Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Notorious B.I.G./archive1

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

The article was kept by Dana boomer 00:49, 29 November 2010 [1].

The Notorious B.I.G.

Review commentary

Featured article candidates/The Notorious B.I.G.

Notified: WikiProject Hip hop

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's been three years since it's promotion and it haven't been reviewed since, the promotion itsself didn't give criticism about the article, mainly ILIKE IT the citations are a mess at times, lots of stubby paragraphs, there are unsourced statements "The article written by Philips was found out to be completely false and the paper later published a front page retraction" and dead links, several unreliable sources Rap Reviews About.com and Court TV Crime Library for example, and a little outdated "Los Angeles Judge Florence-Marie Cooper reinstated the lawsuit on May 9, 2008" and what?. Nominator is inactive. Secret ^account 00:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The retraction of the Philips article is easily verifiable. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing, structure, formatting YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist nothing's happening at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator has not responded. Insufficient details provided. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I responded, but there's still other concerns that the article has that weren't fixed Delist with a chance to work on it later. Secret ^account 13:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You made no edits to this page between September 28 and Octdober 14, nor any edits to the talk page that I can find - ever - except placing the FAR template. Please specify specific details to fix, otherwise complaints are not really actionable. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I meant I responded to you now, my fault. There's other concerns especially with the sourcing that doesn't make it FA standards. If I could fix it I would but it would take alot of research. Secret ^account 19:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Secret, if you want your "delist" to be actionable, you need to give specifics. We're not asking you to do all of the work yourself - Gimmetoo is obviously willing to work on the article - but he needs specifics before he can do so. Please provide these. Dana boomer (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Keep Secret ^account 14:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per TenPoundHammer, none of those issues addressed. This article is not up to FA standard. JJ98 (Talk) 20:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, there are unaddressed issues of concern, including sourcing. -- Cirt (talk) 06:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Default keep at this point. The sourcing "issues" brought up by the nominator are nothing to fuss about. The supposedly "unsourced" statement is self-sourcing and easily verifiable. The one "about.com" reference followed two other references to a statement, so it was redundant and hardly worth considering an "issue". Removed now, in any event. Likewise, "Rap Review" was used once, and was easy to remove. But why, specifically, would CourtTV not be a WP:RS? As for the so-called "outdated" info on the lawsuit, if there is no news update, then there is nothing else to say. I would have addressed other "concerns", but without anything specific or further justification, there is nothing actionable. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is much better now I admit. With Court TV I remembered I tried to use Court TV as a source once for a topic that I wanted to work on, but when I went to the article, there was some facts there that I couldn't find in my sources, and after further research on google books and the NYT I still couldn't find nothing that supported some of the facts in the article. I wanted to make sure if it was still a reliable source and not a one time exception, so I read other articles by Court TV Library and it was mostly original research, or used unreliable sources, etc, though a couple I have to admit was well-researched. I think it depends on the writer. But its too unstable to use as an independent source. The information used by Court TV source can be found in other sources, so it's better to replace it with a more reliable source. The dead links are still there, its better to use cite news than web, as it's NYT, couple of citations need fixing, citation 6, and 29 for example. Other sources I can't find, even after researching MTV archives http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1425834/19970311/notorious_big.jhtml is the closest I could find to source number 12, but it doesn't support the information. Source number 26 I couldn't load, I don't know if it's my computer or it's the website themselves because I did saw the lettering Notorious B.I.G. I did found a source regarding what happened to the lawsuit http://new.music.yahoo.com/notorious-b-i-g/news/biggie-smalls-wrongful-death-lawsuit-dismissed--62001100 so that's taken care of. I'll add more comments later, once sourcing is taken care off. But I'm leaning towards keep. Secret ^account 20:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will get to this as soon as I can, but there is currently a MOS discussion relevant to the style/format of the citations in this article, and I would like that resolved before I work on the style/format issues. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Source 12 did support the weight info. Source 26 has invisible text, but it's a transcript of an interview and does include the two quotes it's used for. (The interview was his last; the quotes are also in Cathy Scott's The Murder of Biggie Smalls.) Source 29 did work, though intermittently for some reason. The actual info was in the bio link anyway. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:, I have stricken my "delist", per Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), above. I echo what was said by Secret (talk · contribs), here's hoping for some additional sourcing improvement. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have also stricken my "delist". Per Cirt, Gimmetoo and Secret, I also agreed that the article needs little improvements. So I decided to vote Keep after the the article is improved. JJ98 (Talk) 17:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get an update on this please? How is the source improvement work going? Dana boomer (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picky favour to ask. Can refs like Edwards, Paul, 2009, How to Rap: The Art & Science of the Hip-Hop MC, Chicago Review Press, p. 53. be shortened to Edwards, 53, and the full description moved to biblo. Ta. Ceoil (talk) 08:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just that book, or all paper sources? Why? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update, anyone? Dana boomer (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything that people mentioned has been handled. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Excellent efforts by Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), well done. -- Cirt (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.