Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Jackson

Add links
Source: 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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:07, 28 July 2008 [1].

Michael Jackson

Nominator(s): User:Realist2
previous FAC

I'm nominating this article for FA. Just a reminder, English is not my first language, if reviewers have comments could they please write in clear, full sentences to avoid confusion on my part. — Realist2 (Speak) 11:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note of interest to reviewers. Because this article was slightly long, we removed a few things to keep it all tight and neat. A few of the things removed were on the topic of Jackson's appearance and health. To help the FA review, we removed some of these details and I set up a new article for it which has been nominated for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical appearance, health and diet of Michael Jackson The article was nominated because it was "controversial and pov", we have reviewed this article and have all agreed that content was of an FA standard in it's own right. If the article is deleted we are going to have to bring some of the info back, wasting our hard work trimming. For those editors who understand the article and the content please help, that info needed its own article because of this article's length. — Realist2 (Speak) 23:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments regarding MoS compliance:

  • The Dangerous album had seven million shipments in the US, sold two million copies in the UK and sold twenty-seven million copies worldwide; sales figures were slightly lower to those of Bad.[43][14][22] Not a big deal, but try to keep blocks of references in numerical order.
  • Shortly thereafter it was announced that Jackson was producing an all-star charity single — entitled "I Have This Dream" — to help raise relief funds for victims of Hurricane Katrina. The single has not yet been released. em dashes need to be unspaced.
  • Image shouldn't be left-aligned directly under section headers like in the "Legacy, influence and artistry" section, but again, not a huge deal.

Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved. —
talk ~ edits) 18:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Oppose - I provided some feedback at the peer view. This is looking very good. But there are some problems with the prose, and other things (I am focusing on the "Legacy, influence and artistry" section):

—

talk ~ edits) 14:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I am a complete novice when it comes to Michael Jackson, so I was looking for more info in your notes list and - sorry - found some I didn't really understand. There are several refs that just read "Taraborrelli, p. 464–471 or "a b Campbell (1995), p. 53". Please excuse my ignorance, but are these books or magazine articles or something else entirely?--

Seahamlass 16:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Thankyou. I was just reading the (recent FA promotion)
Seahamlass 16:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
That's OK, glad I could clear it up for you. :-) — Realist2 (Speak) 16:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a reason to implement the usage of the Harvard citation template, which helps readers find which book a footnote is referring to. See
talk ~ edits) 16:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Is that not what is being implemented in this article? All the best, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 17:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I cant make heads or tails of that link, if it involves altering every single book ref I have used, my reply would be (as MJ once said himself) "No Way In Hell". The refs are accurate and reliable and it seems like a lot of unnessary work for nothing. — Realist2 (Speak) 17:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. That template links the footnotes directly to the book its referring to in the 'References' section. Yes, it would be more work, and of course it was just a suggestion as Seahamlass had trouble figuring out the book footnotes. —
talk ~ edits) 17:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: There are some minor

WP:MOSNUM
issues, or at least stylistic issues that can be resolved by referring to MOSNUM.

*It's nice to have the dates fully formatted for date preference settings.

  • Non-breaking spaces in spelled-out numbers is always a plus, e.g $95 million.
    • Sorry, could you clarify what you would like me to do hear please, I don't understand.
      • $95 million. This will make sure that $95 and million always stay together, rather than million hopping down to the next line if $95 happens to be as far to the right that it can go. --Elliskev 20:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that's done, I got most of them. By the way, in this article, since numbers less than 100 are spelled out (i.e, "ninety-five" not "95"), should it be "ninety-five million dollars" or still "$95 million"? All the best, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 20:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe. According to the Manual of Style "In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words, when none of the other reasons indicate otherwise; numbers greater than nine may be rendered in numerals or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)." and "Careful readers may object to the use of 100,000 troops as a rough description of a force of 103 thousand; it is preferable to use one hundred thousand for such approximations." So I guess it depends.--Elliskev 20:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I went through it added about 6 or 7 but couldn't find more (I'm new to using that symbol so I might have bee a little conservative in my usage.) Hope that's ok now? — Realist2 (Speak) 20:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I didn't go back and check, but I'm sure it's fine. It's really a preventive measure. To see how it looks without the non-breaking space, take a look at today's (7/17/08) FA on the main page. World War II really should be all on the same line. With my browser size, World War and II are broken. You can see it by resizing your browser. Adding the nbsps just makes for a more professional presentation. Maybe you can nbsp Billboard Hot 100. I don't think you have to, but it makes it better. --Elliskev 21:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is at least one instance of of between a month and a year (I found one in the 1995–1999: HIStory, charity, second marriage and fatherhood section). --Elliskev 19:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have been editing this article a very long time (just check my history, it goes back!)[2]. In the years i've worked with it, I've seen constant edit wars, agenda pushing either side of the spectrum and bizarre, bizarre editing from every possible source. This however (without gushing too much) changed when Realist2 got some experience in wikipedia and began editing the article properly. In the past months (not years, months - such is the degree of remarkable transformation) this article has had something done to it I didn't think was possible - it's actually bloody neutral. It's neutral. I cannot overstate this enough. Neutral!

