Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Live Intrusion/1

Live Intrusion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: keep Clear consensus that problems have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has two paragraphs, one heavy on technical data on recording and release, the other paraphrasing of the two available reviews. The rest, tracklisting and personnel, are lists transcribed from the DVD. The lack of info is the case here partly because there is no original work in this DVD - it's even called "marginal". Some articles aren't cut out for a GA assessment and don't allow for broad coverage (on background and development/writing and themes, recording, artwork, promotion, commercial performance, reception). This article fails in that category - in actual content it's a near-stub. Hekerui (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "development/writing and themes" because each of these songs have been released before and making such a section would be pointless. The "Conception" section includes information on recording and production/development. There is a reception section already, and there is no way to add a commercial performance section because it really never did anything commercial and was never really promoted. And also, the GA criteria does state: "This requirement (It addresses the main aspects of the topic) is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." CrowzRSA 15:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not write a "composition" section, even though this is a DVD, you can explian each tracks genres, professional reviews, writing and inspiration, production and development of each track. Similar to album articles. If you need examples, if you want to consider this, I'll give you some example articles. Best, AJona1992 (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to CrowzRSA I gave the list of possible things to cover to show that aside from the current sparse content nothing else is in there. If there is no more content available as you say, you can't write a substantial article, which is a minimum requirement, and you may never get there. There are many articles that don't have this content available, especially compilations and works similar to this one, and they are informative all the same. This has nothing to do with FA standards, but with upholding a miminum standard for awarding GA class. We're in this for the reader and marking this as GA is in my opinion misleading. Assessing broad coverage is more than checking boxes on the existence of sections. Hekerui (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to AJona1992 I'm sure CrowzRSA would have included coverage of these specific versions if there was. The songs were released before so general detail on them would be a duplication of the individual article or description for the studio recording. Hekerui (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article may meet GA criteria, but it may not meet notability guidelines. Does it meet WP:MOVIE? The article states it is marginal, and that it had few reviews, and those reviews mentioned are not the most secure of sources. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the GA criteria:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
It has a well written prose quality.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
The article complies with Wikipedia's Manual of Style
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Everything is properly cited.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
All sources meet WP:RS

C. No original research:
I found no WP:OR
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Wikipedia's Manual of Style (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film) (this is a video, not an album) says that a film article must cover a film's Plot, Cast, Themes, Production, Release, and Reception. The contents section can be considered a plot section, since it explains what goes on in the film, the cast is listed in the personnel section, we have decided that discussing themes is not needed, Hekerui even agrees there is no need for a themes, or "composition" section. The film's production and release are talked about in the conception section, and there is a fair amount of information on the album's reception. Some of the things that Hekerui said the article needed are listed as "Secondary content" in Wiki's Manual of Style, and the rest was already covered in the article. The following is what Hekerui said the article needs:Background and development Y talked about what is needed (Production)—Writing and themes/composition N agreed not to be included in article.—Recording Y Even though nothing is mentioned about recording in MOS:FILM, the article does talk about the film's recording.—Artwork N MOS:FILM says that "if available", to provide information on Home media, but it is not available, so it is not required,—Promotion N Production is not talked about in MOS:FILMS—Commercial performance N The article had no commercial performance, and MOS:FILMS says to give a box office "if possible."—Reception Y labeled as Critical reception.

B. Focused:
Focused
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
It is neutral and is not bias.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
It is stable and is not undergoing any edit wars
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Image looks good

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
A picture of the cover art is all that is needed.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If you disagree please comment. CrowzRSA 19:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.