Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bad (album)/archive1

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2020 [1].

Bad (album) edit

Nominator(s): Isaacsorry (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Bad (1987), a landmark album of pop music. Built on modern musical technology at the time, it became one of the best-selling albums of all time and was the first of only two albums to produce five No. 1 singles on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. From fashion, songs and short film influenced music videos, Jackson and the accompanying Bad album had an influence on popular music e.g. Justin Bieber and Kanye West. I made several improvements to the article, including the [[2]] and [[3]] sections. This is my first FAC nomination. Isaacsorry (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from The Squirrel Conspiracy edit

Sorry that your first comment at your first FAC is an oppose, but the good news is that I'm here for only one thing and it should be easy to address.

I am not convinced that it is necessary to include three non-free audio clips from the album (per WP:NFCC 3a), and I am not convinced that any of the three included clips is sufficiently backed by prose in the article, meaning that they are not critical to the reader's understanding of the article (NFCC 8).

Of the three clips, "Bad" and "Dirty Diana" are discussed in prose, while "The Way You Make Me Feel" gets only a passing mention, meaning the latter clip has the weakest case for inclusion in this article. However it's not clear that readers' understanding of the album would be negatively impacted by the removal of the clips of "Bad" and "Dirty Diana" either. There's no in-depth discussion of the lyrics, tone, style, etc. - those things would all be in the articles on the songs themselves (where the audio clips also are).

If featured articles are supposed to represent the best that this project has to offer, they need to - in my opinion - follow the NFCC most stringently. Right now, because of the presence of these clips and the lack of in-article prose to justify its inclusion, I don't think that the article meets criteria 3 of WP:FA?

I'd be willing to strike my oppose if you get it down to one clip and back up that clip with additional prose in the article that justifies why the clip needs to be included. However I do not do full reviews at FAC - I only do NFCC enforcement. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Guerillero edit

Source thoughts

The youtube video needs to be replaced
Sullivan 2017 needs a page number and a city
The Boombox isn't a high-quality RS
McNulty 2009 links to The Daily Telegraph when there are earlier mentions of the publication that are not linked
14 and 27 are dups
Headline Planet isn't a high-quality RS
dito Music Times
35 is missing publication name
51 and 52 are copyvios
Kaufman 2010 links MTV when there are earlier mentions of the publication that are not linked
The Young Folks isn't a high-quality RS
Justin Bieber on Michael Jackson: BAD 25 needs a better citation
The Quietus seems questionable
ditto The Morton Report
The Harvard Crimson is a student paper and tends to not be an RS
118 is the only inclusion of a outlet owner
163 needs to link to something other than facebook
Nothing points to Dyson 1993 or Taraborrelli 2004.
- Taraborrelli 2004 is a questionable source

I am seeing a recentism bias in the sources and very few academic sources. Bad was one of the best selling albums of the 80s. There has to be things about it on JSTOR --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Popcornfud edit

I've done some work on this article on and off over the years. I've just been looking at it for the first time in a while and I've found several statements that aren't properly sourced, or where the correct source got lost or mangled at some point. For example:

Due to the huge commercial success of Thriller and the expectations of its followup, Jackson aimed to sell 100 million copies with his next album.

This is sourced to an Atlantic article, but that information isn't in that article. In fact, the 100 million thing came from a different Atlantic article, which I added as a source last year but got lost somewhere. Neither article says anything about "the huge commercial success of Thriller and the expectations of its followup" being why Jackson aimed to sell 100 million copies, so that's WP:SYNTH or WP:OR that got added at some point.

There are also quite a lot of cases of muddled prose and information in the wrong sections. It doesn't look to me like it's in a fit state to pass FAC any time soon and will require a lot of checking sources and sorting out the prose accordingly. Sorry about that, Isaac. Popcornfud (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also seeing several uncited claims. I've put [citation needed] tags where I see them. Popcornfud (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

The comments above suggest this nom was premature so I'm going to archive it. The last attempts at GAN and PR appear to have been a decade ago, I'd recommend trying both of those again before considering another go at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.