Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Notorious B.I.G./archive2

The Notorious B.I.G.

Featured article candidates/The Notorious B.I.G.

Notified: 2Pac, WikiProject African diaspora, WikiProject Hip hop, WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject New York City, talk page notification

Review section

This is a 2007 FA that was kept at FAR in 2010. I've identified a few issues with this article that bring it below the standards expected of a featured article. Pulling from my comment at TFAR, a brief skim of the article shows unreliable sources, including IMDb, being used in § Awards and nominations, failing criterion 1c. I also question the article's comprehensiveness (criterion 1b) if there are substantial-looking biographies of Wallace unused in the article and stuck in § Further reading. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC) (please mention me if you need my attention)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the sourcing problems, but would like to offer agreement on the comprehensiveness. I'm not an expert in this area of music, but I will say that I've read and come back to this article on multiple occasions and couldn't help but feel like this FA was old and/or lacking for a performer who, in a very short career, defined an era of rap. 83.4k bytes for this guy? Is that really it? I doubt it, but I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough to definitively say no, just questionable. mftp dan ^oops 16:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hold I’m interested in saving this. Give me two weeks to fix some prose and address some of the concerns. 750 h+ 04:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know how I can help this effort. - Wil540 art (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FAR coordinators: the Internet Archive is down. Could we pause this until it's back up again, since it's the only way I could access one of the most comprehensive books on the topic. 750 h+ 02:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to extend time to allow for work once it's back up (which will hopefully be soon). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: i'll be continuing work on the article shortly, as the Internet Archive is back up. 750 h+ 04:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hold Edits ongoing per above. Happy to review when editors are ready. Z1720 (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720, TechnoSquirrel69, and MFTP Dan: what are our thoughts on the article now? 750 h+ 12:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, 750h+, and on a brief skim the article is looking a lot better. Thanks for doing that work! I'm unfortunately unable to commit to a review, but I wish you luck with your save. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about @Z1720:? 750 h+ 10:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not gonna lie, I totally forgot I commented on this. Thank you for the reminder. I'll give it a look over later today. Quick thing I've noticed from the history log is that this article has expanded significantly and that's a good sign from my book. mftp dan ^oops 18:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes:

I conducted a copyedit, mostly to remove extra words like "however" and some phrasing. Feel free to revert if not helpful and let me know the concerns below.
"Sullivan, Randall (2014)" is listed in the bibliography but not used as a source. This should be rectified.
The "Vocals" section falls into the "X said Y" pattern; WP:RECEPTION might help with ideas on how to reformat this.
No other concerns. This is close to a keep. Z1720 (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: both fixed. 750 h+ 02:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see Z has done much of the heavy lifting for me already. I see nothing that I couldn't fix myself. If I'm being pedantic, there's a wording preference here, a link change there...nothing substantial at this point. Excellent work.

The only thing I have to ask is: why are we using "known professionally as the Notorious B.I.G., and also by the stage name Biggie Smalls"? Are they not both stage names? mftp dan ^oops 03:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MFTP Dan: fixed. 750 h+ 03:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we absolutely have to keep the redlink that is John Van Nest? I know there are scenarios to keep them but I'm not sure this is one of them. mftp dan ^oops 03:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

removed @MFTP Dan: 750 h+ 03:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I have a few other concerns here and there, but I'll get to them tomorrow afternoon. We could probably keep this now and it'd be no big deal if it's a hurry to get this closed, but I have minor nitpicks here and there. mftp dan ^oops 03:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MFTP Dan: do you feel to list your remaining concerns or? 750 h+ 01:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The impression I get from the infobox stating Evans and Biggie separated in 1996 is that it was a legal proceeding, but this is not covered in the article. Is that not what the infobox purpose for the "sep." is? The legal term of separated?

Cease's quote regarding "Who Shot Ya?" is a little lengthy for my liking and I'd prefer paraphrasing, but other than that, I'm not seeing much left that couldn't just be done on the fly. No need to hold it open any longer, it's clearly up to snuff. mftp dan ^oops 02:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MFTP Dan: fixed. 750 h+ 02:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: any remaining comments? 750 h+ 10:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]