I personally could not have done this, and anyone reading my comment should kindly take a look and see that this article is well written prose of the highest degree - deep, well written, practically existential at certain points! It's a work of actual art. The liberal use of photographs brings it into a class unto itself, the sourcing is just, plain, incredible. It's had zillions of people check, re-check, add more sources and change them over the years. In short it's a paradise of well written factual information.

The articles lead is so good I find myself re-reading it and pinching myself each time. It's better than the Britannica article, hell, it's better than the Taborelli book's intro (one of the best books on Jackson). Structure is exhaustingly well studied, overhauled. I've been part of a recent mind mapping in the themes section, we first theorised appropriate material in a mind map at mind domo. Realist2 found plausible sources and we ransacked them for information, before Realist2 wrote it into perfect prose. It was by far the most interesting and satisfying experience I've had on this article, and I've been working on it for years. So you see, this article has been sourced from good material ground upwards. This is so far beyond original research, it's unbelievable. Because 2 years ago, it was a hive of OR rubbish.

It's exhaustingly comprehensive. This mans' been places, and this article covers this man. Properly. There have been no edit wars going on 6 months, if not more. The current bunch of editors and moderators of the article are in-tune with each other, helpful to new users and encouraging to previous editors to continue the articles transformation, which whilst not complete is now by far and wide more than enough and actually representing a powerful achievement. Neutrality with such a cult, mainstream and notorious figure. This is beyond FA, it's been beyond FA for over 2 months now. If there's something above FA standard, this article is trekking boldly towards it. To think a couple over 8 months ago it was so bad I wanted GA status delisted! [3]. How the article has changed! Unquestionably - Support.--Manboobies (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been working on this article a lot (it's my second most-edited article, in fact). And I've seen it change. I've changed too. I supported an FA the last time, but I wasn't as experienced an editor as I am now. The MJ article that went up for review last time wasn't an FA (though I thought so at the time). Now it is. Let's run through the
    Criteria
    :
  • Well-written: I've been copyediting this article ever since I've seen it, revising and revising until the prose was brilliant. I just did my last copyedit this morning, and I was stunned at this excellence of the prose that I was reading. It was incredible; literally beyond Brittanica.
  • Comprehensive: 108 kilobytes of Michael Jackson. Nothing less.
  • Factually Accurate: 190 reliable sources, nine books, no filler. It is factually accurate to the decimal, no doubt.
  • Neutral: This is to be applauded. I mean, this is Michael Jackson we're talking about here. I've seen people with death wishes for this guy. And yet, this article manages to keep a neutral, informative, encyclopedic tone. This is sheer genius.
  • Stable: No edit wars on the Michael Jackson page. Another mystery of geniusness.
  • Lead: The lead summarizes the beauty of the article with an inherent beauty of its own. It's succinct, yet intriguing.
  • Appropriate structure: Logical system of his biography followed by his legacy
  • Consistent citations: Every citation is marked to perfection.
  • Images:Images are used appropriately and with relevance to the article, and the two audio samples highlight some of Jackson's great work
  • Length:108 kilobytes of Michael Jackson. No more. No less. Sure, the article is long, but this is Michael Jackson we're talking about, not John Power. Michael Jackson is one of the most influential, controversial, talked-about people of all time. There's so much to say. But still, there's no "bull" in this article, and nothing less than the best.

