Jump to content

Talk:Paid in Full (album)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I will be reviewing your article Paid in Full (album) for GA and will be adding my comments below. Reading through the article, it seems very good. I do have some initial comments. Feel free to contact me with questions or comments. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You say in the lead that this is a "landmark album" but you do not state this in the body of the article. Is there a reference for this?
"landmark album" shouldn't be hard to source,[1] but I've changed it to "benchmark" because it's sourced by The New York Times under "Reception and influence". Spellcast (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, the lead is very good, but given the length of the article, you should make a little longer, perhaps including more about the production ("Background and recording")
I've expanded it slightly; tell me if you still think it should be longer. Spellcast (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rakim's rapping, which pioneered the use of internal rhymes" - do you mean in rap music, as internal rhymes have for centuries been popular in literature, music etc.?
I clarified it to mean in hip hop. Spellcast (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see anywhere a description of what his lyrics are about. What does he rap about. What are the themes of his lyrics?
  • Would it be possible to give short examples of his lyrics to show what you mean?
  • Numbers over ten are generally not to be written out: e.g. number fifty-two should be number 52 - see MOSNumbers.
The MoS says to spell out numbers one to nine, but for numbers greater than nine, it can go either way. I go by the Oxford Style Manual and The Chicago Manual of Style, which recommends spelling out whole numbers from one to ninety-nine. I hope this isn't too much of an issue. Spellcast (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. I don't care. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there any "legacy"? For example, did this album influence other performers or the music industry or history? Are there any examples, say, of performers who were influenced or music that shows it was influenced?
Also, http://www.rapstation.com/files/archives/archive.php3?id=324425. Good interview, but who did it? Need reliable source.
I'll add some legacy. I've also replaced the ref with the original source. Spellcast (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've added people who this album has influenced. The list can grow long, so I think it's best to limit it to the most prominent performers. Spellcast (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of your references use non standard titles, e.g. allmusic ((( Rakim > Biography ))).The parentheses need to be removed.
Fixed. Spellcast (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The list was compiled by Blender magazine's staff,[2] but it doesn't say exactly which author wrote the info on this album. I think the source should be ok (Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums doesn't specify an exact author as well). Spellcast (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums is well known and referenced in many Wikipedia articles. Is Blender magazine in that category? I am open minded about this. Is it a well known source for music articles and considered reliable? Just don't want a list that is the result a user poll or something. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against user/fan polls because voters are not critics, but I think staff reviews from a professional music publication should be fine. If WP:ALBUM#Review sites allows Blender in infobox reviews, then surely it's acceptable under a "Reception" section? Spellcast (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the reference titles should be in all caps. e.g. RECORDINGS VIEW ; A Rap Pioneer Defies the Odds
Fixed. Spellcast (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of your references do not seem complete. e.g. Wang, Oliver (2003). Classic Material: The Hip-Hop Album Guide, p. 69. ECW - what is ECW? Is that the publisher? If so, does it have a full name?
Fixed. Spellcast (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very nice article. I may add more comments later. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Final GA review (see here for criteria)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):Very good b (MoS):Follows MoS
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):Well referenced with consistent formatting b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused):Remains focused on the article subject
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: Neutral in view
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

A very nice article! —Mattisse (Talk) 20:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good additions to the article on his lyrics. Thanks. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paid_in_Full_(album)/GA1&oldid=1084078009"