This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip-hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip-hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip-hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip-hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip-hopHip-hop
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
↑ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
↑This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
↑Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
↑Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
↑The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Several errors need fixing before this can pass. "Singed" instead of "signed" for the LP release. The distributor is spelled "EDGN" in the body but "ESGN" everywhere else. Present tense ("the duo release a music video") in a section written in past tense. Some phrasing in the Music and lyrics section is simply unclear; "lights vulnerability over his regrets" and "provides as an assist in his delivery from flash to logistics" don't parse well. The track-by-track descriptions are also packed into two long paragraphs with no breaks, making them hard to follow. A few lines in that section read more like the article's own opinion than attributed description — "brings swagger," the Alchemist's production "lights up."
Fail
(b) (MoS)
The lead skips critical reception entirely despite that being a well-developed section. MOS:LEAD requires the lead to summarize all major sections. The album is called "Alfredo 2" in the title and infobox but "Alfredo II" in the opening line of the Music and lyrics section and in the liner notes citation. This needs to be consistent. The charts table has no introductory text establishing what it covers, which MOS:LIST requires
References are present throughout and archived links are included. One issue I have is the commercial success section says the album surpassed "6,000 units achieved by its predecessor," but no citation backs up the predecessor's figure directly; it's implied through ref 42 rather than stated. Needs an explicit inline citation.
Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)
Shatter the Standards (ref 7), a Substack by a writer identified only as "Phil", is cited more than almost any other source and used for specific interpretive claims about individual tracks. Its reliability is questionable, and using it this heavily is a problem regardless.
Fail
(c) (original research)
The track descriptions pull from multiple critics and blend their readings together without always making clear who said what. The description of "1995" mixes atmospheric detail from one source with lyrical interpretation from another, producing an account no single source supports. This is synthesis.
Fail
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)
No verbatim reproduction found. Reviewer quotes are attributed and kept brief. No concern here.
Pass
Broad in its coverage:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (major aspects)
The article has all the standard sections for a music album article. The Background section is only one paragraph and says nothing about how or when this album actually came together. The Rolling Stone interview exists and could fill this gap but is currently used only to cite recording locations. That's a missed opportunity and could significantly bring up the quality and quantity of the Background section.
Don't know
(b) (focused)
The reviewer has left no comments here
Pass
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Notes
Result
The critical reception section handles the range of reviews well and it doesn't push a single verdict. The problem is in the Music and lyrics section, where a few lines read as the article's own characterization rather than anyone's attributed view. These need to either be tied to a named source or rewritten neutrally.
Fail
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Comment
Result
The reviewer has left no comments here.
Pass
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)
The article isn't ready. The "Alfredo 2" vs. "Alfredo II" inconsistency is the most basic problem. The article can't refer to its own subject inconsistently. Beyond that: the prose errors (singed/signed, EDGN/ESGN, tense slip) need fixing; the lead needs a sentence or two on critical reception; and the track description section needs attribution cleaned up so it's clear whose reading is being reported. The Background section could also use development; one paragraph covering prior discography without touching on how this album came together isn't enough. The nominator should address these before resubmitting.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fail
Pass
Don't know