Talk:Illmatic/Archive 1

message: According to the critical recognition section, Illmatic was "...criticized its brevity (it contained only nine songs and one skit; unusual for a hip hop album)", Not saying that an album with 10 tracks is particularly extensive, but lots of classic rap albums aren't that legnthy either. For example, Raising Hell by Run-D.M.C. has just 12 tracks, one of which is 27 seconds long. Paid in Full by Eric B. & Rakim has seven songs, three instrumentals, and was later remastered with two songs remixed/extended. Unless someone can actually find a review saying "Geez, why is this album so short?" or something, it my be good to rethink this sentence. At least the part saying it's "unusual for a hip-hop album", since it's obviously not written in stone that a hip-hop album has to be long. 2Pac 21:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticized for its brevity?

message: The track "Genisis," starts with a audio sample of the 1982 film Wild Style starring well known grafitti writters Lee and Pink (or Lady Pink). While Nas talks to AZ, Nas's first song is played in the background, "Live at the BBQ." Nas made another ode to Wild Style shooting his first video, "It Ain't Hard to Tell," on the same stage as the finale scene for the film. 
Source: Nas' (Music) Video Anthology Vol. 1 , http://www.rapreviews.com/archive/BTTL_illmatic.html --Pointyfingers 17:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  wild style  

message: I labeled each track with its corresponding producer because solo hip hop artists almost always use tracks from producers other than the one executive producing their album. Even an album produced by a famous producer will often feature tracks from others or the artists themselves (Eminem’s Slim Shady LP), unless the artist/producer collaboration states otherwise (Hi-Tek and Talib Kweli’s Reflection Eternal or Blueprint and RJD2 as Soul Position). The majority of hip hop artists, however, remain solo acts that strive to gather instrumentals from one side of the industry to the other. Because of this, I don’t think the standard album infobox template is inefficient at describing the details of a hip hop album. (Perhaps each integral genre of music should have a slightly different template.) 
I suggest that only the executive producer be named under producer in the album template and each track be labeled with its producer, i.e. (prd. …) or (produced by …). 
Production is important. It lets you see who did what, how their music evolves and relates to other things they produced. Kanye West is a perfect example, he did talib’s “get by” mobb deep’s “throw your hands up” and used excerpts from both those previous recording to make john legends “I used to love you” and talib’s “I try.” Knowing details like that (and I think most people did) almost bridge songs to each other, and it certainly paints a portrait of kanye’s style, for those interested in this kinda shit anyway. --Pointyfingers 19:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  producers 

message: How did the name Illmatic come to be?  --daunrealist 22:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: According to the WP:ALBUM
:"On song linkages: Don't link to a song that has no article unless you believe that the song most certainly deserves an article and/or you are willing to write it."
The songs which already have their own articles are singles. The rest of the songs weren't singles, and therefore, do not necessarily require their own articles, unless you feel their is a urgent need to do them. --P.O.N.Y. 02:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if someone did it, but I agree, it's not necessary. See The Wall, though, for an example where the individual track entries work well. TheJabberwock 21:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, feel free to add. I deeply encourage it. Any particular songs you had in mind? --Chubdub 21:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Each song doesn't need its own description..... 

message: :Draft moved to main article page for editing. TheJabberwʘck 02:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure P.O.N.Y. 02:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not a bad idea. But pictures should not be a high priority at this moment, especially when we still have other issues to work out. And I do not think picutres of producers should be included, unless they are pictures of the producers from that particular time period or are directly related to the album itself (i.e a shot of Premo in the recording studio; see W:FU for fair use rationale). There is one particular image of Nas in a premotional video for the album :Image:Nas making illmatic.jpg, and it has yet to find its source. If you feel the need to include more pictures, then I suggest that you find the source of that pictutre. But right now, we should stick to the topic at hand P.O.N.Y. 02:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough--Chubdub 03:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Care to specify. If not, then please do not request a clean up unless you provide a clear rationale. --199.232.104.30 15:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background and recording section 

message: Great job. Mostly you can see what I changed in my edit. I took out a couple quotes which didn't fit, and merged another with the text. I need you {P.O.N.Y.) to find the citations for those quotes. Thanks for your work. TheJabberwʘck 01:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure P.O.N.Y. 02:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not a bad idea. But pictures should not be a high priority at this moment, especially when we still have other issues to work out. And I do not think picutres of producers should be included, unless they are pictures of the producers from that particular time period or are directly related to the album itself (i.e a shot of Premo in the recording studio; see W:FU for fair use rationale). There is one particular image of Nas in a premotional video for the album :Image:Nas making illmatic.jpg, and it has yet to find its source. If you feel the need to include more pictures, then I suggest that you find the source of that pictutre. But right now, we should stick to the topic at hand P.O.N.Y. 02:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough--Chubdub 03:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Care to specify. If not, then please do not request a clean up unless you provide a clear rationale. --199.232.104.30 15:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Anybody know why that little box appears under "Rank" in the accolades table? TheJabberwʘck 01:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accolades table 

