This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Swathes of the article are written by Drake fanboys.
For one, how is the critical reception 'generally positive'? I cannot comprehend that word seeing all the aggregates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackner2 (talk • contribs)
I partly agree with you, Ackner2, and have removed the unsourced mention of "generally positive". It's not for Wikipedia to take on a storytelling/narrator's role – we just report what reliable sources say. For some reason (and this issue has been discussed centrally somewhere, can't remember where), some editors feel the need to add a summary upfront with a statement about critical reception, and, imo, it's often somewhat optimistic and seemingly out to "big" up the subject. Aside from the OR/undue concerns, it's redundant – just like, say, including a statement saying "The album took quite a long time to record" under Recording.
Might want to go easy on the "Swathes of the article are written by Drake fanboys" line, though ... I mean, keep the criticism constructive and then it is helpful, because any bias or original research, whether subtle or blatant, has no place in a Wikipedia article. JG66 (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Certified Lover Boy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡02:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply