# Talk:Life Is Good (Nas album)

This song has been confirmed NOT to be on the album.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.228.145.233 (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 

This page for The Don (Nas song) was recently created. It has no sources and very little information for it to stand alone as an article, so I propose it be merged into this article since it is a song on this album. Comatmebro (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagree; it's standard for singles, whether independant releases or as part of an album, to have their own pages on WP.--Chimino (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there a policy or guideline that states that? That contradicts what WP:Notability (songs) says: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song... Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." That policy supports merging. Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 21:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm adding Accident Murderers to the merge proposal for the same reasons.  Based on WP:notability (songs) these song articles do not meet the notability criteria and are unlikely to expand beyond stubs. Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 06:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
With the extensive expansion that has happened on The Don (Nas song), it looks like there's no need for a merge now. Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 23:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Salaam Remi did not co-produce this song. No ID is the only producer. I put the reference of the official tracklist. Not some random site that says otherwise.
User 108.228.145.233 keeps undoing this and putting Salaam Remi back to the article. By all the conversations that he's been involved, he clearly is a disruptive user.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renangms (talk • contribs) 00:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC) 
There is nothing disruptive about what Ive been doing, Ive been citing my MANY resources & ALL of them have listed Salaam Remi as a co-producer.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.228.145.233 (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC) 

With my revision to the article, I restored the Observer review. Regarding the publication's notability, XXL is for hip hop albums, whereas The Observer reviews all albums, which I'd think would make it an NPOV choice over XXL; the latter rates albums, or only hip hop albums in its case, higher than other critics [2]. In any case, the template as it is now is a more neutral representation of critics' ratings, and w/Slant's near-perfect rating included, XXL's would be a bit too partial to the few critics that gave the album more than a four-star, or equivalent, rating. Dan56 (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
-With all do respect, Dan, that's bull. XXL does NOT rate all hip hop albums with high marks. The bias with Wiki editors is astounding. It's as if you guys don't want to show that one reviewer actually appreciated the album to its fullest extent. I think it's more "biased" to remove a critic's point of view and be so selective about it based on your own POV.74.109.42.182 (talk)

WP:Fancruft: The point of the ratings template to represent all the ratings accurately and neutrally (WP:ALBUMS) It is less comprehensive and more selective to replace a three-star/equivalent rating that is one of multiple critics' rating with a five-star/equivalent rating that comes from only one publication, that happens to specialize in hip hop music... and to add it twice. I like the album too, which is why I cleaned up and expanded this article, but I dont prioritize my taste/opinion in music over encyclopedic value. If I did, I'd too want to include only the highest ratings available. It's not bias, it's objectivity, and Slant's rating is already included to represent the ratio of those handful of high ratings over four stars. Dan56 (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
-I fail to see your point (I understand it, but I don't get it). It can be argued that Rolling Stone is biased/less neutral towards older acts, but I'll leave that argument alone since XXL claims hip-hop coverage exclusively. Punk, metal, and hardcore bands get reviews from, well, sites that specialize in punk and metal (PunkNews, Lambgoat, AbsolutePunk and so on). So, I kind of find this action coming more from your personal preference (yes, I saw the WP:ALBUMS link). See a list of reviews in the past that have been approved for XXL on Wikipedia: 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_Rich_or_Die_Tryin%27_%28album%29 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_%28Common_album%29 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enter_the_Wu-Tang_%2836_Chambers%29 and the list goes on forever. Are you going to remove those? If XXL does indeed fall into this category you've put them in, then either Wiki is inconsistent with enforcing its rules, or there is currently editorial bias at play. Neither of which can be taken very seriously in such case. 74.109.42.182 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC) 

