Talk:Live Intrusion/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AJona1992 (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

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:

Lead

"The video received positive reception from the few critics that reviewed." do you wanna say something like this Live Intrusion received positive reception from the few critics that reviewed the video.?

Fixed CrowzRSA 21:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Conception

"including a picture from the mid-1990s who had "Slayer" carved onto their forearm." do you mean this including a picture from the mid-1990s , about a fan, who had "Slayer" carved onto their forearm.?

Fixed CrowzRSA 21:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, is it really necessary to have the prices of the release(s)?

I think it really just adds to the article and really isn't necessary, but the article's size is so short, so I think it looks better with as much information that I can get. CrowzRSA 21:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Critical Reception

Not sure what "marginal" means, can you wiktionary it? [1]

Fixed CrowzRSA 21:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Track listing

Instead of this "The following list can be verified by Allmusic" how about, placing it at the bottom of this section, rewriting it as "Source:"?

Fixed CrowzRSA 21:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Notes, I'm going to put this  On hold for you to work on the concerns, everything else looks fine. You should have no problem fixing the article in less than a day! Good luck. AJona1992 (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Its alright, just wanted to know why. There seems to be a problem with the section Personnel, the ref#15 code seems to be broken. Can you fix that, real quick? Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed CrowzRSA 21:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll pass the article, since you have addressed the concerns. Congratulations, AJona1992 (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)