Talk:The Marshall Mathers LP/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi! I'll be going through this article to see if it meets GA standards. I'll go through some of problems as I go through it checking citations.

Lead
 * WP:LEADCITE states that "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material."
 * MOS:INTRO suggests that the intro should summarize the article. This doesn't go into detail about the information in the article it says what it is and when it was release and the reception without going into detail about the style sound or topics in the album. This should be expanded for an article of this size.


 * Do you have a cite for release date? I see it listed in the infobox, but no cite in the article.


 * WP:Albums states for the label, that "Only the record label that the album was originally released on should be specified. Where significantly different versions have been released (featuring alternative track listings) e.g. in the US vs UK, the later release date or record label should be mentioned in the article, for example in a Release history section."


 * WP:Albums#Professional_reviews has a new standard for citing reviews, try to use this new style.


 * WP:NPOV also comes into play in the review section the infobox. Metacritic notes that the album did get some more average or mixed reviews from notable sources such as Spin, L.A. Weekly and Q. Some of these should take priority. At least one or two of them.


 * Those extra images in the infobox do not really enhance the article for english wikipedia. So they are alternative album covers, so what? Perhaps remove them and just keep the most common album cover.


 * Citation #2 in the lead definitely states the 1.76 million selling, but I can't find the information about that Guinness Book of World records part.


 * Citation #5 suggets over 19 million copies have sold world-wide. not 20 million.


 * Citation #9 doesn't cite those themes and how it differs from Eminem's previous album. Find some citations for that one.


 * The opening paragraph in Lyrical content has no citations.


 * A lot of citation #10 seems to be referring to two different pages of that review. It would be good to link to both pages at the end of the sentence instead of in the middle of it.


 * The third paragraph in Lyrical content section has citation #10 which is not a valid source and also doesn't contain any information.


 * In the fourth paragraph of Lyrical content, the links to Shaggy 2 Dope and Violent J should be fixed. This whole paragraph has no citations either.


 * The production section has citations from discogs.com which isn't a good source as all it's information is user-generated by people who may not be experts on the information.


 * "The Marshall Mathers LP is still Eminem's best-selling album." This could use citations, perhaps by citing the sales amounts of Em's later albums?


 * Citation 15 doesn't cite the facts found in the article, while citation 16 visits a dead link.


 * The image in the reception and controversy section here does not suggest anything the section in the article talks about. It should be removed or placed with a better image.


 * Citation 8 notes the controversy, but not about the album "marking the first time a hardcore rap album was ever nominated in this category".


 * We lack citation for "Despite significant protests and debate, The Marshall Mathers LP went on to win Best Rap Album, but lost to Steely Dan's comeback album Two Against Nature for Album of the Year."


 * The reviews section in the article is far to biased. None of them mixed reviews the album received are mentioned at all.


 * "In 2002, French jazz pianist Jacques Loussier filed a $10 million lawsuit against Eminem, claiming the beat for "Kill You" was stolen from his song "Pulsion".[25] He unsuccessfully demanded that all sales of the album be halted and any remaining copies destroyed." Citation 25 and it's a bit obvious the others aren't destroyed but did he win the lawsuit? what happened?


 * Quite a few Chart certifications are missing citation for their peak position.


 * The accolades section might be better written as prose and some of it is missing citations as well.


 * Far too much of the information from "Singles" is uncited.


 * Samples and notes has no ciatations. Also, the songwriter for the songs on the album should be listed. Did Emineme write them all or how about the ones where other rappers are featured?


 * The singles in the infobox have release dates which are not cited.


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Some sections should be written as prose and it does not follow the Manual of Style
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Many citations missing. Far too much uncited information.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The album lacks section such as production, work gone through the album more. It does not wander into undesired territories however and sticks to the album.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Not enough information about the GLAAD protests and the jazz musician sueing him. Also there is little to no mention of the mixed reviews the album received.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * In the past week the article had edits made to it that had to be undone by other editors.
 * 1) 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):
 * Some of the album covers aren't necessary and don't expand on the topic other then other albums covers were listed. The Eminem logo about his tour doesn't add much to the article either.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * With the information above, this article will need a lot more work before it can pass as a GA. Good luck to all those involved! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrzejbanas (talk • contribs) 17:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)