Talk:Iowa (album)/Archive 1

Resident Evil?

shouldnt this mention that my pluge was in resident eveil

Done SOADLuver 02:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Shoul Iowa (song) have its own page?

Iowa(Song) Personally I Think This Should Be Given Its Own Page. Its Slipknots Longest Song To Date. (Id Rather Be Hated For Who I Am, Than Loved For Who I Am Not 10:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:Slipknot-Iowa-front.jpg

Image:Slipknot-Iowa-front.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 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 (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Slipknot Iowa.jpg

Image:Slipknot Iowa.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Section on Cover Art

There are many things in the booklet (ie. Mathematical formulas, etc.) should there be a section to explain these? Blackngold29 (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there was any real signficance worthy of note behind it all? ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any true meaning either, I was suggesting that if there is a meaning it should be mentioned, but if there is no meaning, then I guess there isn't much to add. Blackngold29 (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a whole load of meanings behind almost everything Slipknot does but you can only mention what you know and have sources to back it up. Rezter ^TALK 00:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternative metal

Alternative metal keeps geting removed. why is this? its listed on the main artical so why not here?88.97.6.98 (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That applies more to The Subliminal Verses, where the genre changes from what it is in their first two albums. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

i still think alternative metal should be listed as well because some of songs have quite unconventional sounds. lots of the songs lack raping and none of them have a funky base witch are fetures of nu metal also, if limb bizkit can be called alternative metal surly this can?88.97.6.98 (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, as much as I'd love to agree with you, calling them alternative because of your views on how the music is produced is original research, unless a reliable source can be provided. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:wxfixqu0ldse is that reliable? and when i said unconventional sounds i ment wierd samples,lyrics and things instead of production88.97.6.98 (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that it is reliable, but from what I can tell it puts alt. metal under "styles", not genre - although I'm probably splitting hairs there. Give me a few moments, I'll see if I can find a more definate source. ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't seem to find anything. Anyone else have any sources for this album's genre, other than nu metal? ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Credits

On the album (don't know if it matters, but I have the red alternitive cover) there are no band credits listed. They are only shown by number, so how are we supposed to add a credits section to the article if there are no reliable sources? We can list the members, but they may have played instruments not listed anywhere. Blackngold29 (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have listed the members in order they appear within the booklet. No it doesn't say which members play what, but all members have played the same instruments since Slipknot, so I have kept the same format throughout all the albums. REZTER ^TALK ø 01:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Gut" track on aussie edition

So what is this track then? As far as i knew, there wasn't any b-sides made from Iowa.

I have never even heard of this song before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.61.79 (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Certifications

This is misleading. Why have that they went gold AND platinum on the same day? Why not just platinum there is no need to mention that it went gold also. It makes you think that it sold 100,000 units by October 11 and then another 900,000 on the same day to make it platinum. Do you know what i mean? I don't think there should be a mention of gold cerification. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do with this. The RIAA does list them both on the same day, I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because they sold 1, 000, 000 units by October 11 and because of this they were automatically award Gold as well. Or maybe, there is a fault with the listing. REZTER ^TALK ø 01:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SLIP AoF

All Slipknot WikiProject members should discuss all things regarding the article here while it is under the AoF attention.

Collaborations

In order to fulfil tasks more efficiently and effectively it is recommended that members collaborate in groups of two or three and focus on one area of the article.

Recording of

I will be happy to research in to and write this section with the help of another editor. REZTER ^TALK ø 22:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Reception

The reception section could use a lead in, like the reception section of the You could have it so much better album. With a lead in, plus the professional reviews underneath Portillo (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think more the long the liens of a paragraph like Slipknot (album) would be appropriate, I think that a lsit like that isn't the most encyclopaedic way of presenting information. REZTER ^TALK ø 01:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

So do I, lists can end out looking messy and there are better methods of presentation. Thanks for reading, ThunderMaster ^UTC 13:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've started a collection of review quotes in my sandbox, along with a roughed out paragraph. Any more reviews will be helpful, you can work on the paragraph if you want too. Thanks. Blackngold29 (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Great job Rezter. I added another quote, do you guys think its long enough? Since that was one of the FA reviewer's main reasons for not promoting Slipknot (length of recteption paragraph). Also there are a few quotes (Rolling Stone, NME) that can also be found online, should they be sourced online or stay the way they are? I guess it's not broke, so we shouldn't try to fix it; but then again websites are easier for people to find, they might be better. Blackngold29 (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Track listing

I updated the track lengths to match the readings iTunes gives the disc, however according to the iTunes store many are different (+- a few seconds). Is there a policy regarding a correct source for lengths? Also, is there any truth to the above mentioned "Gut" track? If so it should be added. Blackngold29 (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any trace of an Australian edition on the internet. REZTER ^TALK ø 10:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Music style and lyrical themes