So why should I take you seriously? LOL. XXL seems to be your personal preference as you are not providing a valid argument against what I said about accurately portraying how critics reviewed the album, the point of the template; I'm guessing you overlooked that altogether. As for your references to other articles, Wikipedia promotes internal consistency (such as date styles, ex. 1 January 2012 / January 1, 2012), not external, meaning information available for certain articles dictates how the article is written. Nothing is "approved" for articles; if XXL is the most appropriate reviewer available, then it is included. Newer albums have the benefit of being in an Internet age where everything is documented and more sources are available, esp. for hip hop albums. There are more reviews published online than there were when 50 Cent debuted, and out of the numerous reviews for this album, XXL is in the small minority of critics rating it like it did. You, like the rest of the Nas fan club editing this article in the past three days (same exact edits, so are you all the same person using different computers/hotspots occasionaly?) are giving undue weight to a reviewer you'd ignore if they panned the album. I cleaned the article up and expanded it pretty nicely while the occasional IP made petty personalization of it, so you dont take me seriously when I say I know what I'm talking about? Dan56 (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Since you brought it up, here's Rolling Stone's average score weighed against other critics, in case you're interested. Dan56 (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
DAn56 or whatever they call u. i added the xxl rating for life is good when there were only 4 ratings and you kept removing it adding the one you like.XXL rating are on other albums such as get rich or die trying i dont c why my edit keeps getting deleted and now uthe page is semi protected like it belonged to ur father or something.smh!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayn12 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC) 

I clearly explained myself. I cant force you to read the above, but if your question isnt just rhetoric, I suggest you read it. Dan56 (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Its stupid, petty stuff like this that turned me off editing wikipedia for the past few months... By your logic Dan56, all XXL magazine ratings should be removed from the templates on recent album articles. I think it is perfectly reasonable to allocate one space in the template to a widely respected hip hop magazine. And judging by the amount of times XXL's rating has been added and removed from the template, this is not simply "fancruft", as you suggest. Green-Halcyon (formerly Aunty-S) (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Slant Magazine and the AV Club also gave the album a very high rating, should they be removed too? I also had a quick look at the reviews added up by Metacritic, and there are no reviews panning the album. Does this mean that Metacritic is biased with its accumulated score?Green-Halcyon (formerly Aunty-S) (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's petty, why was my initial revision (first "removal" of the rating) to the article met with such controversy? And why would you address such a petty issue here? All I did was post a short explanation here (as if I had to) for the change, out of courtesy to your revision and then cleanup the article. As for the subsequent addition/removal, it's probably the same user adding the XXL rating, judging from the different IPs claiming the same identity when addressing the revision (wayne_from_michigan). I was just being bold, defending my "petty" change, and happened to get an anti-vandalism barnstar for getting this page semi-protected after the same IPs hung over about the XXL rating were also removing any mention of mixed criticism from the article. As you can see above, they just called it "bull", praised XXL, and used other articles as precedent for including it here. Also, I did not understand these, so could you clarify: "all XXL magazine ratings should be removed from the templates on recent album articles", "should they be removed too?", "there are no reviews panning the album. Does this mean that Metacritic is biased with its accumulated score?". Dan56 (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Dan 56 please stop tampering with my edits. as from now i will be making edits(sourced) to this page and please dont go changing edits i made on other pages.as for the xxl ranking i added it on there a few minutes after it was reviewed even though i had no profile on here then it is nt fair that it keeps getting removed.i will be editing this page as well as other pages which i feel are not being handled wellWayn12 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 