That's all I have to say. This is from a completely objective point of view actually, not taking into account any work that I took place in this. Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 23:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. Support. :-) Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 23:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I share the concerns about using allmusic for a biography. While it's generally a reliable source for album information, it's not as reliable for biographical details that might be controversial.
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the reliablity of the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just stumbled across this and I'm not sure if my input here is warranted, however I would just like to point out that stuff.co.nz is owned by
T C @ 09:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I know but as there were questions raised about it's falidity validity I removed it so that it didn't damage the articles prospects. — Realist2 (Speak) 12:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Validity, if anyone was confused. Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 18:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, cheers. — Realist2 (Speak) 18:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image Review: All images and media okay --JayHenry23:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Jay, I'm going to have to disagree on the current usage of Image:Michael Jackson Thriller.ogg and Image:Smooth Criminal by Michael Jackson.ogg being suitable. The fair use rationales are fine but the in article descriptions are inadaquet; how is "Excerpt of the album's title track, and one of Jackson's signature pieces, "Thriller" released as a single in 1984." "critical to the understanding of such a performer" as asserted by its fair use rationale? Same applies for the "Smooth Criminal" caption (though that's minorly better, it still needs more detail. Let me know if you'd like some good examples.). —Giggy 07:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reviewing for
WP:NFCC 1-10. This satisfies NFCC. Editors are welcome to go above and beyond if they so desire. To be frank: the reason some other image reviewers burned out is because they were demanding that editors go sometimes radically beyond what's required. I'm not here to do that. If you'd like to encourage the editors to spiff up presentation that's cool. You're not talking about NFCC issues though. It'd be ludicrous to suggest someone could understand Michael Jackson without hearing a note of Thriller, that's enough for NFCC#8 right there (never mind that thriller isn't discussed only in the caption). --JayHenry (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Yep, you're right, this is fine in terms of
WP:NFCC (and I certainly wasn't criticising the excellent work you've done); my comments are based on Wikipedia:Non-free content#Audio clips, first point ("...when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary..."). —Giggy 08:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, sorry if my tone seemed prickly. I didn't take the comment as criticism. I'm familiar with NFC guidelines as well (hence my specific use of the word iconic above). It is noted in the captions that both are signature songs, and there's further discussion of the songs in the text outside the captions--sourced commentary on both. Now, perhaps the article would be better with more commentary on his iconic music--I don't dispute that. Like I said, definitely go above and beyond and make it as perfect as possible! Some examples where you feel NFC is executed really perfectly would probably be of great help to Realist. Actually would be useful for me as well. In future I could present it as: "X satisfies guidelines and policies, but here's an example of what's perfect." --JayHenry (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, damn, you asked for "perfect", that means I can't give any of the articles I've worked on;-) Anyways, check out Silverchair, for instance; the "Luv Your Life" sample in the "Diorama (2001–2002)" section contains piano and an orchestral arrangement... and so does the caption. The "Straight Lines" caption (at time of writing) probably needs improvement and the sample itself isn't that great, but hopefully you get the idea from the first sample. Hmm... just browsing, Odyssey Number Five contains some pretty good captions, though I say so myself. —Giggy 09:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, to clarify, is the lead picture and star now fixed? Do I need to do something with those audio samples? If and when this is all cleared up can it be struck as resolved? — Realist2 (Speak) 13:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware the lead image issue is resolved (Jay said he was happy with everything so I'd say it's all done). I fixed the star issue on Commons, so that's fine. There's just the audio samples still to fix, in my opinion; basically the captions need better descriptions of the music on them, and on the significance of this music (they talk about significance at times, but not about the music itself). —Giggy 05:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "He has been the subject of long-term financial difficulties and health concerns."? I'm not sure what this means. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There's a lot of extraneous details best reserved for song, album, or other such articles. One example is an entire paragraph devoted to the name change from the Jackson Five to the Jacksons. That kind of detail doesn't belong here. I was telling Realist that this needed to be addressed before the article underwent another FAC. This article needs more focus, especially with a subject so well documented. This article needs to be as effective as possible, but it still needs some work.WesleyDodds (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I appreciate your advise, you told be that you wanted to remove aproximately 20,000-30,000 bytes, with the community consensus of only yourself, (if that was a slight joke or an exagoration then I didn't get it, I thought you were being serious). I am not of the opinion that much details needs removing and do don't believe it to be in the best interest of the reader, since I have actually studied Mr Jackson. I always made is a goal of mine to stick to a square 100,000 bytes which I am happy to support, but bringing it down to 80k is absurd. There are many FA article above 100,000 bytes. — Realist2 (Speak) 13:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up I've gone through and removed a lot of details better suited to subarticles. At this point the biography section is pretty good, with everything from the early life through Thriller more or less perfect. There are some issues I have in latter portions of the bio, but I'll get to that later. I was trimming down the music videos section, but Realist kept revert me and even removed the in-use template at one point. Now, that's just not very nice, especially since I'm more or less working on this because Realist has asked for help in the past, but I'm not going to dwell on that. There are still some issues that need to be dealt with, and the entire second half of the article should probably be restrucured and definitely trimmed of detail. I don't feel like touching the "Themes and genres" section right now; I was going to remove a lot of unnecessary detail, but I realized that would have left nothing about Bad. In contrast, there's nothing about Jackson's voice. He has a very distinctive voice and phrasing, and I know there's commentary about that. The "Physical appearance" and "Finances" sections should be merged into the rest of the bio. I'll come back in the next day or so listing more specific items that need to be fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree completely. Detail levels are perfectly appropriate, and there's nothing about Jackson's voice because nothing authoritive exists about it that has been written. Simple, really.--90.213.175.101 (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a section on his vocal style. — Realist2 (Speak) 18:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Intergrated "finances" and "physical appearance" sections. — Realist2 (Speak) 20:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Article is now at 53,000 bytes for readable pros, perfectly acceptable considering the nature of the topic. — Realist2 (Speak) 02:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My concern was never the exact length. My concern is over how much of the material is actually necessary or pertinent to this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree some areas could be trimmed but removing chunks seems wholely inappropriate when quite a number of editors (some of whom have FA articles or are regulars on the FA circut) already feel the article is up to standard. The vast majority of them have voiced their delight at seeing an article on Mr. Jackson that is neutral, a good read, well written, "better than Brittanica" (two people have said that, one of whom was a long time critic of the article) and tells the whole story. I am interested to know what you think of the various improvements I made since yesterday at your suggeestion? Have the alterations further improved the article? — Realist2 (Speak) 03:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there's still work to be done. It's not FA-worthy quite yet, but it's closer. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm not a fan of MJ but this is an article that every great encyclopedia must have. I was invited to review the article by the nominator, (see my talk page), and I reluctantly agreed. Reluctantly because, well because this is about Michael Jackson and I was expecting problems of neutrality and so forth. But I was pleasantly suprised; this is a great article, well-balanced, neutral, comprehensive and quite a good read. I noticed a couple of glitches:

