Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Jackson/archive1

Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson is a very controversial person, therefore you should expect his article to be consistently vandalised. But, within seconds, the page is returned to last known good edit, and when it is, it's a great article. The introduction is well written and brief, leaving the reader wanting to read more. The structure of the article is very good, with each major topic being broken up into appropriate sections. The pictures correspond to the information, the information is sourced and straight to the point. Everything that needs to be said is said, the good, the bad and the ugly. All in all, Michael Jackson is a great article. Street walker 13:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support Yes, Ive always wanted to nominate this article. if it gets peer reviewed, it is good to go! --Karrmann

Comment. I have requested the article for peer review, so far no responses. Street walker 08:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The more article polished, the better it becomes. Given the fact that Mr.Jackson's image in probably the most distorted in the media comparing to real facts of his biography, the article deserves nomination more than probably any other of the kind. 213.158.9.31 23:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. There is only one image in the article that cited its source, doesn't lack a fair use rationale and has an appropiate copyright tag. Also; halfway the article, there are no inline reference to be seen anymore. Soothing R 16:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I must commend you; it isn't as POVd as I thought it would be. With that said, I think that it could be more concise; it's twice the preferred size. Also, apart from the reasons that I share with the above editor, there is also the issue of an overbearing TOC. There are too many headings, even some with one sentences in them "Post-trial lawsuits" and "Child abduction". If you aren't going to talk about the issue indepth, independently of the rest of the article, just mention it somewhere without creating a heading. Also a minor issue (not a valid reason to object, just a metter of convention): phrases like "#1" or "#21" are rather frowned upon, and should be written as "number one" etc. Good work however, an article like this is hard to write. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 16:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Granted, a lot of work by a lot of people has gone into the article (not to mention taking things out of the article), but it is overlong, unfocused, and too heavy with minutiae. It needs a stronger, tighter structure and a better (concise) sense of what has made Jackson of both positive and negative interest as a performer and public figure. Robertissimo 05:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Needs better focus. The ToC is unruly due to too many single-sentence paragraphs, and several pictures have either unacceptable copyright tags or no copyright tags at all. Should be put through a thorough Peer Review first. RyanGerbil10 06:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Basically what Ryan said, this needs a Peer Review first. Also, from a more personal standpoint, I always think the first image you see on bio pages should be clear (as they serve to show what the person looks like) rather than an action shot (as MJ currently has). Staxringold 20:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It just seemed better to use an action shot of Jackson because that's how is best known, as an energetic stage performer. Street walker 20:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Understood. I for one have no problem with it. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's fine. As I said, that was just a personal feeling. My main reason for opposing is all the stuff above, focusing on minutia and a desperate need for focus and copyediting. Staxringold 20:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, send to peer review for several reasons. (1) The POV debates currently occuring because of Street walker's edits and his ownership issues with the article (2) References and citations are poorly formated. (3) Article as it stands is not of FA quality. Sections of the text are awkward, formatting is not all consistent with Manual of Style suggestions, subject at hand is not covered in enough scope (there is too much detail on some items, and not enough on others) (4) This article is highly unstable. A few months ago, I used to have to rewrite it from top to bottom once every two weeks just to keep it readable. It still needs that biweekly rewrite, but I don't have time to do it anymore. --FuriousFreddy 02:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would you please? The article needs a rewrite. Anyone who can help, please do so. Street walker 06:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose In its current state, this article should in no way be considered for a featured article. At the moment its not even a proper biographical article, its just a glorified discography. Needs a lot of work.--King G 05:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not for the life of me understand that comment you just made. A "glorified discography"??? Michael Jackson is a recording artist, ofcourse his albums and chart success should be mentioned. You and a few other users are trying to turn this article into a Michael Jackson bashing field, by getting rid of all album info and adding too much info (most of which is unverified) about his controversial personal life. It's a biography, his personal life and' musical career need to be included. Street walker 08:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

Comment. I've taken all your comments on board and changed the article dramatically. It is no longer the same article, therefore it is best (for now) to take it off FA nomination. The article is shorter, and there are less headings, but because of this it is a bit jumbled at the moment and needs alot of work before it flows well. Just so you know, what has been done to the article:

The top picture has been changed to a better picture, not only because of Staxringold's comment but because of copyright problems. The new picture is sourced and good to use.
The whole personal life and controversies sections have been merged with the album section so that the article is stuctured more like a bio.
Alot of information that is explained in detail in sub-articles has been cut/shortened.
I am currently working to fix copyright problems with all the images by citing their source or replacing them with images that can be traced to a source and are free to use.

I hope you like this new version of the article better. Street walker 08:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Um, actually, I don't. You removed everything about the trial. I also dont particularly like the photo (the photo, however, is not a valid reason to oppose.) Oran e (t) (c) (e) 08:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The trial definetly needs to be included, but as a split-off summary with For more information see MAIN ARTICLE ON THE TRIAL. at the top. I like the picture, but as we're all saying that doesn't swing votes. Staxringold 13:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Umm... the trial does and has always had its own article. The main article is linked to 2005 trial of Michael Jackson. That hasn't changed, and will always stay because it's an important part of Michael Jackson's life. Street walker 21:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The link in the lead to the "Alleged Child Abuse" subsection doesn't work. Links are not enough, you need to provide a summary of the material on the main page (using a different example, Timeline skew theories for The West Wing from The West Wing (television), but the stuff is still mentioned in the main article).

Comment. Have a look at the article now. It's structured like a biography, with his musical career and personal life written up chronologically, instead of in two parts. There are now sub-articles for topics with alot of information about them. The article has really improved. Because of this, I feel the FA nom for this article should be refreshed or something because it's a totally new and improved article. Street walker 12:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]