Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Money Is Legal/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 4 May 2019 [1].

All Money Is Legal[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. The above article is about American rapper Amil's debut studio album. For those unfamiliar with Amil, she rose to prominence in 1999 and 2000 as a protégé of Jay-Z and the "First Lady" of his record label Roc-A-Fella. A hip hop album, All Money Is Legal includes songs about wealth and Amil's personal life. The singles – "I Got That" with vocals from Beyoncé and "4 da Fam" with verses from Jay-Z, Memphis Bleek, and Beanie Sigel – were released in 2000 to promote the album. All Money Is Legal peaked at number 45 on the US Billboard 200 chart, and received a mixed response from critics. Following the album's release, Amil took a hiatus from music and was subsequently removed from Roc-A-Fella.

I believe that the article fulfills the criteria for a featured article, but I would be more than happy to receive suggestions/recommendations for further improvement. This article and FAC is part of my work on more obscure subject matters, and I hope that it inspires others to look into more obscure articles. In the beginning of last year, I received very helpful suggestions during its first FAC. I am pinging the reviewers from the first FAC (@Nikkimaria:, @Yashthepunisher:, @Numerounovedant:, @Ssven2:, @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, @Ceranthor:, @J Milburn:), but please do not feel obligated to respond. I hope everyone has a wonderful day and/or night. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

There are some new files compared to my last review:

  • Amil's singing voice was commented on by two critics (who are both cited in the sample's caption) so I believe that justifies the audio sample's inclusion. However, if you believe it is not necessary, then I will remove it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Beyonce.jpg: Use seems OK, lack of EXIF data is a little worrisome but it was kept on Commons, so.

OK-ish ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the image review. I have commented on the use of the audio sample and the Beyoncé image. I would greatly appreciate any input, particularly on the audio caption part, as I greatly appreciate your recommendations. Have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: It occurs to me that File:Beyonce Knowles at age 19.jpeg would probably be a better fit for this article. It depicts Beyonce in 2001 (or possibly 2002—check the page about this shoot on the photog's website), much closer to the recording of A.M.I.L. than the current 2007 photo. It's also a professional studio portrait. The image's license at Flickr was confirmed, and the photographer's professional website links to the Flickr account on his "About" page, meaning it's legit and accurately licensed. (File:Jay-Z-01-mika.jpg shows Jay-Z in 2000, but there's less of a difference between 2000 Jay-Z and 2003 Jay-Z than between 2000 Beyonce and 2007 Beyonce—and besides, the current photo of Jay-Z is a portrait, while this other photo is Jay-Z plus a random crowd of people.) —BLZ · talk 21:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the suggestion. I changed the Beyoncé picture. Aoba47 (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/support from Ceranthor[edit]

Will post any suggestions by tomorrow. ceranthor 23:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "A hip hop album, All Money Is Legal focuses on wealth and Amil's personal life. Some commentators wrote that she adopts a gold digger persona for the music." - The second sentence seems out of place in the transition to the third sentence
  • "Although Jay-Z had written Amil's verses for their past collaborations, she developed her own lyrics for all of the album's tracks." - What does "developed" mean here? Seems a bit different from writing
  • I used "developed" to avoid repeating writing in the same sentence, but I agree that it is far too ambiguous in this context. I have just revised it to "wrote". Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roc-A-Fella dropped Amil when she took a musical hiatus following the album's release." - nitpick, but I'd add the year to give a sense of how fast it was
  • ",[4] and received the nicknames, the Diana Ross and the First Lady of Roc-A-Fella.[5]" - don't need the comma before [4] and I think it's actually a bit disruptive to the flow of the sentence as is
  • "However, he stopped after the two women frequently fought on tour.[8]" - stopped what? unclear
  • "Prior to the release of debut album," - missing "her"?
  • "The second song "I Got That" features Beyoncé as part of its chorus, and encourages women to become more independent.[21] ' - I'd take out the comma before "and encourages"
  • "and raps about the shame of shame for going "from Gucci sandals back to no-name brands" on "Anyday".[22]" - extra words here?
  • Revised. Apologies for that silly mistake >< Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Amil was removed from Roc-A-Fella following the album's release.[4] " - Again an explicit year would be nice

Nice work here. ceranthor 01:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ceranthor: Thank you for your comments. Apologies for some of the silly mistakes. Sometimes I go a little too comma crazy lol. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if I either missed anything or you notice something new that needs to be addressed. Have a wonderful end to your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt responses. Everything looks good; the restructured lead looks especially great. Support per 1a. ceranthor 13:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/support from CluelessEditoroverhere[edit]