  • The musician then released... — presumably this is Jackson?
    • Yes, I wanted to mix it up a little, hearing "Jackson" over and over can drive one mad :-), if you thing I have over done the musician thing (he is a musician by the way) I will happily fix it. — Realist2 (Speak) 17:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GrahamColmTalk 17:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

More comments

  • "The son of Joseph "Joe" Walter and Katherine Esther (née Scruse),[2] he was the seventh of nine children. His siblings are Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, Marlon, Randy, Janet, La Toya and Rebbie" - why the sudden change in tenses?
  • You mention the term "gigs" in the first section - some people (including me, sort of) might not know what that means, could you use either a clearer word or explain in-text?
  • "An unusually candid ninety-minute interview with Oprah Winfrey occurred in late 1992, Jackson's first interview in a number of years" - one of the most clear-cut cases of redundancy I've seen.
  • "Huey asserts that throughout his solo career, Jackson's versatility has allowed him to experiment with a number of themes and genres." - as above. Not nearly as clear-cut, but still probably redundant.
  • "Jackson was charged with seven counts of child molestation and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent in order to commit that felony; all charges regarded the same boy, Gavin Arvizo, who was under fourteen at the time of the alleged crime." Also, this is the topic sentence of a second paragraph that seems to have nothing to do with the first paragraph in the section - the transition is a bit choppy. This happens a few times in the article; could you please rearrange the paragraphs or reword the sentences to make the article read better?