With all due respect, your edit is unconstructive to the ratings template. You're not being objective, as a perfect score is not supporting a neutral point of view and depiction of critics' ratings, which is the point of the ratings template. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_guide#Album_ratings_template, the reviews chosen should be in keeping with a neutral point of view. So far, you have provided no encyclopedic reason for replacing Spin's revscore with XXL's, so why would anyone accept your change? Dan56 (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm more inclined to agree with Dan56 on this issue, based on his reasoning above. Please be careful of entering a edit war and use the talk page to resolve the issue, rather than pushing your opinion. Noom talk stalk 00:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
with all due respect, wikipedia is an open website which can be edited by anyone.i hope you know the meaning of neutral,if the all music rating which is low is OK on that page then for neutrality the xxl rating which is perfect should be left alone.it is not my opinion but is clearly sourcedWayn12 (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
How the hell is it LOW?! The lowest rating shown at Metacritic isnt even close to allmusic, so you just proved my point: the highest, sole perfect rating is acceptable? Stop it. You're either biased or cant grasp the concept of neutrality, and you're unsigned comments to my talk page are getting irritating. If you dont like objectivity, go edit articles on albums that were better received by music critics. Dan56 (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Wayn12, I do indeed understand the meaning of neutrality, but I believe that the current listed reviews are more appropriate to maintain a neutral point of view than the review given by XXL. Adding a higher rated review simply to balance out other reviews is not keeping a neutral point of view. Please make sure you assume good faith whilst editing the article and don't disrespect other editors. Noom talk stalk 01:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
ok u re right it is not low but it is not too high and so is the spin rating if i was biased i ll probably be editing other stuff on that page but i am not and i am pretty sure that it is neutral with the xxl rating on thereWayn12 (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The album received generally positive reviews; Spin's rating is generally positive. XXL gave it a rave review; the album did not receive generally those kinds of reviews. Not one mixed review is included in the template. What is "not too high"? And what "other stuff" are you referring to? You'd be pretty damn sure it wasnt neutral had you read my comments above instead of blatantly disregarding my reasoning and frequently reverting me w/out any substantial edit summary. Take a look for yourself (Metacritic), 2 mixed reviews from generally more notable publications, and 2 perfect scores from generally less notable publications. Neither should be included as most of the 26 reviews shown at Metacritic mirror those ratings I included when I was cleaning and expanding this article, while you were (under different IPs, but as this shows the same "wayne from michigan") removing prose from the reception section and pushing for XXL's rating. Dan56 (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.if you are keeping a neutral point of view you would have followed that rule instead of undoing my edits.and yes it is wayne from michigan.Wayn12 (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
What Wikipedia article did you copy/paste that off of? And FYI, it's if the "sourced information" is biased, not if the editor adding it is. I'm restoring the rating to as it was, so how about you follow that rule and stop removing Spin's "sourced information". Dan56 (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
no u cant leave it as it was because you havent explained why u have to leave it that way.and i got it from a wikipedia article yes and if you are keeping a neutral point of view you would nt even think about removing XXL but maybe you cant understand it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayn12 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Is there a language barrier here, b/c I'm having a hard time understanding what you're typing. I explained myself, and the editor Noomos echoed my sentiment. What part do you not get? Dan56 (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Since you say I havent explained myself, here are the specific talk page edits that you can read: This one about having a neutral point of view when selecting which reviews to include, Noommos' response, and overview of ratings/Metacritic's list. Dan56 (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
i read the neutral point of view section clearly and from what it states my edit should be left alone just because you have edited this page from scratch does nt mean you have the right to undo other peoples edit and please stop tampering with other pages i edited.i see u tampered with a page i edited, a page which you might know nothing aboutWayn12 (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The current consensus from this discussion appears to be in favour of the original reviews, which you attempted to replace with XXL's review. Unless consensus changes, and a reasonable argument is presented, I see no reason for the need to add XXL's review. Feel free to ask around for more consensus though, as this discussion has few participants. Also, as you previously stated, Wikipedia is editable by everyone, so why do you insist that Dan56 not be allowed to edit articles outside of his usual area? For example, I only came across this particular article whilst patrolling and do not claim to have any expertise knowledge on the subject. Noom talk stalk 02:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Why are you bothering with the NPOV section? It's relevance to the ratings template is only for editors to not be biased and instead be accurate when choosing which reviews to include, as it's stated at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_guide#Album_ratings_template. Dan56 (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, you dont have the right to undo perfectly explained edit without explaining yourself. And what the hell is "please stop tampering with other pages i edited.i see u tampered with a page i edited, a page which you might know nothing about"??? Dan56 (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I dont think he listened, Noommos; just went against "consensus". Dan56 (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wayn12, despite previous advice, you've continued to edit war. I'm more than happy to listen and discuss the issue with you, but edit warring is not the way forward. Noom talk stalk 02:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
He wont respond unless you do what I did: revert per consensus, drawing him back here to talk about "tampering" and whatnot. Dan56 (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps a little more consensus may be necessary before continuing. I brought my third opinion upon seeing his first revert, but I also notice another editor expressed disagreement. Noom talk stalk 02:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
None of the editors for XXL's rating are considering WP:ALBUMS' NPOV for the template; one says XXL is a "widely respected hip hop magazine" (hard to prove, though), so an album's genre is a higher priority than accuracy? The IP commenting at the top of this section makes accusations of bias, an argument that's easily switchable. And of course "wayne from michigan", whose closest point to an encyclopedic reason is a misintepretation of Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines: "i read the neutral point of view section clearly and from what it states my edit should be left alone". I asked another editor earlier to comment, but wayne's revision should be reverted, not that I'm willing to risk a block over someone like wayne. It's too bad the demographic of editors to hip hop articles isnt as constructive as those to rock and pop articles. Dan56 (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Wayne, I have to ask you to please stop reverting your edits on the Professional Ratings chart. Dan and Noomas have expressed that the chart should present a more neutral representation of the album. The XXL magazine review is already present in "Critical response." However, it seems that the problem is centered more about making the subject of the article "better." I have edited in the past in order to maintain the 10-review rule for the chart for Professional Reviews. [3] [4] However, many users have attempted in adding the XXL review after those edits were made. [5] Moreover, the edits would replace already-sourced material, leading many attempts by fanatics to glamour up the article. What started simply edits in order to maintain the proper style for albums in Wikipedia resulted in users creating a certain bias about the article. Further edits by this bias is considered as vandalism now, for the user do not wish to stop until they see their priced review in the chart, when it is already mentioned and sourced under "Critical response." If these edits continue, I would have to put up a protection on the page to prevent similar users from generating their bias edits into the article. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 03:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
whatever dude, i see why people say info from wikipedia is not to be trusted now.i won t be editing that article or any other one againWayn12 (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
It's "not to be trusted" b/c one review is appropriately excluded from a rating template, which also discourages you from editing? Wow. Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
dan56 you dont even know the meaning of the word "composition". what does a music critics say/opinion have to do with the composition of an album. you are so obsessed with music critics that their opinion is scattered all overe the article.same thing with other pages you are editingWayn12 (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Returning here just to say that consensus was reached (mostly by actual Wikipedia members and not just fans passing by) to keep the ratings template without the XXL rating. New users and IPs passing by hip hop articles continue to add it as an 11th review in the template. Also Wayn12, enlighten us on who should be cited as sources for this article if not critics and writers? Perhaps you should just write us an original piece on this album. Dan56 (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm mostly a reader but I had to change this one thing. The article stated that Distant Relatives is his ninth album, while clearly Untitled is. Don't change it back again please.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.217.43 (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC) 