OK I think these are liek the last two sectiosn which need doing, so I would like you guys to help me collect sources relatign to them both. Please post all of them here: User:Rezter/Sandbox2. Lets make this article as good as Slipknot. REZTER ^TALK ø 14:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that these two sections should be merged. There isn't enough info about both for them to each constitute its own section. Blackngold29 (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I have done that, but the lyrical themes section needs a lot more to it, whoever crossed it off thinking it was done must have been joking. OK, if anybody would be up for finding sources with me I will write that section, however I don't have the time to go source hunting. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good! Blackngold29 18:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Awards section

Needs written as prose. Could also be merged with the reception section. Blackngold29 18:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

OK done, I even repositioned the article so it's structured just like Slipknot (album). We just need to rewrite the lead-in. REZTER ^TALK ø 13:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Intro

I revised it, although it could still be improved some. Blackngold29 01:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

More genres.

Heavy metal should be listed, it is the main genre of quite a few songs in this album.

Find a reliable source which states heavy metal as a genre, and I have no problem with it being added. Blackngold29 22:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't heavy metal sort of covered by the whole "nu metal" thing, as nu metal is a subgenre of heavy metal? ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

GAN

Could you source the track listing please? Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 13:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, I can't say I've ever seen a sourced track listing before. The track listing appears as it does on the album. Unless you mean the "All songs credited to Slpknot." part, that can easily be sourced. Blackngold29 22:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Iowa (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I chose to review this article. Comments coming soon. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Reviewed well by fans and critics alike" I think fans are not legit in reviewing or giving opinions about the album.
  • Removed Blackngold29 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• "…the album included many of the band's hits including "Left Behind" and "My Plague", which were both nominated for a Grammy Award." To what extent they are considered hits? Additionally, in what year were these two songs nominated?
  • The years are discussed within the "Reception" section. Blackngold29 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The first query is not yet addressed, I think. YOu can add the year, it won't hurt. --Efe (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Done Blackngold29 02:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Hailed as the "absolute triumph of nu metal"," This needs attribution. Based on the reference given, it's John Molvey.
  • Done Blackngold29 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Album information is not the proper title, I think. The entire article is the album information.
  • Do you have a suggestion its kind of a odds-and-ends section, though everyting is notable. Blackngold29 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • YOu can probably use "background". --Efe (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Merged as discussed. Blackngold29 02:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• You can probably get rid of the parenthesis in the first line under album information.
  • Done Blackngold29 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• "…expected title by some sources…" What sources? Sources could be come from everywhere in different forms.
  • The statement is sourced, Rezter could probably clarify this. Blackngold29 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah it is sourced dude... it's from the Inside The Sickness book. REZTER ^TALK ø 17:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• "The title of the first song, "(515)", is the telephone area code for central Iowa, where Des Moines is located. "I Am Hated" was performed in the film Rollerball and later appeared in the 2003 video game Amplitude. "My Plague" was remixed for the Resident Evil soundtrack." Hmm… The first sentence is somewhat related to the album title but the other two seems not.
  • Like I said above it's like odds-and-ends. Should it be split perhaps? Blackngold29 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Ahm, probably. but this section incoherent. Different topics are discussed. --Efe (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • You're right. See my messege at: Talk:Iowa (album)#Move info from "Background info"? Blackngold29 02:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Merged Blackngold29 02:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Who says it is highly anticipated?
  • It is sourced, but I don't know the exact words of the book. Blackngold29 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Can you search it again? It would be better to attribute those claims. --Efe (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't have the book, Rezter? Blackngold29 01:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It doesn't quote anybody in the book but he is saying that basically everyone (fans and critics) wanted to see a second, so if you were going to attribute it to anybody you could say the author. REZTER ^TALK ø 09:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Precisely. I still can see some potential POVic words and would be better if attributed. --Efe (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Rezter, does the author use the words "highly anticipated"? If so we can put quotes around it and attribute it to him. Blackngold29 00:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Attributed Blackngold29 14:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• What is a warm-up tour?
  • It would appear to be a short (five-dates) tour, but not the main album tour. I can't say for certain though. Blackngold29 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Can you specify it there? --Efe (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It already is. "preceded by a five-date warm-up tour" Blackngold29 01:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• "pushed back until August" Back might connote that the album was slated in a certain date other than June 19 but because of the delay, it was "pushed back" to August.
  • Re-worded Blackngold29 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• "However, the earliest dates were delayed due to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and The Pentagon." You can probably add the date of this event. The attack is better known by its date.
  • Done Blackngold29 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• I think the section recording and production is better titled as production and promotion. After all, recording is part of the production. Also, you mentioned there "in support of the album" so it means it is a promotion. This section can be split into two sections as well.*
  • Renamed Blackngold29 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• "while also showing influences from other genres" What genres in particular?
  • Done Blackngold29 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• "sources praised the band" What are these sources? Who praised the band?
• "Once again, the band was also praised for its use of their extensive line-up consisting of additional percussionists and electronics" Who praised them? Could you just state that they use extensive lineup?
  • NME praised for that in the next sentence. Blackngold29 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• "every possible space is covered in scrawl and cymbals: guitars, percussion, electronic squall, subhuman screaming." Some terms here needs link if existing.
  • Done Blackngold29 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Also here: "it includes strong use of metaphors to describe overtly dark themes including misanthropy, solipsism, disgust, anger, disaffection, psychosis and rejection."
  • Done Blackngold29 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Amazon reviews are not accepted in Wiki.
  • It's not a fan review, it's the official review written by the Amazon employee, I don't see how he's different from the guy at Yahoo. Blackngold29 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I dropped a message here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Amazon.com_review. --Efe (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • If it'll help the GAN along, we can take the statement out and once a verdict is reached over that the RS noticeboard, I can either re-add or leave it out. Blackngold29 14:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • WP:RS/Noticeboard is making this review sluggish. The part supported by the Amazon source seems to be a pure review than the description of the music/lyrics. This time, I would really insist that the writer and the site is not legit when it comes to these technicalities. It would be better to put it in the reception section or outrightly remove them from the page. Unaddressed suggestion is the one below. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Removed Blackngold29 16:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Following the huge success of their debut album Slipknot, anticipation for a follow up was intense." Slipknot should be identified as their debut album where it is first mentioned in the article. It becomes redundant. Also, huge and intense suggest POV.
  • I added an extra comma, that should take care of being redundant. As for the "intense follow-up" the statement is sourced, therefore isn't POV is it? Blackngold29 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It must be attributed. --Efe (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Done Blackngold29 14:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Big things" is vague.
  • Removed Blackngold29 02:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Upon its release, the album was considered a huge success, meeting the expectations of the fans and the promises the band members alike." Who considered is a huge success?
  • Removed Blackngold29 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• In the personnel section, what are those numbers for?
  • The band is as well known for their numbers as their names, the numbers are included int the album credits, see Slipknot (band)#Image and identites for more. Blackngold29 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok. --Efe (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Ref 1 and 2 is not well formatter. All should not be in italics.
  • (They're now ref 2 & 3) I changed the Arnopp one to the "Book citation". However the other one is a CD, and I'm not sure how that should be cited. Blackngold29 02:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Any suggestions on how to cite a CD? Blackngold29 16:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • You mean the template to cite a CD/album? YOu can use this: {{Cite album-notes}}. --Efe (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Done - Technically I believe we are citing the album itself (it is spoken word) and not the notes; but I think that'll be close enough. Blackngold29 15:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Why is the author and work parameter in ref 5 and 7 similar?
  • Done Blackngold29 17:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's all. You may drop a message to me or here informing that my suggestions are all addressed or properly been objected for further discussion. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I am fixing little stuffs before passing this to GA. One thing, for reviews, add who is the reviewer of the magazine/website/ect. --Efe (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Note The charting history of the album and its singles needs to be discussed in the prose. I say a short paragraph in the Reception section discussing the UK and US performances should do. indopug (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done Blackngold29 04:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What's left?