Good work overall. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Now, let me say right off the bat that my oppose is for technical purposes. I don't like to render an "Oppose" at an FAC unless the article is nowhere near FA status. However, given a number of supports that have been listed it's only prudent to note that the article still has deficiencies which need to be fixed. A lot of work is still needed. I've been helping out for two days and I'm really exhausted. Now here's my attempt to to list as many issues as possible that need to be addressed.
  • The paragraph on Thriller should mention that it's one of the best-selling albums of all time. Also, the other sections mention the album singles, so it would be appropriate to at least mention the top hits.
  • On a related note, no mention of "Say Say Say"?
    • Done, connected it in with the stuff on the beatles catalog.
  • The sentences "On May 14, 1984, Jackson was invited to the White House to receive an award presented by American President Ronald Reagan. The event, notable because an African-American met a Republican president at the White House in the 1980s (a time of racial tension), was seen as a positive move forward in social views towards race." is really blowing things out of proportion. Compared to previous decades, the 1980s weren't any more a time of racial tension", and it's doubtful that Jackson meeting Reagan had any sizable effect. Find a more objective source to describe the event.
  • When did Jackson purchase Neverland Ranch?
    • Done
  • "Jackson renewed his contract for $65 million; a record breaking deal at the time." Date?
    • Done
  • The item about Jackson in a wheelchair at the 1993 Soul Train Awards seems out of place. Possibly remove it completely, as well as the following sentence about the awards he received there. Jackson has received many awards during hsi career; keep it to the most notable.
    • Removed the awards sentance, keeping performance, it was a noteworthy event.
  • The paragraph about Ryan White should be cut. Their friendship isn't necessarily important to mention in this article. The part about the "Gone Too Soon" dedication belongs in that single's article. The most relevant thing about the paragraph is Jackson pleading for more HIV/AIDS research funding. It could possibly be paired down to a sentence like "Inspired by his friendship with AIDS victim Ryan White, Jackson publicly pleaded with the Clinton Administration to give more money to HIV/AIDS charities and research at the Inaugural Gala in 1992", and inserted as part of another paragraph.
    • Cut
  • There's a lot of detail in the 1993 sexual abuse allegations section, much of which can be transferred to the sub-article. What especially worries me is the way many of the details are presented, which favors Jackson and really paints a bad portrait of Evan Chandler. My suggestion to Realist was to cut it down to the barest facts (Jackson was accused of molestation, the news became public, public opinion turned against Jackson, Jackson settled and he was never prosecuted) in oroder to maintain as neutral a POV as possible.
    • There are no neutrality problems with it, I provided all the evidence from both sides of the story, if that makes Jackson look innocent, too bad. Since they searched both his homes, found nothing, since they closed the case citing lack of evidence and Jackson was never ever charged it's quite bloody hard to make him look guilty. I provided the stories and evidence of both parties in their full, it just so happens they couldn't nail anything on Jackson. I provide the full facts of both parties, I have tried to avoid inappropriate tone. Its all factually accurate, sorry. Also on the talk page I have been encourage to write more, expose the full strong, something you dont hear in the tabloids where they only tell the accusers side of it. If the truth in controversial too bad. — Realist2 (Speak) 12:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The detail on the courtship of Lisa Marie Presley is a bit much. Cut that down ([retty much, just say how they met, how they reconnected, and why they got married) but expand on where they were married and public reaction to the marriage (which was huge).
  • "In 1995, Jackson merged the catalog with Sony's publishing division a decade later, retained half-ownership and earning $95 million in the deal as well as the rights to even more songs". I put 1995 as the year, but the sentence should be rewritten to better describe the event as it happened.
    • It reads clearly to me, seems accurate. No need for rewording.
"In 1995, Jackson merged the catalog with Sony's publishing division a decade later" Was the year 1995? Either way the "decade later" part needs to go. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AH!!! I see, you know that is why I should never has been incharge of intergrating the finances section. :-) — Realist2 (Speak) 12:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing about the atmosphere in which Invincible was released. At the time, it was touted as Jackson's big comeback. Then it disappointed everyone (including me; man, was that a waste of money).
  • The sentence "While most reviewers felt that the album was one of Jackson's least impressive, negative reviewers often discussed the singer's perceived eccentric image rather than the music" is too vague and gives the impression of dismissing the negative response to Invincible. Possibly quote some reviews instead.
  • Wasn't there some controversy about the release of "What More Can I Give?" I remember it kept getting pushed back and atatched to different charities.
    • Yes, sony pulled it's release because they didn't want it competing with the Invincible album. Then there was an issue about the director being involved with gay porn which caused a number of companies like McDonalds to pull out. Jackson eventually released it 2 years later. I don't think its important though, in the near future it will have completely vaded from public memory. — Realist2 (Speak) 12:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraphs about Number Ones and Visionary are really short. Possibly combine these two into one paragraph at the beginning of the section.
  • "Reports of financial problems for Jackson became more frequent in 2006 . . ." This seems to indicate there were financial troubles for Jackson beforehand, but I can't find any mention of them previous to this.
  • The bit about Jackson returning to the US for James Brown's funeral is only necessary if it indicated a permanent return to the country. Right now it seems pretty vague: did he return just for the funeral, or did he return and stay afterwards?
  • Cut down on the details for Thriller 25. It's a reissue anyways.
  • The sentence "Fortress considered a foreclosure sale of Neverland Ranch to service the loan, but ultimately sold the debt to Colony Capital LLC in May of that year" just hangs there at the end and could possibly be cut.
  • Ok, the musical style section. This will need some serious work. The main problem is the "Themes and genres" section spends an awful amount of space describing styles and meanings from specific tracks, often to the point of detailing entire albuum tracklistings. In contrast, the "Vocal style" section is more effective. Use the "Vocal style" section as the basis for the musical style section. Cut the "Themes and genres" section, and readd relevant details from that section to the vocal style section. The sentence "Unlike many artists, Jackson did not write his songs on paper. Instead he would dictate into a sound recorder; when recording he would sing from memory" is definitely worth keep; most everything else can go to the song articles. Instead of describing the sound and meanings of various songs, try to summarize typical styles and lryical themes Jackson uses often. Also, mention something about how Jackson arranges songs; there were some details about this on the Off the Wall reissue disc.
  • There should probably be a section on Jackson's dancing. See Joy Division for reference, where there's a "live performances" section to describe an important element of the band.
    • I wont be commenting on his dancing unless I'm allowed the assistance of a video clip, his dancing and the power it has over an audience are too hard to explain in pro's alone and wouldn't do him justice. — Realist2 (Speak) 12:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You won't be able to include a video of him dancing, but there needs to be more discussion about his dancing in order to be fully comprehensive, since it's a major part of his performance style. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article already talks about his Motown and Super Bowl performance in their relevant sections, I also talk about his sexual dancing in the "Bad", "Black or White" and "In The Closet" videos. — Realist2 (Speak) 23:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there's plenty more to say about his dancing ability besides that. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The music videos section needs to be more concise. See The Smashing Pumpkins and Tool (band) for effective subsections about artists' impact with music videos. Just like with the musical style section, don't describe each and every video. Summarize and talk about recurrent approaches/themes, then get specific when you absolutely have to. I would also strongly insist the screenshot of "Scream" be replace with one from, say, "Billie Jean" or "Thriller". There's plenty of talk about the fact that they were important videos, but next to nothing about why they were important (In the case of "Thriller", it was a big expense\ive shot with lots of extras in complex makeup); a screenshot of either of these would be more helpful to someone who hasn't seen much of Jackson's videograpy.