Taking a look. CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I made some edits, I also recommend omitting commercially in that last para, but I know someone recommended it in the GA review that I looked at. Whatever's consensus. CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments and the edits. I agree that "commercially" is unnecessary and I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't exactly what the italicized part of this sentence means. "...Amil began performing in New York City talent shows and rap over hip hop music by groups..." Need clarification. Thank you, CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CluelessEditoroverhere: Here is the full sentence from the source (Her earliest influences were classic rap groups, such as Run-D.M.C., who she would mimic and practice rapping over when she was young.). It means that Amil practiced rapping over/while listening to rap music. It is similar to how singers practice singing by listening to music by other artists and singing over it. Let me know if that clears that up. Aoba47 (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Oh. I think "rapping over music by rap groups" is more appropriate. Change made. Thanks, CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support for 1a, 2a, and 2b. The article looks good. Nice work! CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you! And that looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I might do a source review. Just letting you know. CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Feel free to look at the source review from the previous FAC, although new sources have been added to the article since that FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, user below is doing so. CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Damian Vo[edit]

  • Support — All good for me. Great job! Damian Vo (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry my bad :x Damian Vo (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is all good. Sorry for the double message ><. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Figureskatingfan[edit]

  • Support — Although I know next to nothing about rap and absolutely nothing about Amil, this is a support, since the prose reads well and it looks like it checks off all the FA requirements. Keep up the good work. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the support. Hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Argento Surfer[edit]

  • I've made some copy edits. Please review for accuracy and revise as needed.
  • "Amil began performing ... at age 12." - This feels vague because the rest of the article uses years to establish a timeline, not her age. I recommend added her birthdate or adding the year she was twelve to ground this sentence.
  • Adding the years (as it can only be a rough approximation). Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2007, she formed the girl group Major Coins with Liz Leite and Monique" - Is this year right? The next sentences jump back to the 1990s, and the next paragraph sets the groups break up prior to 1998.
  • Revised. Not sure how that happened. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to come... Argento Surfer (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the comments so far and apologies for the silly mistakes. Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Jay-Z had written Amil's raps for previous collaborations, she wrote all of her own lyrics for the album." - I think the first half of this sentence belongs in a prior paragraph when you're talking about their collaborations. I'd move it myself, but I'm not sure which of the two citations it should go with.
  • "Jay-Z has never publicly addressed..." - He's still alive, so I think this sentence needs an "As of" or similar qualifier.

These are the only issues I found. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Argento Surfer: Thank you again for the comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. Aoba47 (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Aoba47: - any comment on the years she was 12? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Argento Surfer: Apologies for missing that comment. I have revised it and adjusted the year and reference used. I saw an incorrect date on another source (a BBC source that was mostly likely a user edit/addition). That was my mistake as I should have used a more reliable source. I have used the Vibe article which helps source her birth year (1973) as it just mentions her age and not her exact birthday (however the full date is not necessary for this particular article). I will hunt around for a source for her full birthday to add to the main artist's article. Apologies again for the mistake. Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I actually have a quick question about that part. I have found some conflict reports about her birth year when doing further research. The Boombox says 1978 while Joel Whitburn says 1976. Would it just be best to remove the first two sentences of the "Background and recording" section altogether and lead with the Major Coins sentence since when she started rapping may be more relevant to the artist's main page? Apologies for the confusion. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I think striking those two sentences would be best - like you say, they're not vital for this particular album. I've removed them, and I now support this nomination based on the prose. Nice work. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

