Talk:Zaireeka

Old comments

""Riding to Work in the Year 2025 (Your Invisible Now)" as featured on Waiting for a Superman EP includes an extra line. The verse before the your invisible now section features this extra line."

What does that mean?

"Your" vs. "You're"

It seems that folks keep "correcting" the references to "Riding To Work In The Year 2025 (Your Invisible Now)" to use the grammatically preferable "You're". The correct spelling in the song's title is "Your". Please refer to this photograph[1] of the booklet in case of confusion. --G0zer 01:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A line in this article stated that this album only sold 2,800 copies as of 2006, which is obviously inaccurate. This link [2] indicates sales figures of 18,000 prior to the re-release of the album in 2002. If anyone knows accurate figures up to the present then they could be added back in in place of the previous inaccuracies.

• The citation that was accidentally removed from the paragraph when you edited it contained the data about the Zaireeka sales. The data is from a biography of the band published this year. The details of Zaireeka's release are kinda sketchy, but I assume the DeRogratis book, which to my knowledge involved interviews with the band and people around them during its conception, should probably be used instead of the data from the music-artists page. If you could come up with more evidence, then we could compare and contrast the data and work something out. As it stands, the sentence (and refrence) should be added back in. -MajorB 04:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

the list of sample oggs

Should we move that to the bottom maybe? Do we want to have that many samples? --Rajah 03:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hearing Zaireeka is something that greatly helps someone to understand the point, so I think the number of samples is fine unless someone thinks that it does not follow fair use policy (which is kind of ambiguous in this case... do the versions of each song on the different discs constitute separate works? If they are considered the same work, does the fact that they are from the same section of the song nullify the no-multiple-samples rule?), then it will be debated accordingly until a consensus is reached. As for moving the table... at the time I put it in, it seemed logical to place it in the track listing, but I would not mind if it is moved. It does seem to break up the article. -MajorB 22:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Basically, I have three fundamental gripes with the article. First, there is a substantial amount of what appears to be OR; for example, see the second lead paragraph. This needs to be cited if it is not in fact OR. Second, the images do not have specific fair use rationale for their use in this article. For an example of what the image pages should look like, see here. Finally, I strongly dislike the excessive samples of the album. Not only does it detract from the overall aesthetics of the article, but it could arguably violate fair use laws. I'd recommend the inclusion of a maximum of one sample per song, and I think the article would be better with even less. Ideally, the samples should be in some kind of sample box to the side instead of their own section.

Overall, however, it's a decent article, and with a few changes, it could definitely achieve GA status. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale added to the second image, and started for first image. - Alex valavanis 09:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

All samples commented out, except for first song. This has been put in a sample box. I think it's important to keep all five samples for the song, as the 4 CD mixing is the most notable characteristic of the album and needs illustrating. However, there's not much need for multiple tracks to be included, so the total number of samples will be reduced. If you agree, I'll delete the commented out section and request deletion of the orphaned media. - Alex valavanis 10:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, work and comments. I'm going to go through and fix OR and try to put in references as needed once I get some more time (which should be soon). The article currently flows a lot better without the large table of samples... the only thing I really have to do about them is decide which sample set best illustrates the album. Also, in the second lead paragraph, is the OR section the one that states that the album defined the style of later works? -MajorB 02:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Copy edit is now completed. I think maybe this should have been done before GA nomination, so I hope it won't affect the stability criterion too badly. There's one phrase in the "About the songs" section, which I don't understand (ironically enough!): "a song about the lack of comprehension regarding events". Please could someone clarify this? - Alex valavanis 11:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I really wanted copyediting work to have been completed before nomination... Gracenotes was doing copyediting work, but he did not have the time to do a lot. Thank you very much for your work. I will also try to make that particular sentence easier to understand. In addition, I will look for more OR to cite. I'm kinda iffy about the fourth citation... the statement is definitely true in a common sense way, but I could not think of anything to cite at that moment so I cited something where an infrence could be made.

Since this is only a teeny-tiny bit away from GA, could you state what can be done to eventually push it to FA? -MajorB 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

One step at a time! :D If/when it gets through GA, we can request another peer review. I think a big obstacle for FA will be getting some "harder" peer-reviewed sources for the article. I'm not sure if the album will have been written about extensively by any academics, but I'm sure there will be something out there! - Alex valavanis 22:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to clarify that sentence. How is it now? And, is the fair use info at Image:Wayneboombox.jpg adequate? -MajorB 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also expanded the aftermath section. What do you think of it? - MajorB <talk> <contribs> - 03:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response; I had forgotten to put this article on my watchlist. Anyway, it's not clear if those two sources support all the statements in the "about the songs" section, and which sources support which statements, so if the source of each statement could be clarified, that'd be great, and I'd promote the article to GA status. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 07:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, done. - MajorB <talk> <contribs> - 13:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've passed the article; congratulations! -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 16:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Alex_valavanis and User:Cielomobile. I appreciate your work, help and comments. In fact, I am bursting with JOY! - MajorB <talk> <contribs> - 17:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem mate. Glad it worked out :) - Alex valavanis 19:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for expanding the scope of the article

If you ever want to take this article to FA status, you might want to add more about the musical elements of the album. There is plenty about speakers and playing the different disks at once, but what about the music itself? Other than "experimental rock," there is not much to give me a very clear picture of the music. Instrumentation, harmony, rhythm, etc.; something about the music would be appreciated. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 23:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea, Cielomobile. - MajorB <talk> <contribs> - 00:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured Articles about albums to help guide the process

Here are some Featured Articles about albums for us to model: Adore (album), 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?), Christ Illusion, Doolittle (album), Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), Freak Out!, Reign in Blood, Surfer Rosa --Rajah 17:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Disc 5- IMPORTANT NEWS

Recently a DVD disc has leaked that was created by the band for the 10th anniversary of this album. It contains visuals for the album, introductions by Wayne, and, most importantly, TWO MORE CHANNELS OF SOUND FOR EACH SONG- a fifth disc!

Because of it's bootleg status and the lack of official release and official sources of info, it's probably a good idea to leave it out of the article for the time being. - MajorB <talk> <contribs> - 19:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

While it's true that the disc has leaked, it is actually a part of the Zaireeka parties that are being thrown for the album's 10th anniversary. I would say that the article should be expanded to include these parties and the disc deserves mention. Zombi3 02:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Zaireeka/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will do the GA Reassessment of this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The article maintains a fairly close relation to the GA submission. It is a little outdated, sales figures go up to 2006. I'd like to see more update on how the album has fared since 2006. There are a couple of dead links, namely # [22] is dead and needs to be repaired. There is a dead links template at link 22 in the article. There's also a dead link in the External Links section for the Parking Lot Experiment. Otherwise it is fairly comprehensive, Fair Use rationale exists on the article cover art, there are audio clips available for the songs, formatting of the references is solid. If the article could be updated to 2009 that would be great but at this point I feel it remains at GA standards. H1nkles (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Should we keep the Pitchfork rating in the sidebox?

I don't remember exactly where, but there was a page here that said that almost no source is 100% reliable. And in this case, I think editorial discretion points out at removing a review that spends a large part of its time insulting the bands' fans and where the reviewer admits to never having listened to the record in the correct way. That's not to say that humor immediately barrs a review from inclusion, just that there's a (blurry, but existent) line between using humor to complement a review and a "review" where less than one paragraph is spent talking about the music. Of course, the review itself has garnered enough Internet fame to earn its place in the prose. 201.190.31.64 (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Zaireeka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051104130632/http://salon.com:80/music/sharps/1997/12/12sharps.html to http://www.salon.com/music/sharps/1997/12/12sharps.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)