Talk:Disasterpieces/GA1

GA Review

What makes the following reliable review sites:
- http://www.seaoftranquility.org/reviews.php?op=showcontent&id=2715
- http://www.moviefreak.com/dvd/s/slipknot_a.htm
- http://www.rockezine.net/asp/rez_areview.asp?ID=862&review=Slipknot%20-%20Disasterpieces%20(DVD)
  - SoT was a printed magazine from 1998 - 2001,[1] but it was originally and is now only a web magazine and has been running since 1995. MovieFreak review a lot of Movies and DVDs and offer an RSS feed of their reviews, it seems to be ran on some kind of submission system by reviewers and features a team of reviewers. I'm also usnure of how a review of a product on a website needs to be "reliable". It's not like an opinion can be contested. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, SoT is fine. The main issue is verifying the fact checking/reliability standards of the source being used; if we allowed any opinion in because it can't be contested (which is true, it can't), we'd be filled with fan reviews. But we don't so we're not - hence we take reviews from reliable sources. A good way to assert reliability is if another reliable source does, or if it's used as a source for a site like Rotten Tomatoes, for instance. I can't see anything indicating reliability here (can you?), and what about Rockezine? —Giggy 12:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well they are both review sites rand by small teams of reviewers (see RE here) again I'm unclear on how an opinion can be seen as unreliable (and having a reliable source acknowledge it is a bit flimsy IMO) but if need be you can remove them. And if you're going to aks if there are more reviews then I don't think there are because these are all I could find. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could Image:Disasterpieces-Crahan.jpg be replaced by a free image? (Expand the fair use rationale as much as possible if no.)
- No there is no free images from the performance, what is wrong with the current FUR?. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing terribly wrong; just most image folk like to see a few lines of solid text there for a "satisfactory" FUR. —Giggy 12:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have expanded it a bit, but I'm not exactly sure how much more it can be expanded. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Disasterpieces was recorded at the now defunct London Dockland Arena in England on February 15, 2002, it was one of the final dates on the bands European tour which was subsequently their final tour until 2004." - who is "their" referring to?
- The band.... Slipknot. "it was one of the final dates on the bands European tour which was subsequently their final tour until 2004." REZTER ^TALK ø 12:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ooops, sorry, my bad - I totally missed that (I knew it referred to the band from the lead; the point was that a reader might not read the lead... but then I didn't see "the band's" there). —Giggy 12:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"which is all documented on the DVD" - somewhat lax/non-professional prose...
- Reworded. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to split these big paragraphs up into multiple paragraphs?
- I have split them up, take a look. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.... no Blabbermouth.net review?
- No they have only ever reviewed one of Slipknot's products. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"however it was declared quadruple platinum on November 18, 2005 to become the best selling product from the band to date." - not sure if you should be using "however".... seems like more of an "and" situation...
- Done. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And please leave me a note when done. Cheers —Giggy 11:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]