message: I know this was addressed during the FAC, but it is possible (and, from an encyclopedic standpoint, preferable) to paraphrase and adapt text from large quoted blocks, rather than to copy and paste them in their entirety. --FuriousFreddy 06:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy use of blockquotes 

message: Am I the only person that has not forgotten about the re-release of "Illmatic" in 2004 that featured six extra songs that were not on the original "Illmatic".  Someone needs to write an article on that second disc that featured remixes of "The World Is Yours", "Life's A Bitch", "It Ain't Hard To Tell" & "Life's A Bitch."  It also features new songs "On The Real" and "Star Wars."
I agree. (Rishi B 01:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 10th Anniversary Platinum Series 

message: I think information should be added about the many remixes of songs from this album that came about... the World is Yours and It Ain't Hard to tell are probably the most notable.. they're part of Nas' sets nowadays. Not many people know about the Memory Lane remix either... (Rishi B 01:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remixes 

message: It seems to me that, per the inverted pyramid style of writing, essential information such as the track listing should go at the top and above such a detailed history and analysis of the album. But otherwise, congratulations to everyone who worked on this article. It's nice to see some diversity among our daily featured articles. — GT 00:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of content 

message: *:Image:Nas making illmatic.jpg, :Image:090104.jpg, :Image:Pic small 170.jpg, :Image:Nas-NYStateOfMind.ogg, :Image:Halftime.ogg, :Image:MemoryLane.ogg, :Image:Illmatic.ogg, :Image:Nas2.jpg, :Image:Intv.jpg, :Image:114000952m.jpg, :Image:4908.jpg, :Image:Nas worldisyo 101b.jpg, :Image:Onelove.jpg contain no fair use rationale.
*The sound clips are longer and of higher quality than what is recommended at Wikipedia:Music samples: less than 30 seconds (meaning 29 seconds and some change) and Q0 quality.
*:Image:090104.jpg is of such low quality that it adds little or no value to the article. It is also mistagged as promotional (images from magazine articles aren't promotional) and the source listed doesn't seem to contain the image.
*:Image:Nas2.jpg is probably mistagged as promotional (looks like a scan from the original 5-mic review) and the source listed doesn't seem to contain the image. The need to include the image at all is questionable.
*While fair use images should be low resolution, some of them are simply too small IMO, hindering their illustrative value. Punctured Bicycle 01:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sound samples are songs that incooporate themes that are explained the "The Music" section. As far as the sound samples being too long, as with any guideline, WP:Music Samples contains suggestions, not requirements. :Image:090104.jpg may in fact, be mistagged (in which case it may have to be removed), but :Image:Nas2.jpg was exibited in several telivision shows (they recently air a special on MTV) and ads for the album. Therefore, the image can be sourced as either promotional for the latter or "telivision clip" for the former. Chubdub 02:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A magazine reviewing the album independently of those trying to sell the product isn't promotional.  It's clear that :Image:Nas2.jpg came from the original 1994 The Source magazine article ("microphone" ratings are after all one of their distinctive features).  MTV specials aren't promotional. Advertisements that reuse or (more likely) paraphrase the original Source graphic aren't really relevant. Wikipedia:Publicity photos explains, "Publicity photos come from a very narrow range of sources, and are made available for distribution by promotional agencies." The promotional tag is simply not appropriate for this image and should probably be changed to fair use in. Punctured Bicycle 03:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well. Until we resolve this issue, I will mark these images under Wikipedia:Possibly unfree imagesChubdub 03:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image/media problems 

message: Why are we removing requests for citations on the influences?  If our only source for these influences is by interpreting the other artists' lyrics, and this connection has never been drawn by any other commentator, we are not conforming to Wikipedia:No original research.  If we are unwilling to provide secondary sources for these claims, can we at least identify what we are interpreting as a statement of influence by referencing the lyrics?  Jkelly 20:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences referencing 

message: Why is the image from "The World Is Yours (Remix)" music video in this article. It has nothing to do with Illmatic and should only be needed in The World Is Yours (Nas song) article.
What do you mean it has nothing to do with Illmatic? Its a music video for a single (remix version) that was used to promote the album? Chubdub 03:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The World Is Yours (Remix) Video 

