# Talk:Reasonable Doubt (album)

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

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

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)

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)

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!"

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)
Seems fine to me, if Phoenix wants to pass it. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
Thanks to both of you for taking the time to review this. Cheers. Spellcast (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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)