I'm about to start a formal source review, to get that hurdle cleared. I'll also probably make some general copyedits, and if I have non-source-related comments I'll bring those up here as well. —BLZ · talk 23:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Partway through the source review now. Have to take a break. Here are my revisions so far, usually with an edit summary explaining the rationale. I've made a few editorial changes along the way too based on a review of the source; check, for instance, my changes to the way the Terry Sawyer PopMatters article is cited. One other note: through WestLaw, I have access to a news database that includes print newspaper sources that are offline. There are a lot of newspaper reviews of AMIL that were published contemporaneously, but don't seem to be available elsewhere. I haven't read through all of them but I'm assuming that many, if perhaps not all, will be worth citing to some extent. I'm going to collect those and send them to you later, probably via email since it's copyrighted material. —BLZ · talk 01:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review. I greatly appreciate all of the help and feedback. Unfortunately, I do not have access to a site like Newspapers.com so I would greatly appreciate any newspaper reviews that you can find. I always had trouble finding newspaper reviews, but I will try to be better at it in the future. Apologies for all of the work. Aoba47 (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Unfortunately, most newspapers have done a lackluster job making their archives generally accessible. I will send the sources tomorrow when I can. All told, it looks like there are about 23 sources that reference Amil and All Money Is Legal. I haven't read through them yet, so some of them may mention the album in passing or not substantially enough to be useful. I'll also do another search tomorrow looking for just "Amil", to look for content that might relate to the album but before it had a title. I'll pass along the ones that seem worthwhile, or at least possibly worthwhile.
  • Here's one source I found via WestLaw, but which is also available on Google Books: Kenon, Marci (August 19, 2000). "You've Come a Long Way, Baby". Billboard. 112 (34): 36 – via Google Books.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) Relevant portion:
Like Da Brat (aka Shawntae Harris), who is acting and developing talent, many women in hip-hop are diversifying and branching out. Amil, a Roc-A-Fella/Columbia recording artist, is shooting a film as her highly anticipated debut album, "All Money Is Legal," gets ready to hit the streets Aug. 29. "I tried out for the role and had never read the script," says the artist who was introduced on Jay-Z's single "Can I Get A..." Amil (Whitehead) plays Tonya, one of the main characters in the film "Get Down Or Lay Down," being distributed by Miramax through a joint venture with Roc-A-Fella. "I have a little experience from the Sprite commercial," Amil says. "I loved doing it."
I have no idea what became of "Get Down or Lay Down", if anything, nor what it was meant to be. A feature film? A short film? Some kind of longform music video, or music video anthology? Get Down or Lay Down is the title of a 2001 hip-hop album by Philly's Most Wanted—with Just Blaze on production no less—but not released via Roc-A-Fella and with no other connection on its face. It seems noteworthy that Amil had been working on some kind of Roc-A-Fella film project just before the album's release, especially a seemingly ambitious collab between the label and a major indie film studio. Is there any other info about this that you know of?
  • I have added the information to the "Background and recording" section. "Get Down or Lay Down" seems to be a film from the context of the article, but it is odd to put a film title in quotation marks rather than italics. I have tried to find more information, but I could only find some information on the album you mentioned above. I have also added information about a Sprite ad campaign that Amil appeared in prior to the album's release. I remember finding information and videos on that during my initial research on the album, but I must have forgotten to add it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the "One in Amillion" source, it was a straight to video film. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other question: why did you choose "Get Down" for the sample, rather than sampling one (or both) of the two singles? The question strikes me because of the revisions I made to the sample box caption, changed that stemmed from my close reading of one of the sources. I don't ask this question to discourage the use of "Get Down", necessarily, or to suggest that it is a "wrong" choice. For all I know, it may be the best exemplar of the album's style. And it does feature Amil singing, which does seem to be a noteworthy feature of the album compared to her previous features, when she only rapped. (Confession: despite working on this article for a little while now, I still haven't actually heard any of it—I hope to remedy that soon—so I don't actually know yet whether either of the two singles have Amil singing.) But one or both of the two singles would seem to be more obvious choices to an outsider. Plus, one (or both) of those samples could be thriftily reused for the article(s) on the individual song(s). —BLZ · talk 08:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the suggestion. I have been told in previous GANs and FACs to always keep non-free media to a minimal and only use audio samples on album articles when the sample represents the album as a whole rather than an individual song. I used the “Get Down” single because the singing aspect seemed to be a somewhat recurring element in critics reviews (although only three critics really brought it up so saying it was “recurring” is somewhat of a stretch). I would say that the “Get Down” sample is not really that representative of the album outside of that as there is much more rapping than singing. I am going to remove the sample and reread through the reviews to see if I could find anything for a new audio file caption.
  • I primarily picked this article as a project because the state of female rap and hip hop was a major topic in music news for a bit so I thought it would be interesting to explore a more obscure case. I have grown to like the album as I worked on the article, although it could be a weird case of Stockholm syndrome lol. I agree with reviewers that "Smile 4 Me" and "Quarrels" are the more interesting songs and they represent a different viewpoint from the rest. I am interested to hear your response to it! Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added an audio sample for "I Got That". Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oop, one other thing: I noticed none of the sources have access dates. Truthfully, I don't think access dates are too important compared to archives/archive dates, and your dedicated archiving of links is awesome. Then again, dates of access can be useful for determining a date when a link was active/last active, if it becomes dead at some point later on. Access dates can be especially important for future scholars, who may rely on our citations for purposes we can't foresee or perhaps even comprehend (thought experiment: what if the world wide web goes down in the year 2145, but a trove of hard drives loaded with a backup of Wikipedia survives?). Aside: it seems crazy to me that access date and date of access are both currently red links—librarians of the world, you're slacking! Anyways: I've accessed most of the links as of my yesterday, which was April 13, 2019. I bet I'll click on most of them again tomorrow, or the next day, whenever I finish the source review. Bottom line: Don't worry about this last comment, you don't have to fill out the access dates, I'll do it; it's unfun work and I don't want to tediously assign it, and it's no trouble for me to do it fairly quickly. —BLZ · talk 09:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also surprised that an article about access dates does not exist either. I am sure one will be created sometime in the future. