Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Janet Jackson/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Janet Jackson
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 not promoted 00:50, 16 April 2008.

Janet Jackson edit

  • Self-nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because... the article has recently passed GAN and has received a PR. I believe the article meets FA criteria. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 18 (The Fox, Norman "Indian Summer ref) the link goes to tv.com instead (the weblink for the "The Jacksons" tv.com ref right above it, in fact)
  • DONE I copy and paste a lot to save time on typing, I probably forgot to hit copy and pasted a previous edit. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current refs 40 and 41 "Apologetic Jackson says costume ..." from CNN are identical and can be combined
  • Current ref 46 (Leopold, Todd Beyonce tops with five ...) has the wrong publisher, it is Variety, not CNN. Also wrong author.I think you've mixed some of the information from the following ref 47(Galloy, Phil ) which also has the wrong author.
All other links checked out fine with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you missed the one above or missed saying it was done. Leaving it here just in case. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I missed commenting on that one. I'm sure I removed it from the article- it don't see it included. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its been removed it was the same link as the one of the links above. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Comment The "Personal Life" section should be integrated into the rest of the biography. The whole secret marriage bit might be hard to integrate, but the first few sentences about her upbringing can simply be cut and pasted at the beginning of the bio section, word for word. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: The lead seems to be a collection of sales, awards, nominations and certifications rather than an overview of her life and career. For example, am I overlooking it or is Nipplegate missing from the lead?! Also could you please tell me how each of those six non-free screenshot images significantly contribute to the article, rather than just being cosmetic? I think for it to qualify for fair-use on Wikipedia, if I'm not mistaken, the prose of the article must discuss whats going on in those pics. Shouldn't there be a musical style section? indopug (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: First can we have a little more professionalism, there is no need to call it nibblegate. I think that might break a whole number of policies. Realist2 (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones, could you point them out to me? indopug (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RECENTISM for one, which is why it was removed from the LEAD in the first place. the LEAD does in fact give a decent overview of her entire career mentioning all of her works in television, music and film. I honestly fail to see anything wrong with the LEAD as it stands now. As for the images, the section in which each image appears does discuss the image. Can you be more specific? Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The superbowl incident also falls under WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it happened recently doesn't make it a case of recentism. The incident gathered more press and media coverage than any of Janet's songs/album/movies. The event transcended the boundaries of the entertainment sphere and even popular culture; the "wardrobe malfunction" became a part off national consciousness. Heck, I'm from opposite side of the world, and the incident made it to the front page of my newspaper.
For the screenshots, I think the article has to specifically discuss what is going on in that scene (that has been screenshotted). In other words, the images need to be there for more reason than "this is how she looked in the movie". I'll ask Elcobbola, the resident fair-use expert, to weigh-in on the matter. indopug (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Super Bowl incident is covered sufficiently, just by glancing at the article. And as someone who was born in 1983 and grew up during Janet Jackson's career peaks, I can say from an OR point of view that the success of Rhythm Nation and her appearance on the cover Rolling Stone to promote Janet got just as much attention, if not more, than this incident. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article isn't comprehensive or not well divided into particular topics/sections, jumbles subjects in each para, etc.

  • comment: I have to disagree. I fail to see how the article is not comprehensive and jumbled. Can you give specific examples? Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said "or" so it does not necessarily mean not comprehensive. I was referring to the legacy and I think you split it now. --Efe (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first para of the Legacy sections seems not a legacy, and some parts of it.
  • Instead, it could be public image, like how she handle herself as an artist and as a member of Jackson family.
  • Jacksons are said to be creative, so it would be better to put a section devoted to her artistry, style, etc.
  • Indo is right, the lead seems too focused about her achievements.
  • comment: As opposed to what exactly? Her personal life is not significant because it garners no media coverage. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its too much. Just state the most imprtant and notable achievement. --Efe (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistency: #25, no.13, number 20.
  • Both Dupri and Jackson later joined the Universal Music Group label Island Records. (remove both)
  • Billboard in Billboard 200 and Billboard Hot 100 should be in italics.
  • "Most Searched in Internet History," and the "Most Searched for News Item," (commas should be written outside the quotation marks)
  • Some parts are unsourced. Very surprising that with this very huge article, sources do not reach 100, or above. Unless if there is a single source that is being heavily relied on.
  • comment: there are a number of sources which have multiple use in the article. No one source is relied on for the bulk of the entire article. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Also, I wouldn't consider the article huge. The ave featured article is supposed to be around 60 kilos. JJ is currently 69. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • They should be properly sourced; at least, readers can trace where these informations can be found. --Efe (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "With U" was the third and final single off the album but because of low album sales and lack of airplay, Virgin Records did not make a music video to support it.
    • 20 Y.O. was eventually certified platinum, but sold less than its predecessor Damita Jo. 20 Y.O. was nominated for a Grammy for Best Contemporary R&B Album but did not win the award. 9Is this a full sentence? somethings missing)
  • comment: Those are two separate sentences. The period after Damita Jo is not part of the albums title.

Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • It needs to be rephrsed. Seems confusing. --Efe (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The release of 20 Y.O. satisfied Jackson's contract with Virgin.