    • I won't be changing the scream shoot (although I would be ok with a shoot from "Black or White"). We have 3 pictures of Jackson in the 80's and only one from the 90's. If we do what you want that will make it 4 pictures from the eighties and there will be no pictures of his changed appearance in the 90's. NO MORE 80'S US NOLSTALGA. Like I said though, if you can help get a pic of the black or white video (that is a good pic), I will go with that. — Realist2 (Speak) 09:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the desire to try and cover as broad a scope image-wise, but frankly videos from Thriller are the most important. "Black or White" could possibly work, but it might be hard trying to screencap the most notable aspect of that video, the "morphing" bit. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's my offer, actually the end sequence is also very noteworth and I could write some great pro's on the sexual imagery, the dancing and the banning of the end segment on MTV. If not "scream" is staying but I am actually warming to the idea of black or white. — Realist2 (Speak) 09:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's more about the controversy about the end segment "Black or White" than Jackson's approach to making videos. Remember, the point of screencapping a video in this article is to illustrate to the general reader unfamiliar with the article's subject Jackson's impact through the music video medium. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and it was also one of the artistic highlights of the video, it's up to you, I've compromised as far as i'm willing to go, the scream video was considered fine and has sufficient rational. If not I will just have to bit my lip and accept your oppose. — Realist2 (Speak) 09:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a better image from "Scream" to post, go ahead. But the one that's currently there . . . it's just Michael and Janet, in black and white. It's not very enlightening to an unfamiliar reader. Compare that to say, Michael dancing with zombies or Michael touring in stop-motion inside a theme park version of himself or Michael transforming from a pile of sand in Ancient Egypt. Do you understand what I'm getting at? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well bookkeeper showed us a much better version of "scream" but you haven't commented on it (as far as I'm aware). Maybe "Remember the Time" would be better, his fashion sense and graphics are very inique in that. I suggest we arrange a consensus on my talk page unstead of here as this is taking up a lot of room. — Realist2 (Speak) 09:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's most of the pressing concerns. I would like more editors to take a look at the grammar. I'm also somewhat wary of some of the book sources. Ssome of these titles (The Magic and the Madness, Michael Jackson: The King of Pops Darkest Hour, Michael Jackson, the King of Pop: The Big Picture : the Music! the Man! the Legend! the Interviews!) are rather sensational, and I'm curious as to if these are the most credible bios about Jackson available. I'm busy with the article prose, so I would like someone else to check out the credibility of those sources. There's lots of work still to do here, but we might very well get this done. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The books have already been checked once, all books on Jackson have sensastional titles, even the very best book ever written on him The Magic and the Madness is a "sensasational" title. He's had an interssting life unlike the beatles. :-) — Realist2 (Speak) 08:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to make sure because given he's one of the most famous celebrities of the 20th century, there are a lot of subpar bios created for sensational/monetary purposes floating around. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wesley, Have you actually looked into the sources in detail or are you going on a gut feeling? It seems you are judging these books by their titles, rather than the author and/or publisher's credibility for accuracy and knowledge on the subject. —
talk ~ edits) 09:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I ask because I haven't had time to look at the sources myself since I've been heavily editing the article, which is pretty difficult on its own. If someone else can vouch for the books, great. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guys don't argue, we have done the source checking already, lets get on with sorting this article before I give up.— Realist2 (Speak) 09:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ about the Beatles not being interesting (;-)), but the sources have already been checked, so it's a moot point. Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 15:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see an image was added: can you make sure someone checks the licensing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it was a different shot from the same music video, we swopped it as opposed to adding one. I will get Giggy or someone on it. I'm off to bed now. — Realist2 (Speak) 02:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:MOS#Captions on punctuation on image captions. Also, the grammar in this caption needs attention (I'm not sure how to best fix it, but their status didn't display frustration) ... Michael Jackson and sister Janet Jackson display their anger and frustration suffered by their status as celebrities in the acclaimed music video for "Scream", primarily a retaliation against the media for misrepresenting them to the public SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The Fair Use rationale on this image would be okay except that as far as I can tell, the information in the caption is not cited anywhere. Is there a citation that they intended the video/song as a retaliation against the media? Once that's cited, I think we're okay here. I believe the caption has been rewritten since Sandy's remark, as it reads well to me and is punctuated correctly. Just need that citation... --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is the picture isn't needed to get the point across that the video is a retaliation against the media, so it's fair-use rationale is shaky. Additionally, that's more appropriate for the "Scream" article than for this one. This is why I'm saying a different video screenshot should be used if any at all, because trying to illustrate this point about the "Scream" video is unnecessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree with "shaky" because in addition to illustrating the retaliation, it's also a striking image from an iconic video. And, I'm really just saying that the Fair Use rationale is valid. Whether or not there's possibly better images, or better places to use this one, is more of a content decision than a matter of satisfying Fair Use guidelines. Does it satisfy
WP:NFCC? In my opinion, very clearly. That's not to say Wesley's points are incorrect, just that they're not something I consider critical to my (limited) review of Fair Use. May still be relevant toward having the best possible article, but I'm agnostic on that point. --JayHenry (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, Bookkeeper added a lovely pro's section about the video, it is fine now. — Realist2 (Speak) 13:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. An article that deserves an FA rating, IMO.--andreasegde (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • A lot of work has gone into this article, but since it's about Jackson, it has to be better than good.
    • Can I just ask you on that, are you sayin that this article passing FA should be set a higher thresshold because it's about Michael Jackson? Surely it should be the same thresehold as any other article. — Realist2 (Speak) 14:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall organization. It might assist to separate Jackson's musical career from his personal life in the article. Instead of a biography encompassing the two, try a non-musical career biography, then one about the career.
  • The article reads like a publicity bio of Jackson. While I understand Realist2 is a big fan, and only the insanity that comes with being a fan will allow the kind of time and effort in getting an FA, it might also cloud judgment in the more human aspect of Jackson's development as a person and a musician.