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I remember a past FAC reviewer had advised me to remove access-dates from any archived source to avoid having so many dates in the reference section and they believed they were not necessarily due to the archive. After getting that advice, I have generally removed access-dates from archived links, but I will definitely think about it more in the future as I understand your point. Aoba47 (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's interesting. I suppose an access date would be unnecessary if the archival occurs simultaneously with the access, using a site like archive.today. But most of the time, I use the Internet Archive and select the best-available date for my purpose; sometimes that date is close to the time I accessed the link, but other times I need to show the site as-of an earlier date closer to publication.
  • I would be fine with keeping the access-dates if necessary. I am curious if there was ever a larger discussion on Wikipedia about whether or not to keep access-dates in archived references or if it is already in MoS? Aoba47 (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the next few hours I'm going to collect all the offline sources I found, copy-paste them all into a document, and save them into a pdf (or two). I've also just send you an email; send me an email back so that I can reply with an attachment once it's prepared. —BLZ · talk 23:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for all the help. This is actually really fun to work on (but I am a nerd lol). I responded to your email a few minutes ago. Aoba47 (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
*@Brandt Luke Zorn: I have added newspaper sources from Newspapers.com. It is interesting to look back at old newspapers. Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose: Apologies for the random ping. I believe that I have fulfilled BLZ's request for newspaper sources. Unfortunately, BLZ has not been active on Wikipedia since April 20. I would imagine that this would be ready for promotion as it has received a substantial amount of commentary, but I was just curious on your opinion. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, I'm back. Work and other IRL things have kept me away from Wikipedia for a while (but I should have given a status update earlier to you, Aoba47, and for that I am sorry). I think I can wrap this review today or tomorrow. I finally narrowed down the newspaper sources from WestLaw to avoid redundancies (e.g. syndicated reviews published in multiple papers) or near-useless sources (mere announcements of the week's releases). I will check out Aoba47's most recently added sources from Newspapers.com, many of which overlap with what I found.
One quick question: Are we sure Dan DeLuca was a Philadelphia Inquirer writer? I ask because I found his review syndicated across multiple newspapers—among them the Miami Herald, the Contra Costa Times, the Orlando Sentinel, and the Roanoke Times. The Inquirer was not in the WestLaw database, but the earliest publication I could find was in the Miami Herald on October 6, 2000. That means the Inquirer published his review earlier, but it makes me wonder two things: (1) if it was published somewhere else earlier still, which is not of central importance, and (2) if DeLuca was an Inquirer employee, or a critic who was employed by another company (such as these newspapers' parent company or some other third party). Either way, this uncertainty could be cured by rewording "The Philadelphia Inquirer's Dan DeLuca said" to "Dan DeLuca said in The Philadelphia Inquirer". (Irrelevant sidenote: these newspapers seemed to have some discretion in assigning their own scores to these syndicated reviews. The Miami Herald gave Amil's album 3.5/4 stars, while the Contra Costa Times gave it an A–). —BLZ · talk 19:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the message, and I hope that everything is going well for you. Apologies for all of the trouble. I have changed the DeLuca source according to your suggestion. I actually noticed that as well when looking through the newspaper sources. It is a very odd thing, and I was not entirely sure how to handle it. I will get to the new sources as soon as possible. Thank you again for the help. Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than emailing the remaining sources to Aoba47, I've decided to copy-paste them here. They ended up being less numerous than I believed at first, and for longer articles I've excerpted only the portions that are relevant to this article. I also believe placing them here helps keep the "source review" process transparent, since I'm in the position of reviewing existing sources but also introducing new ones. My suggestions appear after the excepts. —BLZ · talk 20:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources from WestLaw news database
  • Jones, Steve (December 27, 1999). "Amid hard knocks, the real deal". USA Today.
[…] Aside from his own album, Jay-Z will be busy next year getting albums by Roc-a-Fella artists Sigel, Memphis Bleek and Amil (the female rapper from Can I Get A . . .) on the market. The company also launched a clothing line this year and has two Miramax-distributed films in the works. One is a documentary about his tour, Backstage: A Hard Knock Life. The second is an untitled film about three Harlem hustlers. […]]]
I think this snippet could be used for the background section and possibly the lead. It indicates that Amil was part of a slew of new talents Roc-A-Fella was promoting in 2000, which helps situate her within the history of the label. (Btw: other sources I can go back and find indicate that Amil appeared in Backstage, and several reviews noted that she is the only prominent female in the film.) I would add: It would even be worth adding something to the lead along these lines: All Money Is Legal was one of several albums from up-and-coming artists at Roc-A-Fella, along with Memphis Bleek's The Understanding and Beanie Sigel's The Truth. —BLZ · talk 20:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baker, Soren (January 22, 2000). "Assault Case Won't Stop the Music—or the Sales". Los Angeles Times.
[…] It's a sign of his musical range that he [Jay-Z] can convincingly tour with DMX, whose music is built around a far more abrasive style of rap than Jay-Z's, and record with someone as mainstream as Carey.
That's a delicate balance, and one that Jay-Z seems intent on maintaining. It may have made business sense to release the duet with Carey, "Things That U Do," as the first single from the new album. The likely radio exposure from that track might have added considerably to the collection's first-week sales.
Instead, Jay-Z released the gritty "Do It Again (Put Ya Hands Up)," which features virtually unknown rappers Amil and Beanie Sigel. Jay-Z—who grew up in a Brooklyn housing project and has alluded to drug dealing as a teenager—points to the decision as an artistic statement.
"That's what an artist is supposed to do--things that people didn't expect them to do," he says. "Why are we here if we can't push the envelope, do different things? We're not here to do everything that's expected of us." […]
  • Fink, Mitchell; Rubin, Lauren (June 7, 2000). "Gossip: Bebe Waves Bye-Bye to Beau George". New York Daily News.
