Wikipedia:WikiProject Hip hop/Collaboration History

Rapping

 * Nominated 8 May, 2006

Support: Comments:
 * 1) Chubdub 18:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Seems like it wouldn't take us very long to get this featured.  Mainly some cleanups on the subject matter section, and perhaps just some minor copy edits.--Urthogie 19:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Tutmosis 22:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) P.O.N.Y. 13:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Illmatic

 * ''Nominated March 29, 2006

Support: Comments:
 * 1) --Chubdub 01:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)--This is a well-written and informative article about one of hip hop's most influential albums. With properly cited and formatted footnotes and a little more work, this can easily become a Featured-Article.
 * 2) -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 22:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC) If we could get all rap albums to this ones qulity, there would be no need for AMG. Great work, how long do we have to wait before renominating as featured?
 * 3) --P.O.N.Y. 22:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Nice, very in-depth article indeed. Greak work! But it can still use some work before we re-nominate it for Feature article status. Perhaps we should add individual song descriptions????
 * 1) Well it is a classic, but it may be a bit narrow-minded for the first collabo Yanksta x 03:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Support: Comments:
 * 1) P.O.N.Y. 20:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2)  Mysekurity  [m!] 22:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Chubdub 23:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Tutmosis 01:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Is BIG next?  MOD  00:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) User:Flesh-n-Bone 11:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This has true FA quality. All it needs are a few more references, audio samples, and an expanded lead. Should be fun. -- Mysekurity  [m!] 22:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Needs a criticism section.--Urthogie 12:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? MOD  00:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Because good articles on people cover them fully, and benefit from a criticism section. This applies to any biography, including Mother Theresa.--Urthogie 10:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What criticism would you desire of Tupac? The guy was seen by many as a prodigious underdog, covering the very wide gamut between sociopolitical issues and talking about prostitutes. It's not as if everyone who has to have a featured article has to have a criticism section. The recently featured Pink Floyd lacks such a section. As does Louis Armstrong, Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, and Kylie Minogue. And the Mother Theresa "criticism" has to do more with superstition and wishful thinking on the part of people completely unrelated to Mother Theresa five years after her death, not Mother Theresa herself. Oh, and if you think my above examples are too music oriented, Bill Gates lacks a criticism section, as does Richard Nixon. MOD  11:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * All biographies should have either a criticism section or criticism dispersed throughout. The fact that several big articles don't should be a sign that they need improvement-- hence the edit button.  I don't want a criticism of tupac because its tupac, but rather, I want a criticism because its a biography article.--Urthogie 13:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why should they? If the article is objective enough, criticism will be introduced to it within the body, obviating the need for a separate section. It's not that the fact is that several big articles don't, it's that they are featured and don't. If people don't think it necessary to make a point to criticize everyone, then it must not be. Besides, if you feel the need for this section to exist, what would you mention in it? MOD  13:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Dude, how about you try actually reading those articles? Louis armstrong is criticized in 5 paragraphs in his article. I can't even count how many times Mariah is criticized. Celine is criticized at least 5 times. Tupac, however, only receives at most 2 mentions of criticism. Thanks for wasting my time at yet another pointless debate. I'm tired of it.--Urthogie 13:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I read all of them, especially Nixon and Gates with great attention. I'm arguing against a criticism section, not criticism. Thank you for getting frustrated and forgetting how to read. I'm yet to even begin feeling annoyed. MOD  16:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Disclaimer : Please try to avoid personal insults Chubdub 20:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, you argued against criticism. Read your own comments.--Urthogie 22:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I asked you, "why?" when you said "Needs a criticism section." I also said later, "It's not as if everyone who has to have a featured article has to have a criticism section." Then I said, "If the article is objective enough, criticism will be introduced to it within the body, obviating the need for a separate section." And I finished up with "I'm arguing against a criticism section, not criticism." Where, in any of those, is the move against criticism? It's an argument against the existence of a criticism section, as many well-written articles do not have them. There's no "actually, you argued against criticism," I'm afraid. Now what was your reason for having a criticism section again? MOD  16:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: How about, instead of arguing in hypotheticals here, you two make the changes to the article itself? Urthogie, go ahead and introduce some criticism if you feel it's relevant, and we'll be able to see whether it enhances the article. TheJ a  bb  e  rw  ʘ  ck 20:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's usually my modus operandi, but Modulatum seems to be a fan of my contributions, so I'm forced to answer his questions at several pages.--Urthogie 20:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to get it to FA. We also need to fix the references section because some ref's get the page out of place. I changed them to "[1]" ref look but someone reverted it. Woop-Woop That's the sound of da Police 11:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Support:
 * 1) 69.116.150.174 22:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) W guice 20:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * This article looks great, it just needs some copyediting and citations. 69.116.150.174 22:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)