Talk:Aquemini

Release dates

From Martin C. Strong's book ([1]) Feel free to ask what certain signifiers and labels on the page mean. Strong has a key in the book somewhere. Dan56 (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem, copied the dates for the first and third single from CD Universe. As for the second single, Google Books won't give any preview.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aquemini/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JennKR (talk · contribs) 01:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll review—I think you have waited long enough and I have nearly all of OutKast's studio material. —JennKR | ☎ 01:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

On hold while some fixes are addressed. Best, —JennKR | ☎ 02:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lead

• Capitalize the "k" in OutKast in the first sentence (Note: this consistency runs throughout the article).
• I'm unsure whether zodiac should be capitalized or not, the article on zodiac does not throughout.
• "Aquemini expands on the previous record's outer space-inspired compositions by incorporating live instrumentation." Is that the only way it expands on the outer space inspired compositions of ATLiens? I feel like this could be expressed better.
• "development of the songs on Aquemini" → "development of the album's songs"
• "Lyrically, Outkast explores various themes" → "Lyrically Aquemini explores various themes"
• "It was ranked as number 500" → ranked at number 500 may be better.

Background

• "spacey, futuristic personas" I understand this as someone familiar with their work, but I think it needs revising (although I'm aware it's difficult to phrase this). In fact, you quote "more bohemian than ghetto" shortly after and this is saying a similar thing, but more eloquently.
• I would say Erykah Badu was more neo soul than R&B, consider including this.

Done! DepressedPer (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Recording

• "camped out" → perhaps lived and worked?
• "the duo utilized" → "used" is better.
• "For the record, Big Boi undertook the responsibility of crafting the songs' hooks, while André 3000 involved himself with the album's production." A hook is still part of the production, unless you mean a lyrical hook? Revise this so it reads that Dré did most of the production, while Big Boi crafted the hook.
• "After a long discussion that was sometimes fiery," → "After a long, heated discussion"
• "While recording Aquemini, André 3000 drew influence from reggae music..." This sentence is awkwardly placed, consider mentioning it earlier in the section.

Done! DepressedPer (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Music and lyrics

• I think its redundant to mention their budget again, instead work Big Boi's comment with the second sentence about which instruments were used as I think these link nicely.
• "Other subjects include excessive reliance on technology and the Atlanta club scene. Another theme is the..." I don't think this reads as well as it could, it becomes list-like. Work these "other subjects" into the earlier part of the section.
• Replace "utilizing" in the last sentence.

Done! DepressedPer (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Songs

• "Aquemini begins with an introductory track entitled "Hold On, Be Strong," → The comma after "Be Strong" should go after and quotation mark. Also consider changing to "Aquemini begins with the introductory track "Hold On, Be Strong",...
• "Following is "Mamacita" ← put a comma here
• "who at the time as an inmate in a Georgia prison" → Do you mean was an inmate?
• "The track an introduction to "Liberation" Do you mean is an?
• "the legitimacy of the Southern hip-hop scene" could this be expressed better?

Done! DepressedPer (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Release

• "the latter two" → "they" would do just fine.
• Include an internal link to the American court case: Rosa Parks v. LaFace Records.

Done! DepressedPer (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Critical reception

• "called it "breathtaking in its ambition makes most rappers seem drab and doltish in comparison." Taken out of context, this reads wrongly.
• "these songs not only make you dance, they make you sweat" I feel like including this bit means your summary of the review strays from how the record was received.
• "submersion into the baptismal waters of the African American musical continuum" Again, this isn't telling me much either.
• as "loud, unpretentious, eclectic kick in the ass". → as a "loud...."
• "of the "100 Best Albums of the Nineties" made by the same magazine." Remove "made" its superfluous.
• Paste named the album → "Paste called" may be better.
• ranked at #50 → at number 50
• Capitalize the e on ego trip—WP ignores stylistic choices, and this is as the start of a sentence.

Done! DepressedPer (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Legacy

• For consistency, make the two infoboxes you use in this article the same color.

Done! DepressedPer (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

References

• There is inconsistent formatting here, the journal/magazine/newspaper is sometimes linked and sometimes not. The corporate publisher is sometimes linked and sometimes not. For example, Ref #3 (AllMusic) and Ref #7 (Billboard). Go through all of the references to ensure consistency.
• Ref #42 (The Source) doesn't work.
• Ref #59 (Uni o/Michigan) links to a Google Search and needs fixing.
• Ref #65 (Grantland.com) is perhaps not the most reliable source of music journalism (and plus, you already have two acceptable sources).

Done! DepressedPer (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Aquemini/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Article requirements: Y All the start class criteria Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details Y At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section) Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs Y A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians Y Categorisation at least by artist and year Y A casual reader should learn something about the album. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC) ==Re-assessment== Start class: Y A reasonably complete infobox Y A lead section giving an overview of the album Y A track listing Y Reference to at least primary personnel by name (must specify performers on the current album; a band navbox is insufficient) Y Categorisation at least by artist and year C class: Y All the start class criteria Y A reasonably complete infobox, including cover art Y At least one section of prose (in addition to the lead section) Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs Y A "personnel" section listing performers, including guest musicians. B class: Y All the C class criteria Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details Y A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians N No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources. Y No significant issues exist to hamper readability, although it may not rigorously follow WP:MOS Wow! Interesting looking personnel section. I've never seen it like that before. There's a lot of well cited information but the first paragraph of Reception, Songs and music could use a bit more citation instead of original research. Also, WP:Albums says to only have 10 reviews in the infobox, and there is 13. Could use some fixing up. But it's a solid C. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 08:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aquemini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121108071116/http://www.cmj.com/reviews/kendrick-lamar-good-kid-m-a-a-d-city/ to http://www.cmj.com/reviews/kendrick-lamar-good-kid-m-a-a-d-city/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

SpottieOttie description doesn't seem correct

Section 4.2, first paragraph, last sentence. "SpottieOttieDopaliscious" relates a story of ill-fated romance, with André 3000 describing the infatuation during an encounter with a woman at a club and Big Boi noting the hopelessness of the relationship as the song progresses." Citation to a book about seminal hip hop albums which I haven't read, but it seems wrong. The relationship is more than an infatuation and the hopelessness at the end is not necessarily about the relationship. Anyway, nitpicking here.