I don't think it's necessarily biased, but it's incomplete. And it's not as compelling as it should be. You have described Jackson's major accomplishments, of which there are many, without giving the reader insight into his development and creative process. Michael Jackson is one of the very few superstars that puts him on a plane that is very difficult to understand. His immense popularity has clearly affected his personality and how he deals with people and events. But he is still the son of a Gary, Indiana working class family. You have to take your reader from relating to the kid in Gary to the mask-wearing monster of a publicity machine. Walk us through it step by step. I see you've already expanded the abuse section in his early life. That's a good start. --Moni3 (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1958–1975: Early life and The Jackson 5:
  • I know Jackson's siblings are famous, but the sentence naming them all is odd, kind of halting the flow of words.
    • This is something I was specifical told to add in the last review "all his brothers and sisters should be named together". Maybe it needs better wording, but I would like to avoid removing it at the expense of being told later to reisert it. — Realist2 (Speak) 15:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're building a framework here to address Jackson's eccentric behavior and motives for his alleged molestation. You need to be very specific about the kinds of abuse Jackson endured. Everything must be cited well.
    • Added more detail about childhold abuse & added a few details amount other mental conditions. I dispersed them in their chronological order to avoid coatracking of mental illnesses. — Realist2 (Speak) 15:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1976–1981: Move to Epic and Off the Wall
  • Open the paragraph about The Wiz (which is one of the scariest movies I have ever seen, btw, but not because of Jackson) with a topic sentence about Jackson getting into acting. This was based on the Jackson 5's multiple TV appearances on variety shows, yes? Can you tie that in?
    • Yes, he definately wanted to break into movies, not so much acting, he got a grip of that just from his general music videos. But, yes, he did want to take it one step further but that wasn't until the mid 80's. Jackson actually hated all those variety shows, he was gutted when it was successful enough to go into the second year. However the point of the Wiz wasn't so much about getting into movies (like I said that was the mid-1980's), it was more about Jackson leaving the family setting, travelling and getting his first taste of independancy. I can certainly add those details if you like. — Realist2 (Speak) 15:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1982–1985: Thriller
  • I think you really, really need to supply the article with a very powerful paragraph about how big Thriller was. Thriller, by the way, was monumental, and anyone who was listening to music at the time—I don't care if it was
    Yo Yo Ma
    —stared at the radio and thought, "Wtf is this??" Provide quotes and statistics from the music industry. Have you researched Rolling Stone for their literature on Jackson's early solo career? His videos for "Billie Jean", "Thriller", and "Beat It" on MTV stopped action because they were so unlike anything ever seen, and they probably kept the fledgling station alive. It's my opinion that if Jackson had done nothing after Thriller, that alone would have earned him his second induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
I felt the level of detail about Thriller was already sufficient, getting the main points across. some of the detail needs to be trimmed, or else this article is not using summary style effectively. Remember, there's always the article for the album itself. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wes, I'm going to ask you to step away from the article, you are over complicating my job. You have overhauled the article to meet your personal taste way more than awayone else. If you have further problems to with the article then add it to your list of opposing reasons. You have a vested interest in this article and it's unhealth for the process at this point. If you oppose the article that is your perogative. — Realist2 (Speak) 01:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the Michael Jackson Burn Center?
    • Hehe, I have clarifed that since it does have a rather misleading name. It was actually a piece of new technology funded by Jackson that helped treat people with severe burns. Rather odd title therefore but thats Mr. Jackson for you. :-) — Realist2 (Speak) 16:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I don't agree that Jackson paved the way for Prince. If that guy thinks so, then put his name in it as in, "Richard Harrington from The Washington Post says..." then I can write to him and tell him he's wrong.
    • I gave the name of the publication which is the genenral style I follow, I think adding the name adds undue sceptism of the statement and the source is very good. — Realist2 (Speak) 16:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to comment on this. The comment about getting black music back on the radio is inaccurate; there have always been "black music" formats on American radio. If anything Jackson allowed it to "cross over" (as they like to say in the music industry) to "white" radio. I'd be in favor of just excising the Washington Post comment. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Altered. — Realist2 (Speak) 02:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What award did Jackson receive from Reagan?
    • I don't now the name of the award and I have previously done research on it. However I did add what the award was for. In all honesty though, it was really just an opportunity of the Reagans to meet Jackson. I'm personally of the opinion that Jackson should have run for President around 1985. No-one really knows if he is a democrat or a republican though. Hmm.— Realist2 (Speak) 16:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how to respond to that. --Moni3 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you also need to discuss Jackson's publicity stunt-like behavior here. I don't know if it was a reaction to the very strong fanatical following he earned, or if he cooked that up, but his oddball style started to come out at this point: the one white glove, the quasi-military costumes, and the legions of screaming fans. In later videos and concert footage, it's not clear if his publicity machine supplied these screaming folks, or if they came out and screamed of their own volition, but the immense popularity that Thriller earned him set him so far apart from anyone else that it increased his loneliness. Hence, Bubbles, Liz Taylor, and the rumor machine starteth.
    • Added more info about the oxygen chamber, elephant mans bones and bubbles. I'm not getting into clothes or his choice of friends. Considering the number of mental problems that he has been sourced as having it is impossible to prove that he is acting that way for attention. A number of people who know what they are talking about say he has no understanding of how he is perceived and has the mental state of a ten year old. Considering that, I think it goes against the concept of basic human dignity to imply he his behaving in a deliberate manner without strong proof. I disagree with complying with the tabloid sentiment that he is an attention whore. There is strong evidence that suggests he has little control over this behavior. I also feel some of this stuff would cross into original research or be totally subjective or suggestive. — Realist2 (Speak) 18:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it also contradicts the truth, Jackson it not an egotist, he is the complete opposite. He is shy, reclusive, hates his own appearance and it quite evidently depressed. He lacks self esteem not has too much. — Realist2 (Speak) 18:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, regarding the glove, sunglasses and the mask, having done some research on the disease vitiligo and after viewing statements made by Jacksons makeup artist, it is very possible he was using these to cover up vitiligo. Around the mouth and eyes vitiligo is very hard to cover, purple patches can appear. We know looking at Jacksons finger tips that covering the vitiligo is almost impossible. Of course you won't hear this in the tabloids, who blindly continue to refute photographic evidence, legal evidence & medical evidence. — Realist2 (Speak) 17:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jackson royally pissed off McCartney by outbidding him. You need to expand that. That's serious stuff, and probably keeping Jackson afloat financially today.
  • 1986–1990: Bad, autobiography and films
  • Moonwalk is mentioned, but not cited. Why? Specifically in terms of abuse Jackson endured.

