Talk:Me Against the World/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: maclean (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good article review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article? for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
See Notes below regarding lists.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Covers major sections: Background, Production, Composition, Reception, Tracks, Charts, Personnel.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
1 image used: valid fair-use rationale
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Notes

1b. The "Unused tracks" section is not consistent with Wikipedia:Embedded list.
- Deleted There was no sources saying that they were b-sides of the album. CrowzRSA 23:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove passive voice: "...his material is believed to have become markedly more "confessional", "reflective", and "soul-baring".[1]" - If specific quotes from one reviewer are going to be used in the Lead section, then say who 'believed' these quoted words. Are you saying this one critic's specific opinion is a summary of critic's opinions in general?
- Fixed CrowzRSA 00:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article uses a lot of slang, hyperbole, or vague terms. For example (and these are only examples, more occur throughout):
- Can you point out some more too me? I'm really bad at spotting those type of things. CrowzRSA 00:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- soaring to the number one spot
  - Fixed CrowzRSA 00:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- his constant encounters with the law - hyperbole
  - Fixed CrowzRSA 00:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- brought up on charges
  - Fixed CrowzRSA 00:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- recording his third solo effort.
  - Fixed CrowzRSA 00:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- giving particular note to tracks like "So Many Tears" and "Temptations".[7] - vague
  - Fixed CrowzRSA 00:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References
- In the reference "Nothing stops Shakur and Slick Rick > Tupac Shakur > Pop Culture News > News + Notes > Entertainment Weekly". Entertainment Weekly. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,304920,00.html. Retrieved 2009-05-14." what does the " > Tupac Shakur > Pop Culture News > News + Notes > Entertainment Weekly" mean? Why no author and date attribution?
  - Fixed I deleted it because the link was dead and no other sources could verify the information. CrowzRSA 00:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please use consistent formatting in the References section: Refs 15-23 + 30 do not display 'publisher=' and 'accessdate=' information.
  - Fixed CrowzRSA 00:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The rockhall.com reference (#32) is dead.
  - Fixed CrowzRSA 00:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which reference does the "mastered at Bernie Grundman Mastering" and " Amaru Entertainment, the label owned by 2Pac's mother Afeni Shakur, has since gained its rights." come from?
  - Fixed CrowzRSA 00:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "called prophetic due to their themes dealing with what would become Shakur's own tragic fate; premature death.[1]" - I didn't see in that reference where is mentions anything being prophetic.
  - Fixed CrowzRSA 00:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why have separate "Reception" and "Accolades" sections? Are not accolades a form of reception?
- - Fixed CrowzRSA 00:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is reference #13 suppose to be linking to this [1]? Ref #13 is used 5 times, does it cover all that information? Same with Ref 25 which is linking to the general AllMusic review, and not the Charts section.
- Fixed CrowzRSA 23:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In "Chart history", I don't think "Australian Albums Chart[34] 40" is correct.
- Fixed CrowzRSA 23:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears If I Die 2Nite is just re-directing to this article.
- Fixed CrowzRSA 23:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Add publisher + author fields to Ref #32. and publisher= to Ref 31
- Fixed CrowzRSA 23:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In "Track listings", where is the information that "If I Die 2Nite" uses samples from "Deep Cover" by Dr. Dre and "Tonight" by Kleeer coming from? Same with "Temptations" using samples from "Watch Your Nuggets" by Redman? and the others omitted by the reference provided...
- Fixed CrowzRSA 23:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a difference between Ref 7 and 18?
- Fixed CrowzRSA 23:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...on Jive Records through Interscope Records." - I don't see any reference to Jive Records anywhere, only Interscope. What did Jive Records do for the album?
- Done CrowzRSA 23:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Throughout the article, should we be refering to him as Tupac, 2Pac, or Shakur?
- I don't really see anything wrong with it, despite the inconsistency, I don't think it affect the article's reading and professionalism. Do you concur? CrowzRSA 23:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think consistency is important for clarity sake. The album refers to him as "2Pac", but the Tupac Shakur article refers to him as "Shakur". The only other artist I can think that used an ambiguous name like this is Prince - the WP article calls him "Prince" rather than his stage name 'symbol' (see The Gold Experience). As such, I think it would be best to refer to Tupac Shakur consistently as in this article as "Shakur" (but really I wouldn't mind if he was referred to as his stage name). -maclean (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed CrowzRSA 00:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why use the Internet retailer CD Universe as a reference? Isn't that like using amazon.com as a reference?
- Honestly, I'm not sure what you're talking about, since I don't see an amazon reference, and only a few CD Universe. CrowzRSA 23:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In "Critical response", if a The Source review is going to be used, then reference The Source, not CD Universe or Rateyourmusic.com. Same with the Vibe review.
- Is there anything wrong with being indirect with a reference? CrowzRSA 23:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I'm getting here is related to GA criteria 2b: how does CD Universe meet WP:RS? --maclean (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed CrowzRSA 18:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-review

