Result: Delisted (clear consenus, no progress)– Quadell(talk) 14:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While reading the article, I noticed that it uses a Sputnikmusic review written by WuChang, who is ranked as user at the review page. That's clearly not according to Wikipedia's sources to avoid.
The lead contains much unreferenced material. Ex: "Copies of the album are generally valued at $130–$200 due to the rarity and low production of the album. While Eminem's future albums would prove more successful, the rapper still gained some recognition for his debut effort." - This isn't sourced nowhere in the article, not to say it introduces new information in the intro; the introduction part should summarize the content of the entire article, not to present new information.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's up! When I first nominated this article, it was different; info such as the unreferenced lead content, was added by some (often IP, unregistered) users, in good faith; the Sputnikmusic review is my fault, I'm sorry for that. I'll get to it as soon as I can, thanks! --Khanassassin☪ 20:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the critical and commercial sub-sections should be merged; one sentence isn't worthy enough to have a special heading. That's if no additional reviews are found in the meantime.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - per 3a criteria: not broad in its coverage.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Per Вик Ретлхед, I found it very interesting when you nominated this, because I had just recently been curious how the article had ever been promoted to GA status. The article seems to fail criteria 3a, while it also has some issues with criteria 2 due to WP:OR and WP:V problems. STATicmessage me! 21:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
