# Talk:Live Intrusion

Will this be coming out on DVD anytime soon?

Image:Slayer-LiveIntrusion.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 19:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Live Intrusion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

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)

This article doesn't look like it has enough content for even a B-Class assessment. If that's all there is to cover then this article belongs in the category of articles that aren't meant to be GA-Class. I'd like to discuss this here and will probably start a reassessment later, because we need to uphold the standard of GA class articles and not let it atrophy. An article can be good and informative without the green dot. Regards Hekerui (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This is virtually all the information on this DVD. However, the GA criteria is:
YIt is reasonably well written.
a (prose):(paragraph form) Y b (MoS for leadY, layoutY, word choiceY, fictionY, and lists)Y:

YIt is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Y b (citations to reliable sources): Y c (OR): Y

YIt is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects) —It covers its conception, reception, track listing, and personnel, all that is required per WP:MOSALBUM) Y b (focused): Y

YIt follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: Y

YIt is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: Y

YIt is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Y b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Y
Besides there are a lot of smaller articles that have passed as GA, (look at History GAs, Natural sciences GAs, even Arts GAs). CrowzRSA 20:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. However, if there's not a lot of sources, thats not the editors problem. As long as the article is well written, and well above a Start-Class, then it should pass. AJona1992 (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
"not the editors problem" - we're not here to make editors feel good, and some articles just aren't cut out for a GA assessment. This is a two paragraph article, not a GA-Class work. WP:MOSALBUM is part of a wikiproject, not guideline, and nowhere does it mention that an article with almost no content should become GA. Hekerui (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Live Intrusion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305162623/http://mog.com/blog_post/content/723/2195036 to http://mog.com/blog_post/content/723/2195036
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100802040208/http://www.slayer.net/us/news/three-classic-slayer-concert-titles-be-released-dvd to http://www.slayer.net/us/news/three-classic-slayer-concert-titles-be-released-dvd
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100815080449/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=142825 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=142825
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)