Wikipedia:Peer review/Illmatic/archive1
This article is a former featured-article nominee that was not accepted. I have acted upon the issues that kept this article from being accepted (mainly the absence of inline footnotes) and would like to have more feedback before I re-nominate it for FA-status. Thanks! --Chubdub 22:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Nice, very in-depth article. My main issue concerns some statements of acclaim in the early portions that are not backed up by citations. For example: "Illmatic was immediately hailed as a masterpiece by critics". This could possibly use a reference to Matthew Gasteier's review. Also the sentence about excessive bootlegging: are there any numbers on this? How much is excessive? (I have absolutely no idea whether it's 5% or 50%.) Another example: "Nas was hailed as the second coming of Rakim". By whom? It would help if such statements were qualified, such as: "The critic ????? hailed Nas as the second coming of Rakim". Thanks! — RJH 15:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll try and adress the issues you brought up (I've already added in most of the citations you requested). One thing though- I cannot find the exact bootleggin numbers, but bootleggin did indeed play a factor into the album's low sales. Maybe extensive or excessive appear to be subjective, so I'll consider re-wording the sentence until I find the numbers (which I doubt I will). Thanks for comments. --Chubdub 19:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- This article is really well written and no matter how much I agree what a great album this is, I still think that it needs to toned down in that sense. In other words its spoken from the great album point of view. I'm not saying this shouldn't be said, I mean might it be possible to tone it down a bit?. Also album criticism seems to be missing. I'm sure someone must have not liked it. – Tutmøsis (Talk) 01:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)