Talk:Welcome to Our Neighborhood/GA2

GA Review

On first glance, this seems to fit the criteria of GA. Give me a little time to go through it. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't describe what the "additional concept imagery and interview footage" included? What it was about or what it contributed to an understanding of the band and its music?

Upon consulting with another editor over the brevity and incompleteness of this article [1] I feel that currently this article does not meet the requirements of GA because it contains no reliably sourced information on the critical reception, impact, oimportance of this release. With more work, if this album is notable, there should be such well-sourced information available to include.

Therefore, I must fail this article as a GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your reasoning for failing this is bullshit, tbh. Look at the project other work... we go out and LOOK for sources, write up good and featured articles and when we tell you there isn't any more information available... you should believe that. It's like you think we've been lazy just on this article and thought "yeah that'll pass"... this is NOT the case. There are no more reliable sources. End of. REZTER ^TALK ø 17:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Please understand that I am not saying that you were lazy and did not work hard. Perhaps the subject is not notable enough if there is not reliably sourced information available.

As stated in reasons not to pass an article for GA: (from Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles)

It appears that the article is as good as it will ever get, and will never meet the standards. (Not every article can be a Good article. If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria.)
The editors of the article have obviously spent a considerable effort improving the article during the Good article review process, and even though it doesn't meet all the criteria, it is much better than it was when it was first nominated.

You are free to ask for a reassessment or a second opinion. I certainly do not want to be unfair to you. That is why I asked for a second opinion, [2] before I failed the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I reviewed this article at the request of Gary King. He participated in a conversation regarding this article when I asked another editor for a second opinion and seened to agree with the result.

This is what I wrote regarding the first article but it pertains to this article also, as the second opinion addressed both articles:

As you know I have had significant reservations regarding this article for GA. You were part of the conversation when I obtained a third point of view on the issue: [3] [4] which supported the view that this article is not GA material and should perhaps be merged with the band article or even AFD. You seemed to agree with this assessment. [5] Therefore, I feel I cannot pass this article for GA on the basis that the article content and references do not support that the article subject is notable, that the article contains little information on the impact, legacy or effect of this demo on the band or anything else, and that the article is so short, even if it does contain all available information. The absence of available information on the subject may merely support that the subject is not notable enough for reliable sources to be available. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]