message: As per WP:ALBUMS#Chronology, for an artist's debut album, the previous album section should be left blank (no en dash). According to WP:FU and WP:MUSTARD#Discographies stipulations, album covers should not be used in the chronology section of an infobox, or in an artist's discography page. Additionally, Illmatic and It Was Written have the only infoboxes that I have seen so far that use album covers in said section. Therefore there is no general consensus, and the existing guidelines should remain intact. Finally, the given example in WP:ALBUMS#Infobox shows that producers should be separated by commas, and that they should not have their own line. Please also see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Infobox_.28chronology_and_producer.29_questions. --NPswimdude500 23:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illmatic Infobox 

message: How on earth do we have such a well written and organized track listing for this album, and yet the track duration is missing??????  I'm not good with the Track Listing Box so could someone who knows what they are doing add the TRACK DURATION to the track listing box? Wuthai 03:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. The total time, however, adds up to 39:44. The listed length is 39:43. Can someone clarify the correct length?--NPswimdude500 03:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Appreciate the quickness. But also, there's no need to sweat over a mere second in duration; The provided length may be rounded up and the length that is can be calculated from the given track listing (again thank you) would be the actual length it seems. A second in difference won't really be detrimental to the article itslef, IMO--Wuthai 03:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Times??? 

message: I am concerned about the volume of material taken from a single source and incorporated into this article.  This topic is not obscure enough to justify so much material from one source in the first place, in the second place The Source probably owns the copyright on the material, and may object to the volume of material taken from its article for this Wikipedia article.  Please address this issue ASAP.  KP Botany 03:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the text section of our Fair use guideline, In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not fair use and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. I do think the Quotes section has two quotes from that article that do not really need to be there. The others may be justified because of the context. I suggest you to ask at Wikipedia:Fair use. The covers at the single section should be removed, as they are decorative only too (much like the quotes in the Quotes section). -- ReyBrujo 03:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation? 

message: I own the 10th Anniversary Addition of Illmatic and was wondering if anyone wanted me to load the cover art of it. Noahdabomb3 03:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to be here but was removed, I suspect because it is not sufficiently different from the original to satisfy fair use. Punctured Bicycle 10:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illmatic 10th Anniversary Cover Art 

message: * Expand the lead to three paragraphs
* Hill cites "Memory Lane" as an exemplar of Nas' "flawless lyricism": - quote needs a reference
* Chart positions from Billboard magazine (North America) - remove this it says it entered the Billboard in the table - also needs a reference - single positions also need references
* Remove all the external jumps in 'Accolades' as done in Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers)
Rest looks good to me for Good Article standards. M3tal H3ad 07:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: The article is a long encomium; aside from the PoV language of some of the material and headers, and the unsourced claims to the album's supposedly huge significance, there's no balance — no indication that anyone has ever said anything less than wholly complimentary about the album. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 13:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't look like there's any real "issue" here with the POV, Mel Etitis just seemed to have a personal problem with it.  I'm gonna go ahead and take off the NPOV tag and if there's anything you want to discuss, please do so here before putting it back.  Thanks.  --BigaZon 03:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: EDIT: Apparently the page is fully protected so if anyone else has an opinion on this please state your argument here, then an admin can make the decision to remove or not remove the tag.
I think there are some POV issues.  For instance, there is the quote "Nas, however, made a significant comeback with the aptly-titled, Stillmatic, and his subsequent albums have received positive reviews as well. Nevertheless, most fans still regard Illmatic as his definitive album.[9]" in the "Later Nas albums" sections.  I don't think the "as well" at the end of the quote acuratly represents the reception of Stillmatic.  Stillmatic has gained aclaim in the years since its release, but initially it was given a negative review by Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/111200/stillmatic), along with other publications.  Still, I agree that there is no POV issue when it comes to Illmatic itself. --Joaquin.sc 05:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPoV issues 

message: I noticed the table that listed the songwriters, producers, samples etc. for the track listing was removed and replaced with only a list of song titles. An edit war then ensued between the table and list format, which is why the article is currently fully-protected. WP:ALBUM#Track_listing says production details should be formatted as a numbered list and a table should be used for more complicated situations. So why only list the song titles? Spellcast 13:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Track listing

message: Substituted at 15:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: why isnt it anymore what is the point of editing an article if it causes it to not be featured anymore.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xx1994xx (talk • contribs) 00:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: this article was featured