More to come... --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I go on, or will the FAC be withdrawn? --Moni3 (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not being withdrawn, Sandy has given a 24 hour break from FA stuff in order for me to catch up on lost sleep. Sorry, Moni3, this has become somewhat unnessarily stressful. — Realist2 (Speak) 14:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not necessarily the place to bring it up, but will someone please ask Realist to not revert me when the "Under construction" tag is on the article? It's very discourteous and frustrating, especially since I edit this article primarily in large blocks of time. I've asked Realist a few times to refrain from reverting while the tag is on the page but he continues to do so. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are disregarding the requests I resolved of other editors. You are being controlling and over powering, you have said your piece. If you continue I will withdraw this nomination. — Realist2 (Speak) 01:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I simply ask that you assume good faith and don't revert when an under construction tag is on the article. You can revert afterwards. Reverting while I'm editing really throws things out of wack. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No Wesley, I have worked bloody hard on this article today for Moni3 and I specifically asked that editor to review my additions. Instead you revert them because you don't like them. BACK OFF. If you have more problems with the article add it to your already accessive wine fest above. You are over stepping the mark, making my job harder and more confusing. Unfortunately this has all made me ill from lack of sleep. Stop now. — Realist2 (Speak) 02:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I remember the previous FAC. I don't see any major image or formatting problems. Only one image tends to overlap a heading, and thats in a section that will slowly expand and resolve (the 2008 section). The article appears to be long and comprehensive. Plus, the primary editor has proven themselves as willing to fix any minor problems and is devoted to making the page as good as it possibly can be, which shows after multiple FAC and Peer Review edits. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen enough to have a guess, and your situation normally leads an editor to stop trying. That shows a lot of commitment. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2008 (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/Michael_Jackson&oldid=1182670964"