You already included this source, so I won't paste the text—just confirming that I was able to confirm the accuracy of your citation of this article as part of the source review. One note: in WestLaw, the article was attributed to both Mitchell Fink and Lauren Rubin. —BLZ · talk 20:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Farber, Jim (August 20, 2000). "Underdogs have their day" New York Daily News.
Ditto the above, you already cited it so no need to copy-paste text. But I was able to review this article in full and thus confirmed that you cited it faithfully. —BLZ · talk 20:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baker, Soren (September 17, 2000). "Pop Music Record Rack". Los Angeles Times.
** Amil, "All Money Is Legal," Roc-A-Fella/Columbia. The New Yorker gained instant fame on Jay-Z's 1998 single "Can I Get A . . ." On her uneven debut album, the nasal-voiced rapper should have featured Jay-Z more often, as many of her songs lack the spark that marked her tag-team debut. Amil is better as a second fiddle than she is on her own, although she shows promise when she becomes more personal in her storytelling.
Albums are rated on a scale of one star (poor), two stars (fair), three stars (good) and four stars (excellent). The albums are due in stores Tuesday.
You already cited a syndicated version of this review; this is the original, which gives a score (2/4 stars, which can be added to the "Professional ratings" box) and the author's name (Soren Baker).
  • Jones, Steve (September 20, 2000). "Amanda Ghost writes a spirited debut – Rap: Amil, All Money Is Legal" USA Today.
Amil, All Money Is Legal ( * * [two stars out of four] ) The first lady of Roc-a-fella finally gets to show that she's more than an ornament in the Jay-Z camp. It turns out that she has stories of her own to tell. Having established herself with verses on songs by Jermaine Dupri, Mariah Carey, Beanie Sigel and, most famously, Jay-Z's Can I Get A . . ., she shows she is comfortable on her own two feet. While labelmates Sigel, Memphis Bleek and Jay-Z himself lend support, some of Amil's strongest songs are solo raps. And not all of the songs deal simply with getting paid. The blunt Smile 4 Me tells the story of her rough upbringing, while the soulful Quarrels (with Carl Thomas) finds her dealing with a variety of temptations. The clever Girlfriend finds her renegotiating her maintenance agreement with her married lover. The album's funniest cut is Heard It All Before, on which she and Jay run game on each other.
  • Thompson, Anthony M. (September 22, 2000). "New Music Reviews: Amil, A.M.I.L. (All Money Is Legal) (Roc-A-Fella/Columbia)" San Antonio Express.
This long-awaited debut from the female rapper known from the cute/infectious cameos on Jay-Z's sets shows that there's more to her than a sweet-edged, teenlike voice and a nifty phrase.
A la Rah Digga, Amil is on a full-court press in the hip-hop magazines, telling all that she writes her own rhymes and is not Jay-Z's lyrical puppet. It's the truth: Read the liner notes.
Except for Jay-Z co-writing (and appearing on) the bumping, guitar-laced "Heard It All" and the catchy but formulaic "That's Right," Amil wrote or co-wrote all the tracks. And with the exception of the immature "Girlfriend," rap's newest honey hits the mark.
Amil also helped produce this set, which has a distinct, woman's touch as in the sisters' independence anthem "I Got That" (featuring Beyonc‚ Knowles of Destiny's Child), the danceable "Get Down," "Ya'll Dead Wrong" and the title track, with the phat Grace Jones, "Pull Up to the Bumper" refrain.
She even gets philosophical with "Quarrels" (featuring) Carl Thomas and puts out a deep ode to all those women loyal to their lovers who are locked up with "Anyday," which features a phat sample of "Collage."
To top it off, Amil mixes it up rough and rugged with the best of them on "Raw." Even the obligatory posse track, "4 Da Fam" (featuring Beanie Sigel, Memphis Bleek and Jay-Z), is off the hook. That's saying a lot, since every hip-hop artist is part of some crew and there seems to be a posse cut on every release.
'Nuff said. Go get this one - quick. *** 1/4 [out of ****]
  • DeLuca, Dan (October 6, 2000). "Street Sounds" Miami Herald.
Already cited, just confirming that I verified the text.
  • Righi, Len (January 6, 2001). "Spotlight on the Best and Worst Discs of 2000" The Morning Call.
[…] 7. "THE MARSHALL MATHERS LP" (Aftermath/Interscope), Eminem -- He spouted homophobia and came dangerously close to self-pity, but, more important, the baddest of rap's bad boys fearlessly offered his vision of the truth. Also righteous: "Ghost Dog: The Way Of The Samurai, The Album" (Epic/Razor Sharp/Sony Music), where Wu-Tang Clan chief RZA's grooves for Jim Jarmusch's film proved that, in rare instances, two weird tastes can taste great together. And Amil's "All Money Is Legal" (Rock-A-Fella/Columbia), where the streetwise New Yorker with the coolly seductive voice and hot bod demonstrated gritty self-assurance and a fierce determination to match her lust for diamonds and major coins.
This list is a little odd. It's ranked, but each entry contains recommendations for other albums within the same genre or style—sort of like honorable mentions, I guess, but not described or presented in those terms. So The Morning Call didn't rank A.M.I.L. the 7th best disc of the year, but you could have a sentence after Righi's initial review saying "Righi later named A.M.I.L. among the best albums of the year."
  • @Brandt Luke Zorn: I believe that I have added everything, but please let me know if I have missed anything. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added access dates to all the web sources, but you had made two edits and I got an edit conflict. It was really tedious to add the dates to each and every source, so I decided to override your edits rather than do it all over again. You'll have to redo those edits, my bad. I'll look over everything once those edits are reinstated. —BLZ · talk 21:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything newly added from Newspapers.com looks good. Great job. One last question (I promise): is there anything else that can be mined from the academic paper that cited Amil as an example of the "gold digger" archetype? I wonder if there's anything more that can be quoted—especially anything that is more analytical than descriptive—about Amil's adoption of the archetype and/or the prevalence of that archetype in the hip hop of that era, or anything else interesting they say about Amil. For example, did they say that Amil put any distinctive twists on the otherwise rote "gold digger" persona, or (conversely) did they comment that Amil's use of the archetype was generic? Even if there isn't anything about Amil, perhaps some of their overall thesis would be contextually useful. This, from the abstract, interests me:
"To understand how meanings become scripts unique to adolescent African American women's experiences, it is important to look at how their images have been framed within a racialized and sexualized sociohistorical context. The remnants of the foundational Jezebel, Mammy, Matriarch, and Welfare. Mother images of African American womanhood remain today, as exemplified by similar, yet more sexually explicit scripts that include the Freak, Gold Digger, Diva, and Dyke."
Any additional commentary would be helpful. Otherwise, the source review is concluded. —BLZ · talk 20:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the suggestion. The article cites Amil, as well as Trina, as examples of the "Gold Digger" script, but it does not drill down into further detail on whether either women were generic or more subversive with the archetype. I believe that it situates both as generic examples of how this image is used in music (if that makes sense). The Amil song is used as an example for this type of "Gold Digger" behavior:

