From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

Zaireeka has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	This article is within the scope of the The Flaming Lips WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Zaireeka (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

	To-do list for Zaireeka:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Verify "Aftermath" Expand Aftermath Now that I (MajorB) own Staring at Sound, I'm going to change the citations to those appropriate for a book, ie not linking to a PDF, and listing publisher info.
Priority 5

""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?

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Good Article Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (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)