If I'm reading this correctly, all things have been resolved or discussed to a point that we can agree on, so is the article now at the standard where it can be passed as a GA? REZTER ^TALK ø 14:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Move info from "Background info"?

Can we just eliminate this section? Most of the info should probably be kept, the "Band members have claimed that Iowa is the source of their energy..." sentence shows good insight into why the album recieved its title. Possibly the first few sentences could be merged into the "Production and promotion" section. And the Rollerball and Resident Evil stuff to Reception maybe? Like I said it's good info, but its a very random section, as Efe has stated. I just don't know where it really fits in. Suggestions? Blackngold29 02:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to remove the last two sentences that are irrelevant and merge the remaining to the following section. Thoughts? --Efe (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, that's true, the remix info should be included on the song's own pages, not this one. I'll merge the other ones now. Blackngold29 02:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh! I should have said that. Info like this is very detailed that it would be better to add on its related pages. Man, tell me when you're done. --Efe (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Chart columns

I noticed that the "Chart" column for the Album chart positions is positioned to the left, which I feel looks neater than centered, I'm just wondering why the "Chart" column for the Singles is centered? Shouldn't it all be formatted the same? I think they'd look much better if they were aligned to the left. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yah. As part of the review, I would suggest to align it left. --Efe (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Took care of it. I assume the Single titles will remain centered? Blackngold29 15:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Usually its the same as the album chart positions. --Efe (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Iowa (album)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article requirements: Y All the start class criteria Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details Y At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section) Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs Y A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians Y Categorisation at least by artist and year Y A casual reader should learn something about the album. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 08:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)