"The Gold Digger will supposedly resort to any and all sexual means to gain whatever financial rewards she wants or needs, seeing men as stepping stones to provide for short-term needs. Short term is not defined so much by a length of time, but rather a mind set whereby the male is good for as long as he can meet the Gold Digger's demands. She takes whatever she can, and when the well runs dry, the Gold Digger is history."

The article as a whole is actually very interesting. I could forward it to you if you would like in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know I promised I was finished but two other things came up. First, I randomly stumbled on this Rolling Stone list by Rob Sheffield published last year. The list is about 1998, but in its entry on "Can I Get A..." it notes in passing: "The Irv Gotti-produced Hard Knock Life highlight introduced Ja Rule and Amil, who made her own kick-ass album with the excellent title All Money Is Legal." Second, it may be worth noting that the album was issued in both a "clean" and an "explicit" version, which of course was de rigueur for hip-hop albums of the late CD era (not sure how common that division is anymore). The AllMusic release page backs this up. —BLZ · talk 21:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Brandt Luke Zorn: I have added the Rolling Stone source to the retrospective review paragraph and I have added a part on the explicit/clean releases. I have lost a lot of connection with contemporary music trends, but I think that "clean" edits are still made for radio and sold for certain audiences who for whatever reason prefer it over the explicit version. Thank you for both suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new additions look good. I expanded the gold digging paragraph to add a little more context and to incorporate that quote; my full reasons were stated in the edit summary. Now that the article is cited for multiple purposes, I think it would be best move the journal citation to the "Bibliography" section and then cite the individual page numbers in footnotes. That article seems like it would be a tremendously useful resource for a "Women in hip hop" article—that link currently redirects to the hip hop article, but notes the possibility for fuller treatment of the subject matter.
  • The expansions are very helpful. It is sometimes hard to remember (at least for me) to remember those who may not be familiar with these cultural ideas and terms. I will move the journal citation down to the "Bibliography" section momentarily. There should definitely be a "Women in hip hop" article as it is a topic that is frequently discussed within music journalism. I know there is a Women in Latin music article that is quite detailed and informative. I have also found female hip hop to be fascinating (and it inspired me to work on this particular article). Fortunately, there are a large number of female rappers active right now as opposed to the previous idea that there can only be "the one". Aoba47 (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, the source review is very much concluded. I snuck in a few general comments in this section rather than the one below (since we were already talking up here), but the source-specific review here is complete and I feel confident in the reliability, comprehensiveness, and formatting of all the sources, as well as the accuracy of their use in the text. So, without further ado... (scroll down) —BLZ · talk 02:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the review. I will look at the general comments in a few. I greatly appreciate all of your help. The article has improved so much, and I am really proud of the work for this. I will definitely be taking what I have learned from this FAC in the future (although I will not be nominating an FAC immediately after this because I could use at least a small break lol). Aoba47 (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/support from BLZ[edit]

