Talk:Ben (Michael Jackson album)/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

• Closed as delisted. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

On hold

This article does not meet all GA criteria. The lead does not offer a good summary of the article, per WP:Lead, and is poorly written, resulting in some odd statements: "Ben was more successful on music charts ... Internationally, the album was less successful", "The album released one single...", "a commercial success on music charts", "other territories worldwide". Some mention of the production would be needed for broad coverage. The Personnel section lists only Jackson as a performer - no indication of who played any of the instruments. The Background section is about a different album. There are two different album cover images, but no explanation why.

The article fails 1a (the prose is clear and concise ... and the spelling and grammar are correct); fails 1b (it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections); fails 3a (it addresses the main aspects of the topic). The article relies solely on AllMusic for content other than chart positions, so there is no depth or perspective, and very little hard information. The content is more akin to C grade than GA level.

This Reassessment is on hold for seven days to allow the above issues to be addressed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this. I didn't like the tone this article took. Especially with the contradiction. It was really only a modest success. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 18:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• No work has been done. Delisting. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)