obviously spent a considerable effort improving the article during the Good article review process, and even though it doesn't meet all the criteria, it is much better than it was when it was first nominated.

You are free to ask for a reassessment or a second opinion. I certainly do not want to be unfair to you. That is why I asked for a second opinion, [2] before I failed the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Addendum: I reviewed this article at the request of Gary King. He participated in a conversation regarding this article when I asked another editor for a second opinion and seened to agree with the result.

This is what I wrote regarding the first article but it pertains to this article also, as the second opinion addressed both articles:

As you know I have had significant reservations regarding this article for GA. You were part of the conversation when I obtained a third point of view on the issue: [3] [4] which supported the view that this article is not GA material and should perhaps be merged with the band article or even AFD. You seemed to agree with this assessment. [5] Therefore, I feel I cannot pass this article for GA on the basis that the article content and references do not support that the article subject is notable, that the article contains little information on the impact, legacy or effect of this demo on the band or anything else, and that the article is so short, even if it does contain all available information. The absence of available information on the subject may merely support that the subject is not notable enough for reliable sources to be available. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

confused

why is:

People wanted to see what made Slipknot tick, and, ready for it or not, the band delivered with the comprehensive Welcome To Our Neighborhood DVD. A study in the roots of Slipknot, it includes their earliest music videos as well as interviews and behind the scenes footage.

trivia??? And why is this page including only the video-albums and not the entire list of contents? 17:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC) http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/slipknot_welcome_to_our_neighborhood/ -->

What is the source of your quote ("People wanted...")? I cannot find it on the Rottentomatoes link. Blackngold29 18:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The source was the roadrunner website and it's trivia because it's more of an advertising paragraph than anything, it has no reason in this article I believe. Just because it's a short article doesn't mean we should fill it with unneeded information. I also removed surfacing and scissors from the "Music Videos" list because they are not music videos. Scissors is mentioned in the paragraph just before that and if need be you can add Surfacing in to the paragraph but it does say it include live footage. REZTER ^TALK ø 11:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Welcome to Our Neighborhood/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)