I've made copyedits as I go, I'm part of the way through but should finish later tonight (it's currently noon in my timezone). General comments so far:

  • "According to a 2015 Fact article, Amil's signing to the label became the subject of industry gossip." — my own rewording of the sentence there before, but it still seems a bit vague. You mention the Foxy Brown rumor, but the Duncan article also mentions a rumor that she was "pregnant with a married man's baby" ("married man?" Who? Not Jay-Z, but someone). You later quote lyrics that share some similarities with this rumor. Do any other sources comment on this? The Fact source only vaguely alludes to the rumors, but it's clear that whatever rumors they're referring to were salacious. I can understand restraint on your part in not vividly rehashing rumors of a sexual nature from 20 years ago about a female musician, but Amil herself was frank about the details when rebutting them in the Duncan article. Besides, mentioning that there were rumors without unpacking them is almost worse, because it suggests some unspecified debauched conduct while leaving the details entirely to the reader's imagination.
  • I agree. I believe that the rumors referenced by the source are primarily about her alleged romantic relationship with Jay-Z. I included in the sentence about how she denied this along with the reports of a pregnancy. I always err on the side of caution for rumors. There are some weird ones out there about Amil, including how she said that she had a romantic relationship with Beyoncé. Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The added sentence is an improvement. I'm not sure of the full range of rumors myself having not looked at the sources in-depth yet, but I'd say (at a minimum) that any rumors Amil addressed are probably worth including. —BLZ · talk 03:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my understanding (after reading through the articles/sources again), the rumors are primarily about an alleged relationship with Jay-Z. Aoba47 (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You list the three executive producers but at no point list the producers. You do mention Just Blaze, who it seems reasonable to single out in the lead if his contributions were more noteworthy, but it seems like you should name the others in the body somewhere, either the background/recording section or the music section.
  • "All Money Is Legal is a hip hop album that consists of 13 tracks, including six music samples." Something about this formulation seems a little odd to me. The fact of the album having six samples distributed among 13 tracks seems like an almost arbitrary correlation to draw—especially since this fact isn't gleaned from a secondary source that found the presence of the samples inherently noteworthy, but from the album credits. To me, this would be an ideal place to highlight the full roster of producers: something like "All Money Is Legal is a hip hop album that consists of 13 tracks, with production credits from..."
  • Revised, but I did not use the "with..." sentence construction as I have been told to avoid it in past FACs. Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lyrics include Amil's boast that she is 'the only hot bitch you're gonna hear this year' — this seemed a little divorced from context on its own, so I added the fact that this was interpreted as a slight to Lil' Kim and Foxy Brown. Still conspicuously missing: what song is this from? A Google search only turns up the Browne article and the Wikipedia article. According to Genius, the song "That's Right" uses the words "hot bitch" but not as quoted by Browne, and with a different meaning.
  • I removed the sentence. If the lyric is not on the actual album, then it should not be included here. I should have checked beforehand but I trusted the source as it is mostly reliable. Maybe they used a different version of the album for the review but that is pure speculation on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All good—I thought it was strange too. Seems possible that Browne misheard or misremembered lyrics when he submitted the review, since a song at least shares some phrases with what he quoted, but who knows. —BLZ · talk 03:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They highlighted the lyric "You know I gotta keep tricks up the sleeve, leav' em bankrupt with blue balls till the dick bleed" as an example." — Song?
  • The source did not mention the song by name, but I have used the liner notes to support it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For his part, Jay-Z raps about becoming a father in the verse: 'I got four nephews and they're all writing ... and I'm having a child, which is more frightening.'" — Whoa whoa whoa! I revised "becoming a father" to "expecting a child", since Jay-Z did not become a father at any time before 2012 as far as anyone knows. Given that Jay-Z and Beyoncé are one of the most famous (if not the most famous) couples in the world, it's a huge bomb to drop that Jay-Z was even expecting a child in 2000 without providing further context. Since the cited source provides these details, it may be worth clarifying that Jay-Z never made further comment about the expected child he mentioned on "4 da Fam", and that this line came well before Blue Ivy Carter.
  • Thank you for the edit as it is a much better wording. If you are interested. here is another source about Jay-Z supposedly expecting a child back in 2000. There is a few articles out there about it, but they are mostly just rumors and speculation. Jay-Z has never explicitly said who the mother was or what happened so providing further context is a little difficult. I have included more details from the source, but I did not include the reporter's speculation on a miscarriage. I am not sure that kind of gossip should be included. Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what you included was good. I made some wording tweaks but it's substantively the same info. And I think you're right to omit the miscarriage speculation, which is speculation on top of speculation—for all we know the "child" was just a literary device for the song and nothing more. —BLZ · talk 03:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked that Vibe source you linked, and I think it's worth including. I've written it as: "A column in Vibe interpreted the line as a pregnancy announcement from Jay-Z, who was an uncommitted bachelor at the time, but he never publicly commented on the lyric." All that's left is to add the citation. Let me know what you think. —BLZ · talk 03:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. I have added the citation. Aoba47 (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Brandt Luke Zorn: Apologies for the ping. Just wanted to let you know that I have (hopefully) addressed the above points. Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is all good. There is no reason to rush. I honestly just want the article to be in the best shape and be as accurate as possible. I will definitely check out the timed text option. Thank you for the links! It actually looks like fun to try out in the future (starting with this article). It is nice even for non-deaf hearers to have subtitles right there lol. Again, I hope that I am not rushing you. I only pinged you to let you know about my responses being posted. Take as long as you need. I am just grateful for your help because you have helped to improve the article a great deal! Aoba47 (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that I added the timed text. It was a lot easier than I expected. I ended up replacing the audio sample for one with the chorus as I feel it shows Amil's vocals more clearly, which was subject of two critics' commentary. Feel free to let me know if the audio sample is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think having at least one sample from an album is almost always a good idea, and I think the current sample works to demonstrate her vocal style. The TimedText captioning also looks great. —BLZ · talk 03:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

