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

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) reply

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

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. black ngold29 14:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

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

• 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) reply

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

• 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) reply

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

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

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) reply

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

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

• 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) reply

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) reply

• 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) reply

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) reply