Talk:The Marshall Mathers LP

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeThe Marshall Mathers LP was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
December 14, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
July 9, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
March 7, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
April 14, 2018Peer reviewReviewed
July 15, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Marshall Mathers LP/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miss Sarita (talk · contribs) 16:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recently completed a peer review on this one. Figured I'd tackle the GA process. A little bit busy at the moment, but hoping (keyword = "hoping") to have the entire review done by the end of the weekend, but please allow up to one week. Nominator hasn't edited since May 29th; hoping s/he is still around to work on this with me. — Miss Sarita 16:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. 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:
    • Getting a second opinion regarding the "Songs" section and whether it's necessary or should have selected details merged with another section. — Miss Sarita 15:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Please see comments below. — Miss Sarita 23:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. 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:
    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:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. 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:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    • I have thoroughly gone through over half the article, and I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to fail this review. There are numerous issues with prose, dead refs (or refs that don't support the correct information), certain sections that aren't necessary, etc. It's just not ready and, in addition, I have yet to hear from the nominator since the review started (they have not edited since May 29th). Please take notes of the comments I have listed here, as well as those from previous GA reviews and peer reviews, and use them as a guide to improve the article. I'm happy to review it again if it's re-nominated in the future. Just contact me. — Miss Sarita 00:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Per MOS:LEADCITE, the lead should contain citations regarding information that could be "challenged". Stating something like the record being the "fastest-selling studio album by any solo artist in American history at that time" should probably be referenced in the lead.
  • This section looks good. I made a couple of links and did an MOS edit, but no further revising is necessary.
  • In the first paragraph alone, five instances of the word "studio" appear (not including direct quotes). Is there any way to edit the prose so that the word "studio" is not needed one sentence after another?
  • The majority (if not all) of the second and third paragraphs seem to have more to do with the lyrics of songs rather than the actual recording or production of the album. Can these be gracefully mixed to the "Music and lyrics" section?
  • This section should be detailing the actual process of recording and producing the music, not the writing of the lyrics. What was Eminem and Dr. Dre's relationship like (since I know their partnership was crucial to Eminem's success)? What else is Dr. Dre known for and can his typical artistic patterns be seen in this album? Were there any common themes in the production process between this album and Eminem's previous album (since it was directed by the same person)? Where were the songs recorded? What other people were involved in this process? Did Dido actually come into the studio to record her part of "Stan" or did they utilize a sample? Answering questions like these is more appropriate for this section. (P.S. You don't need to actually answer these specific questions. I'm just trying to give you ideas.)
Music and lyrics
  • In reverse of my comment directly above, a lot of this section can be moved to the "Recording" section as it has more to do with the creation of the melody and background of the songs. The "Music and lyrics" section could probably just be titled "Lyrics" since many of Eminem's lyrics portray content that is far from superficial (as noted by the plethora of prose throughout this article dedicated to his songwriting). There is clearly enough text about the lyrics to warrant its own section. You could also rename this section "Music composition and lyrics since there is some talk about theJust don't get too detailed; pick the most significant and/or commercially successful songs and give some background on them. This also helps prevent a lot of redundant information as you can easily see related content in one place.
  • Who is Stephen Thomas Erlewine? He is linked, but some people don't want to bother clicking on a link and having it interrupt their reading. A brief description (like, " critic Stephen Thomas Erlewine..." or "...Stephen Thomas Erlewine from AllMusic...") should suffice.
  • The second and third paragraphs don't blend well together. It's like they were written separately and then just put in the article without reviewing how it flowed.
  • The first sentence in the third paragraph is too long and drawn out. Consider summarizing the material. Not every song needs to be named in this sentence because only the most significant songs should be detailed. We can leave the critique of each song up to music critics and reviewers.
  • Portions of this section would be more appropriate within the "Reception" and "Controversy" sections.
  • This section also fails WP:NPOV. It overwhelmingly praises his songwriting, but the only critique of his lyrics have to do with controversial homophobic language.
  • I had to get a second opinion on this one. This section is not typical of a music album article as a dissection of each song isn't necessary. It should be removed and the most important pieces should be woven into the "Music and lyrics" section above (which is basically accomplishing the same thing).
  • I honestly don't think this section is necessary either. Parts of this should be merged into the section containing details on the lyrics.
Release and commercial performance
  • Ref # 40 (titled "The Marshall Mathers LP was originally titled Amsterdam because he wrote a good chunk of the album there, and Dutch journalists inspired some of the content on the album. — 50 Things You Didn't Know About Eminem") does not support the second line of the first paragraph.
Ref check
  • I'm still seeing references being repeated one sentence after another. One reference can support multiple consecutive sentences (even entire short paragraphs).
  • Ref #3 (titled "Eminem – Biography" and published by Rolling Stone): "Page not found". Needs a replacement.
  • Ref #8 (titled "Ultimate Albums: The Marshall Mathers LP – Dr. Dre interview" and published by VH1): "Page not found". Needs a replacement.
  • Ref #12 (titled "Ultimate Albums: The Marshall Mathers LP – Eminem interview" and published by VH1): "Page not found". Needs a replacement.
  • Ref #34 (titled "The Sins and Sorrows of Marshall Mathers"): Page numbers should be cited in refs like these.
  • Ref #37 (titled "Emimem strikes again with 'Rap God' single"): "Page not found". Needs a replacement.