  • "[The music video for 'I Got That'] was uploaded to Amil's Vevo channel in 2009." I took out the Vevo dates for the two singles, it's not really pertinent to the album promotion. That info would be better suited to the individual song pages.
  • Makes sense to me. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Amil's verse has been criticized, Jay-Z has received praise for his contribution." This sentence originally said "Amil's verse was criticized" and "Jay-Z received praise", which implied (along with the general flow of the paragraph) that the reception you were referring to was roughly contemporaneous with the album release. In fact, the sources cited were retrospective assessments from 2012, 2015, 2016, and 2017. I'd still rather have a little more about the attribution and specific critical assessment of those things: who said what about the song, and what specifically did each of them have to say?
  • Added some more to that part. Aoba47 (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am just terrible at formatting them, and I honestly do not find them to be particularly useful (however that is a personal preference). I have tried my best to add one though. Apologies for any mistakes with it. Aoba47 (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and remained on the chart for eight weeks" — is that an additional eight weeks after its peak, or a total of eight weeks? Either way it should be clarified and reworded. —BLZ · talk 04:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album also peaked at number 45 on the Top Album Sales Billboard chart, and stayed on the chart for six weeks" — Misleading, but unless I'm mistaken this is Billboard's fault not yours. Prior to December 2014, there was no Top Album Sales chart. At that time, Billboard began including streams on the Top 200, but they created Top Album Sales to continue the old stream-free Top 200 methodology. Post-2014, Top Album Sales is just "here's what the Billboard 200 would look like today if we had never factored in streaming." Pre-2014, it looks like Billboard has decided to pretend that there always was a Top Album Sales chart even though it's identical to the Top 200 for that era. I've removed the sentence. —BLZ · talk 05:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. I honestly did not know about that and I was just going back the website. Aoba47 (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Organizationally, I think it would make sense to include everything in the "Release" section starting with "Amil was removed from the Roc-A-Fella roster..." into a new section between "Reception" and "Track listing", titled "Aftermath" (or something like that). I think you could also consider using the free-license photo of Amil from her Wikipedia page in that section. It's from 2014, but that makes it appropriate chronologically for an "Aftermath" section about how she largely dropped out from the public eye. Besides, it feels right to include an image of her since we have the option—otherwise, Jay-Z and Beyoncé illustrate it, but not her (aside from the album cover photo).
  • Revised. I have also added more from the Billboard interview where she said that she intentionally sabotaged her career and regretted being on a major label in the first place. The entire thing is actually a lot sadder than I thought. Aoba47 (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reorganized the "Reception" section to separate contemporaneous and retrospective reviews. —BLZ · talk 05:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Than you for the help. Apologies for all of the work. Aoba47 (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that there's only one edition of the album, is the "Release history" necessary?

With that comment, I've now gone thru the whole article text. I'll complete the source review soon. —BLZ · talk 05:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Brandt Luke Zorn: Thank you for all of the help. Honestly, the article looks so much better now with all of your help and input. I just feel bad for all of the work you did ><. Hope you are having a great weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – At this point, after a very thorough review (with lots of delays—thank you for your patience, Aoba47), I am very satisfied with the condition of the article. I believe that it meets all the FA criteria, that it is now as comprehensive and informative as it could possibly be (given its scope and subject matter), and that it should be a compelling read for both a general readership and readers with more familiarity. The article reflects Aoba47's very laudable work to tell the story of an otherwise obscure album that illuminates fascinating aspects of recent hip-hop history. —BLZ · talk 05:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/All_Money_Is_Legal/archive2&oldid=920720512"