I just changed the official release date of Life Is Good back to July 17. The July 13 release date was only for Germany exclusively, July 17 is the official US release date which falls on a Tuesday as per albums entered on Billboard. This goes for the  single "Daughters" which i find stating was release on July 17, I changed it back to May 1 as stated on its iTunes. Enots86 (talk)

Per Template:Infobox album#Released, the earliest known date is included. As for the single, an iTunes digital release does not signify a single release; promo songs are released on iTunes as well, but not to radio. The label releasing the single supercedes as the source. Dan56 (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I said before that wikipedia said that it was his ninth studio album, and now it's his eleventh? It's his tenth SOLO studio album, and if you count collaboration albums then why don't we count The Firm? This is either is 12th studio album or, like most people say, his 10th Solo album. I'd prefer last one, change it to either one of them instead of providing incorrect information please.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.217.43 (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 

"The Firm" is credited as "The Firm"; Marley and Nas' album co-billed both artists separately, not an individual credit as "The Firm". "SOLO" does not apply to Nas, as he was never billed as a solo artist (not originally from a group, like those Wu-Tang releases for example). Correct as is. Dan56 (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
But You understand what I'm saying right? Mister Nas himself said before that his TENTH ALBUM, Life is Good, would be something special.. Let's make the difference between a Collaboration album and a Studio Album, as it is being named on the Wikipedia page of Nas. I think it should be his tenth studio album then, or the Nas wikipedia page is wrong. Either way, something should be changed right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.217.43 (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 

Revised bio article. Dan56 (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, please remember to add ~~~~ (the one next to #1 on your keyboard, 4x) to sign each comment you leave at talk pages. Dan56 (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Life Is Good (Nas album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 10:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall: Good
Pass/Fail: 

Please change Nas “Life is Good” album to his tenth album instead of eleventh. He has a total of 15 studio albums. I never understood why Wikipedia never has his number of albums correct. Jmi841 (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)