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
See Notes below regarding lists.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Covers major sections: Background, Production, Composition, Reception, Tracks, Charts, Personnel.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
1 image used: valid fair-use rationale
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Notes

1. Prose + MoS
- Me Against the World, released while Shakur was imprisoned, made an immediate impact on the charts, debuting at number one, and making Shakur the first artist to have an album debut at the top of the Billboard 200 while serving time in prison. - tense shift (released, made, debuting, making), this can also be improved by splitting the long sentence about aspects into two shorter sentence each about one aspect: the album on the charts and Shakur being in prison.
  - Fixed CrowzRSA 18:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the documentary Tupac: Resurection...his favorite album he made. - this is from the lead. Is this point made + referenced somewhere in the article?
  - Fixed CrowzRSA 18:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ... due to omitting the law. - this is unclear. What is 'omitting the law'?
  - Fixed CrowzRSA 18:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Shakur, the album...reflective than his previous efforts. - these last 2 sentences of 'Background' seem really out-of-place in the same paragraph as Shakur's personal/professional background. They would be better placed in their own paragraph or in the 'Composition' section.
  - Fixed CrowzRSA 18:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Shakur attempts to woo the woman who's managed to gain his affections away from an abusive relationship. - (1) who's → who has (2) woo? what exactly does 'woo' mean? is that the best word here? (3) "his affections away from an abusive relationship" it is unclear who is in the abusive relationship.
  - Fixed CrowzRSA 18:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Shakur attempts to impress the woman who has managed to gain his affections away from their abusive relationship. - This still is not clear. Who is in the abusive relationship? --maclean (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I may have fixed it, but I'm not sure. CrowzRSA 23:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Composition, a one-sentence paragraph is not a sign of good writing. While they are fine in novels (creative writing), in WP's more formal writing paragraph should contain more than one sentence to develop a particular point or idea (whereas a sentence is simply a statement).
- Fixed CrowzRSA 18:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. References + Citations
- How does 'CD Universe' how does CD Universe meet WP:RS?
  - Fixed CrowzRSA 18:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...most well-received albums by critics and fans... - this is from the Lead. What does the 'well-received by fans' refer to?
  - Since it charted at number one, it was probably well received by fans. CrowzRSA 18:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you mean that 'it charted at #1', then say that. The Lead is just a place to summarize the article, not draw conclusions. In this case, just stick with the facts and let the readers draw to that conclusion themselves. --maclean (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, it actually refers to how it got a bunch of positive reviews, but either way, I rewrote it. CrowzRSA 23:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which ref does "Amaru Entertainment, the label owned by Shakur's mother Afeni Shakur" come from?
  - Fixed CrowzRSA 18:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does 'whosampled.com' meet WP:RS?
  - Fixed CrowzRSA 18:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are "Unused Tracks"? This was in the article when you nominated it and it is back now.

Removed. I also left a message on their page. But I don't think it needs to be semi-protected, since there's not much vandalism. CrowzRSA 22:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reference to the 2002 The Source quotation and review. maclean (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed CrowzRSA 04:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't agree that this was irrelevant but its removal was correct as it was not properly attributed. I think that takes care of everything now so I am passing as a GA. However, I will remove the GA status if the "Unused Tracks" appears again, under 5. unstable "content dispute". If anyone will be working on moving this along to FAC, they may contact me for as a peer review. -maclean (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]