|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kamaal/The Abstract article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Fair use rationale for Image:F127898purw.jpg
Image:F127898purw.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- A reasonably complete infobox
- A lead section giving an overview of the album
- A track listing
- Reference to at least primary personnel by name (must specify performers on the current album; a band navbox is insufficient)
- Categorisation at least by artist and year
- All the start class criteria
- A reasonably complete infobox, including cover art
- At least one other section of prose (in addition to the lead section)
- A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
- A "personnel" section listing performers, including guest musicians.
- Independent in-line references supporting major/controversial claims
- All the C class criteria
- A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
- A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
- No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources.
- No significant issues exist to hamper readability, although it may not rigorously follow WP:MOS.
My only question now is if the citations from discogs should be considered a reliable source as to my knowledge, discogs is a site with user-submitted information rather then expert submitted, so there is not guarantee of it's accuracy. Also, I've only heard the song "Feelin' It" from this album, but I think you are overloading the album with genre's. Keep it simple even if it does bend genre's occasionally. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Discogs has been discussed (sort of) and rejected as a reliable source since there's no editorial oversight, although IMHO it depends on the release; those which actually exist and for which there is a lot of interest and sales through Discogs tend to have Discogs entries which have been subjected to much more peer review by people who actually have the releases in hand. This album is one such example. But I don't think we need to link to Discogs for this article. Physical CD releases are primary sources. They're published & distributed just like books. So we ought to just be able to cite the U.S. CD, Jive label, cat# 88697-55519-2, barcode 088697551927. The album may in fact be sitting at your local library. We don't need to wait for there to be a New York Times article talking about what bonus tracks are on it. —mjb (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)