Talk:Still Reigning

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleStill Reigning is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Good topic starStill Reigning is part of the Slayer discography series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 16, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
February 19, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
March 26, 2007Good article reassessmentListed
June 28, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
December 15, 2010Featured topic candidatePromoted
August 15, 2011Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Failed GA[edit]

This article won't meet GA standards until you provide a source (preferably inline) on every statement. If this is already met, I apologize for the misconception, and will pass it. If not, fix it, relist it, and it'll probably be passed. DoomsDay349 01:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got your message on my talk page. So, you're saying that in a paragraph where two statements appear, the reference covers them both? If so, I will be glad to reverse my decision and pass the article. DoomsDay349 20:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can check the references to verify if you want. M3tal H3ad 00:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Failed (again)[edit]

Please try making the necessary improvements to the article and waiting, this article (as it seems above) has been repeatedly nominated in the past month. The article will not pass unless the following changes are made and any others

  1. This article needs some expansion, however only expand it if the info is worth it, if its not relevant info in which you are adding, ignore this
  2. Cite all your sources and format them properly, there are about three number 1's and three number 2's.
  3. Try not to repeat information (eg it was recorded at ?? centre in 2004), its highly annoying and this could stop it from passing in future.
  4. Add the relevant interwiki links to it, such as on dates etc (see [Wikipedia:Wikify|Wikify]]). Please consider being patient and waiting, repeatedly nominating it will just make it look like the article or nominator is desperate for it to become a good article. Thanks.Tellyaddict 22:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It either needs expansion or it doesn't. Is it as comprehensive as one would demand of a Good Article? It could probably use a little more on context and critical reception but I don't see any glaring omissions.
  2. If they're from the same source they share a number. Refs look fine to me in that regard. Some of the sources look a little less than hot but this isn't an FAC.
  3. See WP:LEAD. The lead should summarise the article. If they tell us in the lead it was recorded in 2004, they should tell us the same in the body - just with more detail.
  4. What links in particular are missing?

Now, I've never seen this video, don't listen to this band, and I'm not saying this should or shouldn't be a GA. I just see a bit of a shortage of informed reviewing going on here. --kingboyk 01:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kingboyk - the discussion has been resumed at Good Article Review. LuciferMorgan 20:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many dates wikilinked unnecessarily; this is distracting.
  • Still needs more copyediting for grammar/punct. etc. though I made a first pass at it.
  • Why no mention in the lead of the awards the video received?
  • Any controversy? Anyone saying that it represents a decline in moral values of modern society etc etc etc blah blah blah?
  • Will look again later.
  • --Ling.Nut 21:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All full dates are linked properly per WP:DATE, and shouldn't be delinked.
  • Obviously, heavy metal is controversial for that all the time, however this video has no specific controversy. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say the dates were improperly linked; I said there was absolutely no reason to link to them. But "As you wish." :-)
  • I emailed some stuff to LuciferMorgan that may be useful for this article. --Ling.Nut 16:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those emails are now in the possession of M3tal H3ad, the primary author of the article. LuciferMorgan 10:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, if I find anything else on this particular topic, I'll email it to M3tal H3ad. Good luck with the article! --Ling.Nut 13:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:HannemanRainingblood.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:HannemanRainingblood.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Still Reigning. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Still Reigning. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Still Reigning. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Still_Reigning&oldid=1195502164"