Talk:Slipknot Demo/GA2
GA Review
[edit]Hi, I will be reviewing your article for GA. Feel free to contact me on my talk page or to answer here. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- The article has some {{fact}} tags on it that need to be addressed.
- This is a very short article that does not describe its subject very extensively. Is this all that is known about this demo? Perhaps a Legacy section or more about its influence or importance? Or how it was stylistically influencial?
- To my knowledge all info has been included. All of the songs have been included on subsequent releases and musical/lyrical themes can be found on their articles. I'm going to remove the info with the {{fact}} tags, I guess it can be assumed they "got out" somehow, but they were only officially sent to record companies; obviously if new sources come to light the info can be re-added. Blackngold29 20:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- But isn't it important to the article that it is a rare, limited edition? What was its importance? Surely the book in your references must have something on its influence or effect, the role it played.
- To my knowledge all info has been included. All of the songs have been included on subsequent releases and musical/lyrical themes can be found on their articles. I'm going to remove the info with the {{fact}} tags, I guess it can be assumed they "got out" somehow, but they were only officially sent to record companies; obviously if new sources come to light the info can be re-added. Blackngold29 20:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- "The band were working on ..." Shouldn't be the band "was" working on?
- "In 1998 Slipknot were ..." Shouldn't be Slipknot "was"?
- Yikes; yeah. Done. Gary King (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- "In 1998 Slipknot were ..." Shouldn't be Slipknot "was"?
- Otherwise, it seems to fulfill the GA criteria. It is reasonably well-written, referenced, not very broad however, neutral, stable, with appropriate image.
Comment
- Since this article is so short, the prose can at least be elegant. The first couple of sentences in the section: "Following the release of the band's first demo album Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat., the members of Slipknot continued to write new material and work in local studio SR Audio with new vocalist Corey Taylor in 1997.[1] The band was working on new material with the intent of releasing a second demo album but never got further than pre-production."
You could figure out different wording than repeating the word "work" in adjacent sentences; also "work in local studio SR Audio" - should there be an "a" in there or something?
- Done the sentence. "work in local studio SR Audio" is grammatically correct, but I have changed it to make it clearer. Gary King (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - 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: [1] [2] 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. [3]
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.
- This article fails GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)