Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Reasonable Doubt/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:03, 21 February 2008.

Reasonable Doubt edit

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is comprehensive, well-written, factually accurate, non-biased, well-sourced and structured. Not to mention, the album is significant to its artist (Jay-Z) and genres (Hip hop music and Mafioso rap). Noahdabomb3 (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/weak oppose - the prose is professional enough. cut ties, Despite these humble beginnings, the glitz of Manhattan, are just a few examples I noticed in the first section. I suggest you get it copyedited. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I just requested a copyedit to tighten up the prose. Thanks for the recommendation. Noahdabomb3 (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I copyedited the article to make the prose smoother. Any wording issues can probably be fixed easily. Other than that, it's reliably sourced, well-structured, and comprehensive. Spellcast (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just skimming the lead right now, and its too POV:
  • "It is considered a masterpiece of Mafioso rap and one of Jay-Z's best albums." - remove this sentence; that it is a good album is evident from the critics above.
  • Are so many reviews required? Those 5 star rating mentions can both go, and probably two of the publications' "best albums ever" can go as well. (Rolling Stone is enough). This will also reduce the seeming clutter of numbers in the lead ("500 albums", "five stars", the chart positions, sales figures)
  • Too much referencing in the lead: [4][5][6][7] hampers readability.
  • The lead uses the word "it" nine times; replace it with "the album" or Reasonable Doubt.
indopug (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I replaced about half of the "its" as was requested. I removed that sentence about mafioso rap and replaced it with a different sentence about significance. I am currently leaving all of the reviews and "best album" lists in the second paragraph because the album is best known for its critical success: I feel that the second paragraph best communicates this point. I'm not sure if the "clutter of numbers" is such a bad thing as it adds legitimacy to the claims made. Also, the abundance of references bolsters highly opinionated claims about the album. I am still debating whether to delete one of two of the references though. Noahdabomb3 (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Leaving the numbers in the leads severely hampers readability; look at other album FAs (Love. Angel. Music. Baby., Adore, Spiderland etc.) to see what I mean. There is absolutely no need to mention every review and every "best-ever" list in the lead. Also, what is the merit of mentioning sales figures and chart listings in the lead if it didn't do that well? The mention of another album is also completely unnecessary. Also, the entire article needs a desperate copy-edit--"It differs from his future albums in its lack of commercial songs like "(Always Be My) Sunshine" and "Money, Cash, Hoes"."--what does that even mean? What is a "commercial" song; who says those two are the best examples of "commercial" songs? I think this article has POV issues too; although cited, in too many different places does this article feature a random comment about how mind-blowingly influential this album is. The detailed charting and other info for the singles is unnecessary; there is a table at the eend of the article isn't there? Is Jay-Z's childhood necessary for the backgrounnd section? Also, where is the cite for the lyrics featuring black comedy, and the cite for the lyrics themselves? All those "greatest album" lists might better be compiled in an Accolades table (see: Spiderland) indopug (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "It is Jay-Z's least commercially-successful effort, peaking at #23 on the Billboard 200, but received platinum status in 2002..." I don't know anything about the Billboard 200, but #23 sounds decent. Can you compare it to something else he did so we can see how #23 wasn't that great for his album? I'll add more comments as I read it. David Fuchs (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had those same sentiments.[1] #23 is pretty decent, so I simply removed the "least commercially-successful effort" line altogether. Spellcast (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Response)The "most commercially successful" line was removed so that issue is resolved. Let me justify the second intro paragraph for a second: it serves to explain the album's significance and critical success. The best way to do this is to list reviews and stats that compare it to other albums. If anyone would like to delete the numbers on the lists, that is fair--but the second paragraph still needs stats to justify Reasonable Doubt's significance. Also, the singles charting position information serves the purpose of comparing the singles, but anyone is free to delete the unnecessary numbers (as I may do so soon). Also, I will try to restructure the POV thing about "commercial" songs. Lastly, I already cited the lyrics and got rid of the "black comedy" line. Noahdabomb3 (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The online hip-hop archive is unreliable. Also, "puns and other forms of word play to a comedic affect" is still OR, and printing such a huge bunch of lyrics might be copy-vio. Who is Biggie? indopug (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for WP:BLP and other issues:
    • The image Image:Roc-A-FellaTrio.jpg is probably not acceptable fair use for this or any article since free photographs could certainly be found for these individuals. This should be removed for FA status.
    • "Four singles were released, the most popular being 'Ain't No Nigga' and 'Can't Knock the Hustle'." Suggest rewording - two things can't both be the "most" popular.
    • Regarding the lead - are there sources that rated the album poorly? It doesn't seem neutral to only mention the perfect reviews.
    • In the Background heading, avoid referring to the subject as "Shawn".
    • The sentence about his dealing drugs to support himself suggests that he was supporting himself previously by appearing on a couple rap tracks for Jaz-O. That's not clearly the case from reading the source. Also, the source does not say he was "dealing drugs", it says he was hustling. Those aren't the same thing. As it stands, you have an unsourced statement about someone dealing drugs. Even if it happens to be true, you need a reliable source there.
    • "In an unconventional move..." I'm not finding where the source supports this opinion.
    • For the Yahoo! interview source - you might need to use the {{Cite interview}} template to get the correct citation.
    • I don't think many readers will know what the term "new jack" means.
    • Same with the albums "beats" being "formed". This is jargon that should be reworded for common encyclopedic language.
    • The whole "Recording Sessions" heading needs copyediting - the prose is not up to standard.
    • I'm not sure "Production" is the best subheading under the Music heading since you aren't really describing the production process of the album. Maybe "Composition" would be better.
    • When I get to the Reception question, I can't help asking again: Didn't anyone dislike the album?
    • In the Significance heading: For statements such as "...it is generally considered his best record." you really need a more reliable source than All Music Guide (a print source would be preferred) and more than one source. Someone will come along and challenge a statement like that so it should be strongly sourced. --Laser brain (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Reasonable_Doubt/archive1&oldid=1207931719"