Talk:Reasonable Doubt (album)

Reasonable Doubt (album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 15, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
February 21, 2008	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 14, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Hip hop High‑importance

	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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Albums

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 articles

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[East Coast hip hop#Renaissance (1990s)|New York's hip-hop renaissance]] The anchor (#Renaissance (1990s)) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

dab

Should be a disambiguation page including the legal standard. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:20, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that that can be at reasonable doubt, and this page be about the album (with disambig blocks), but I'm easy to please. Tuf-Kat 21:01, Sep 15, 2003 (UTC)

There are TWO articles on the same Jay-Z album! One is entitled "Reasonable Doubt", the other "Reasonable Doubt (Album)". The latter is shorter, so I recommend that it be deleted, with any unique information added onto the other page. - 2Pac

Times

Can someone add the times to the tracklisting? I'm not good with the traklisting box so if someone could do it it would improve the article. Use the Allmusic Guide Link if you don't own a copy of it. Wuthai 23:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NPSWIMDUDE Wuthai 01:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

When I type in "reasonable doubt" in my Firefox search engine, it redirects me to Burden of proof, not to this page. I think the redirect header should be changed for either this article or Burden of proof. THE evil fluffyface 15:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should. That's why we have "Reasonable doubt redirects here. For the legal standard "beyond a reasonable doubt", see burden of proof" at the top. Spellcast 11:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn's Finest

The quote at the beginning of the song is very much alike what Al Pacino says in the movie Carlito's Way, but I can't find anything on that relationship in WP. maybe it should be inserted somewhere, i just don't know where and how to put it. "Carlito: I'm reloaded! Okay? Come on in here, you motherfuckers! Come on, I'm waitin' for ya! What, you ain't comin' in? Okay, I'm comin' out! Oh, you up against me now, motherfuckers! I'm gonna blow your fuckin' brains out! You think you're big time? You gonna fuckin' die big time! You ready? HERE COMES THE PAIN!" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106519/quotes) Vs. "OKAY, I'M RELOADED!!! You motherfuckers, think you big time? Fuckin with Jay-Z, you gon' die, big time! Here come the Pain!"

Cover Image

I think that the main picture of the cover should be the original image, not the re-released cover art. We can still keep the new one, but it should be like the ones on Illmatic's page, where we have the original at the top, and the one a bit below can be the new one. JSelby (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review

What's with the Entertainment Weekly review? Is it an A- or B+? Spellcast (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's B+, I've confirmed this by viewing Reasonable Doubt on Tower.com -- I will change it Noahdabomb3 (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subheadings

I don't think the subheadings under "Significance", "Music" and "Conception" are really needed. None of those subsections are long enough to need subheadings, so they could be easily combined. Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Hi, I'm your GA Reviewer. This article looks like a strong GA candidate from a glance, now I'll take a closer look.

The references all look like solid, reliable sources, but when I checked them, one of them, Source 22 from everyhit.com, did not direct me to the right spot. That's an easy fix, though, if someone will do it.

The article is well written and broad, as per criteria 1 and 3 of the GA criteria. Though there is a slight concern: I'm not sure if the background section is too broad or not for an album article. It may contain excessive summary.

Criteria 4 and 5 are met by the article's neutral treatment of the subject and no edit warring. That much looks good, at least.

As for criteria 6, I have a concern with the Roc-A-Fella trio picture. If all three of these men are alive, then under most circumstances the simple possibility that a free equivalent COULD exist disallows you from using a fair use image in this case. Now, I'm not sure of it in this case, though.

I really like how well this article is sourced, but there's a couple patches where sourcing is light, especially in the Singles and the Music sections.

Because of the case with the image, the summary, and the somewhat light referencing, I am requesting a second opinion on this article, as these parts are a little beyond what I know. In the mean time, you are allowed to make changes to improve the article, and I do recommend you fix the link to source 22 while we wait for another reviewer to look. If you have questions or comments, you can contact me on my talk page. Thanks for your time. Red Phoenix (Talk) 22:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyhit works like that. You need to do the search yourself. I agree with you about the image though - I don't really see a use for it. Something else to do would be cut down on quoting - there are quite a few large quotes, in places where using your own words would be better. Large quotes should only be used in cases where you couldn't write it yourself. And that's my second opinion. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the second opinion. Because of these small issues, the article is now on hold for seven days until they are rectified. If you have questions, comments, or you are finished and want me to take another look, please contact me on my talk page. Red Phoenix (Talk) 13:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the pic since it was decorative. There's not much that can be done about everyhit.com - you have to type in the song. As for the quotes, I removed a whole passage which was only sourced to a lyric site. Spellcast (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me, if Phoenix wants to pass it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked over it again since the changes were made, and it looks a lot better. I hereby pass this article. Congratulations. Red Phoenix (Talk) 16:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for taking the time to review this. Cheers. Spellcast (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Album article class reviews

WikiProject Album does not utilize "A" class. Additionally, individuals who have contributed substantially to this article should not assess it for the Wikiproject album, but may as appropriate request reassessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment. This is important to ensure that fresh, uninvolved eyes have an opportunity to point out issues that contributors may have missed. I have revised the assessment to accord with the GA review. If at some point, this article should lose GA status, it will need to be re-evaluated as a "B", the highest rating the wikiproject offers. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable Doubt → Reasonable Doubt (album) – This is rather confusing. I feel that everything that is currently listed at Reasonable Doubt should be moved to Reasonable Doubt (album), and then Reasonable Doubt should be redirected to Reasonable doubt (as is often the case with capitialization). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mild oppose This is why {{for}} exists--why can't the phrase be at reasonable doubt and the album be at Reasonable Doubt? See Wikipedia:CAPS#Page_names_that_only_differ_by_capitalization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the third sentence of that guideline seems to contradict the sentence that precedes it. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 09:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Reasonable doubt" in the legal sense is far more important than some ephemeral routine pop music album. And, people are often not case-specific when typing search terms. Let any case combination lead to either the legal sense or the disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree with Anthony; disambiguating by case is useful when the uncapitalized and capitalized uses are close in popularity, but that's clearly not the case here. Powers ^T 13:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Yes, the present title is seriously misleading. Noetica^Tea? 01:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Anthony. Jenks24 (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.