# Talk:Madvillainy

All song titles serve as redirects to this album, have their own pages, or have been placed at the appropriate disambiguation pages.--Hraefen Talk 18:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that Madvillain is prepping their second album, shouldn't it be time to give Madvillain their own page, and close the redirect from Madvillain to Madvillainy? That is what I propose. -The Hams 23:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, especially as they've released other songs not on Madvillainy. --Jimmyjrg 09:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree aswell. Deltron 3030 is a good example of how this should be done, they only have one album yet have a seperate page for the group. Surely it makes sense to do the same for Madvillain considering they could potentially produce a number of albums? If someone could sort this out (I can't figure out how you do it), I'd be grateful. Cheers. Powelldinho 11:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree - Madvillainy page should redirect to Madvillain, not the other way around. --MarcelloRubini 07:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I merged the samples page with this one. The original Madvillain Samples page should be deleted.
The line "Madvillainy was supposedly produced entirely by using a portable turntable and an SP-303." is incorrect. Only the songs "Rhinestone Cowboy" and "Strange Ways" were made on it. The rest were done in Madlib's studio, using the SP1200 among other tools.

All sample references should be deleted unless there's varification for them.  Too many guesses and errors are being posted.  MarcelloRubini 06:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I was a little surprised to see no discussion of this album's early leak to the internet in an incomplete form.  This is important because: It's referenced on the album (particularly in "Rhinestone Cowboy"), it may be one of the reasons for the Doomposters (possibly), and the controversy may have helped with the album's success (possibly).  I think I heard early versions of several tracks from it in 2003 on college radio.  Review mentioning the leak:  http://www.pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/5579-madvillainy/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.82.8.154 (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Madvillainy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 09:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I am giving this article a GA Review for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
The form looks good but there are some issues - please see 2B & 2C. Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
Ref #55 requires a login. Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
C. It contains no original research: 
The Track listing and Personnel sections are unsourced.  You can use Template:Cite AV media to directly cite from the album notes etc. Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Fixed.  Nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Ran the copyvio tool.  There is a commonality between this article and http://www.egotripland.com/album-cover-madvillain-madvillainy-jeff-jank/  bu that is only because of some quoted material and since this is clearly-identified, that is not an issue. Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
See closing statement. Shearonink (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
See closing statement. Shearonink (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
No edit wars. Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Images all have the proper permissions etc. Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Well-done article, well-referenced, lays out the influence of the album and its cover art very well.  I feel like I understand something I had no idea of previously. Shearonink (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


### References
@Shearonink: Thank you for taking your time to review the article! The ref #55 is strange. When I open it, it doesn't require logging in, but when I put it into Web Archive, it redirects to login page. I guess it might depend on IP. Nevertheless, I've added an archived copy of the page. Could you check if it works for you? And I've added the source for track listing and personnel, but used {{Cite AV media notes}}. Hope it's okay. Cheers! –AstonishingTunesAdmirer (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing those issues.  Congratulations! Shearonink (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm glad you liked the article, it gives me confidence to try to improve some more articles in future. Have a great day :) –AstonishingTunesAdmirer (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Should the Madvillainy demo released in 2013 be included in this article at the bottom? It's an official Stones Throw release for Record Store Day. [1]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hostagecat (talk • contribs) 09:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC) 

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

MF Doom Mural Little Haiti.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

MF Doom Mural Little Haiti.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)