Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Chronic/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:34, 18 April 2008.

The Chronic
Self-nomination. I'm nominating this article because I have been working on the article for about a month now and I have made significant additions to the page. I put it through a GAN, which it passed after being put on hold, and it has also been on Peer Review for about 2 weeks and I have improved on the parts suggested by the review. I think the article now passes the FA criteria and deserves to be a FA. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments


 * I'm unfamiliar with rap, so what makes http://www.rapcentral.co.uk/index.html a reliable source for information?
 * Hmm...I missed that when reviewing. Yeah, that should be fixed up. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed 'digitaldreamdoor' and 'famous.y2u' as sources because they are not reliable enough. I think 'discogs' is reliable, seen as it is notable enough to have its own page on Wikipedia and the information it is citing isn't likely to be challenged. I also believe that 'RockOnTheNet' is reliable, as this has its own page on Wikipedia and it has been used to cite inforamtion on featured lists, such as Kanye West awards and 50 Cent awards, also, the information it is sourcing is that "Nuthin' But a "G" Thang" was nominating for a Grammy Award, which i don't think is likely to be challenged since it was actually nominated. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All links checked out fine with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've hid the resolved concerns, and left the others up for others to decide for themselves. I'm on the fence about them, better to let others decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rock on the Net should be ok since it's the official site of the . And I replaced the Discogs ref with an MTV one. That leaves us with rapcentral.co.uk. Although I'm not fully sure if it's a reliable source, I wouldn't use it. Spellcast (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not sure what the point of the "overview" section is. The lead should be an overview, and all the info in that section could be easily worked into the lead or elsewhere in the article. Tuf-Kat (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just to give additional background information about the album. Should I go through it and move parts to the lead and the rest of the article ? - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would be preferable. I'll try and do a more thorough review this weekend, but that was my only initial comment. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. As per my GAN review; no major concerns from me. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's some issues that need fixing.
 * It says The Source originally gave it 4.5/5 mics, but later changed it to 5 mics. I trust it's true, but unless a ref is given showing they changed it, it should stick with the 4.5/5 rating for now. Spellcast (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This ref, http://famous.y2u.co.uk/F_Dr_Dre.htm, was used for this sentence: "Until this point, hip hop had been primarily party music (for example, The Beastie Boys) or angry and politically charged (for example, Public Enemy or X-Clan), and had consisted almost entirely of samples and breakbeats. Dr. Dre ushered in a new musical style and lyrics for hip hop. The beats were slower and mellower, borrowing from late 1970s and early 1980s funk music. By mixing these early influences with original live instrumentation, he created a distinctive genre known as G-funk." Since the ref was removed as unreliable, a new source should be added to verify some of that info. These refs could help. Spellcast (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added some All Music Guide and New York Times refs to verify this information. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: All three audio samples lack fair use rationales for this article (WP:NFCC#10C and WP:RAT) . Further, why are all three necessary for our understanding?  NFCC#3A requires "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary".  Why would just one not be sufficent?  What does each significantly contribute (NFCC#8) above and beyond the contribution made by the others?  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 15:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added The Chronic to the fair use rationales of the three samples. I think three should be used because they significantly increase readers' understanding of the singles released. "Nuthin' but a "G" Thang" should be used because it was the most successful single from the album and is arguably Dr. Dre's most famous song. "Let Me Ride" should be used since it was the song that won him a Grammy award. "Fuck wit Dre Day" should be used because it was another successful single and because it was his famous "diss track" towards Eazy-E. The sample shows the vicious lyrics aimed at Eazy-E and the nature of his insults. I also believe that three samples should be used because they show the differing production styles on the album. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, NFCC#10C actually wants "a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item", but that's a minor concern so I'll strike (you should fix anyway, though). I remain concerned, however, that importance to the musician and importance to the album are distinct from importance to our understanding, the latter of which is the threshold for inclusion.  Could not the "diss track" be described in prose?  I suppose I don't see need for more than one to give us a reasonable understanding of the album's music.  I won't change to oppose, but I'll leave the concern unstricken (if that's a real word) so others can weigh in.  I'll defer to those more knowledgeable of this topic.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 14:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No fewer than three fair-use audio clips; and none of them is treated in terms of commentary on their musical and/or lyrical styles—whether they are representative of the artist (in what way?), or distinctive in relation to the genre. Beware the fair-use police, who will be happier if there's a more specific educational function. See our 10 criteria at WP:NFC. TONY   (talk)  12:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Refs: acharts.us—how do we know that this is a reliable source of information? Ref 29 et al.—it's "MTV Networks", yes?
 * I have added parts concerning the songs lyrical and production styles to the sample section. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 'aCharts.us' is an official music chart site. I don't understand what you mean by "Ref 29 et al.—it's "MTV Networks", yes?" - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * re. MTV - the publishers that say "MTV" should say "MTV Networks" (according to Tony...I personally think otherwise). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please specify the full name of the site owner. TONY   (talk)  11:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an aggregator of global music charts. About page. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think the article can really be considered as comprehensive. Discussion about the impact and influence is relatively limited. In-depth analysis of the themes and musical innovations is missing. I think a more comprehensive comparison between reviews at the time and reviews in retrospect would be a natural addition. The focus in the discussion of the lyrics is on controversy: that's important to mention but there is only superficial analysis of the main themes, the influence of the album's lyrical focus in subsequent releases by Death Row artists. The references explain the relative superficial nature of the article: most are short articles in various magazines and newspapers but none are from books or scholarly work which can take the time to really analyze in depth the place of this important record in rap history. No doubt, it's a very nice article: well-written, informative, balanced. But comprehensive? I think that's a big stretch. Pichpich (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - is there a source for the "subliminal" insults mentioned in the lead? Is it really 'subliminal' insults or is it more 'implied'? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.