--Efe (talk) 04:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: From the lead section "Jackson's Control, Rhythm Nation 1814, and janet. led her to become the only recording artist to ever score five or more top ten singles from three consecutive albums,[2] which include "Control," "Rhythm Nation," "Black Cat," "Love Will Never Do (Without You)" and "Again." What is the reason/significance of the 5 hit singles mentioned? Are they more notable than the other hit singles from these albums? Rossrs (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Again" was nominated for an academy award for best original song, while "Black Cat" is Janet's only song written entirely by herself, in addition to being her sole Rock genre single, which became a number one hit single on the Hot 100 and on the Rock singles chart. Control, Rhythm Nation and Love Will Never Do (Without You) are considered to be some of Janet's signature songs. All five songs mention are either number one hot singles or reached at least number 5 on the Hot 100. each song is discussed to an extent within the body of the article. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks very random and I think that is a problem. For example why not mention "What Have You Done For Me Lately" because it was her first major hit, or "That's the Way Love Goes" because it was number one for so many weeks? "Signature hits" is very much a matter of opinion - there seems to be nothing more significant about "Control" + "Rhythm Nation" + "Love Will Never Do" than "Miss You Much" + "Nasty" + "All For You". It is POV and I think it should be removed. Rossrs (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it POV is a bit much, its simply examples of hits from those consecutive albums, but I have adjusted it. What Have You Done For Me Lately (Control) + Black Cat (Rhythm Nation) + Again (janet.). Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it POV is not "a bit much". It's entirely accurate. What, aside from your own opinion, leads you to give those three, or any three, examples? It's an arbitrary list and it's given undue weight by placing it in the infobox without explanation or context, and anyone reading it could be forgiven for thinking that these are her most notable songs, when this is not the case. The list is so arbitrary that you were able to change it with one edit, and any other editor could just as easily change it to suit their taste, with one more edit. It does not belong in the lead and it needs to be removed completely. Rossrs (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point. it has been removed. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think it's a very good article. I'm still reading through it ..... Rossrs (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded a few bits, but the changes are not major. Another sentence that needs to be rewritten in my opinion - " In 1991, Jackson secretly entered into her second marriage with dancer, songwriter and director René Elizondo; a marriage which remained secret until Elizondo filed for divorce in 2000." I think it's awkward, partly because the word "secret/secretly" is used twice. I'm not even sure "secret" is the right word. There is a big difference between "private" and "secret" and surely those close to the couple would have known, just nobody that didn't need to know. I can't think of a way or rewriting it, but I wonder if you could think about it, and see if you can do something with it. Rossrs (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most media coverage of her relationships (including the references in the article if I'm not mistaken) refer to both of Jackson's marriages as "secret" because both times Janet made serious effort to conceal her marriage from public eye- something she has stated herself on a few recent interviews. I'll try to reword it, but i don't see a huge issue with the word "secret" or private- but, at the very least there should be some acknowledgement that she attempted to keep her relationship out of the public eye. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. Fair enough. I agree "secret" is appropriate (as long as it's used once and not twice) It looks much better. Rossrs (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: criterion three concerns. Article has superfluous use of six fair use images and eight audio samples, none of which appear supported by policy. NFCC#3A requires minimal usage ("As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.")
    • Image:Janet jackson good times.jpg: why is identification of this "signature character" necessary (WP:NFCC#3A) and what is its significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8)? Seemingly telling is that article prose makes no mention of the "signature" Penny character; if character is indeed a "signature", implication is that article is not comprehensive (FA criterion 1B).
    • Image:Poeticjustice Janet.jpg, Image:Nuttyprofessor2.jpg and Image:Whydidigetmarried.jpg. How is illustration of a first role or staring roles necessary for us to understand Jackson herself, her acting career or her participation in those films? What significant contribution do they make to our understanding? Images do not depict unique expression, makeup or costume; it seems any need to provide visual identification of Jackson could be accomplished with free alternatives (NFCC#1 requirement).
    • Image:Covers20yo.jpg: how is a design contest germane to critical commentary of Jackson? How do these covers contribute significantly to our understanding of Jackson? Although a moot point, the purpose set forth in the FUR is also not acceptable per NFCC#10C and WP:RAT.
    • Image:Michaeljanetscream.jpg has the purpose of "illustration of the worlds most successful sibling act; worlds most expensive music video". How is seeing the most expensive music video necessary to understand Jackson? How does the image identify the expense? If an image of Michael is necessary to illustrate "the sibling act", a free use alternative could be utilized (NFCC#1).
    • Why are all eight audio samples necessary? What significant understanding of her voice, technical aspects, etc. does each provide above and beyond that provided by the others? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for two reasons; all those sound clips and the poor quality of the prose. With regard to the latter here are some of many examples:
    • Her father, however, planned for for her to follow in the ..
    • a former member of The Sylvers, who had previously worked with the The Whispers,
    • In 1998, Jackson set out on the The Velvet Rope Tour
    • Jackson's "comeback" album—similar to the The Breakthrough of Mary J. Blige
    • but reentered the charts in 2008 peeking ...
    • The albums first single ..
    • but after the albums release it climbed ...
    • Jackson found recordbreaking success.
    • her common conditions for interviewers has been that there be no mention of or questions about Michael
    • as professor Denise Gaines ..

There are other problems with subject-verb agreement and punctuation. Please get a pair of fresh eyes to copy-edit the article, and may I suggest that you read it out loud to yourself? I find this useful. GrahamColmTalk 17:10, 15 April 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/Janet_Jackson/archive1&oldid=1138464446"