Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Jackson/archive4

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 14:30, April 25, 2008.

[edit] Michael Jackson

previous FAC (03:17, 24 January 2008)

I am the self nominater, ive made the improvements since the last FA and also had a Peer review. Im sure with a few minor things at your suggestion this article can become FA. My only concern is the finances section. I believe its too long but it was brought over in a merger. I didnt want to disrupt it out of respect for that merger but if you think it needs cutting down i will. Realist2 (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have made all improvements suggested by all involved, just waiting for further advise. It have been copy edited twice and references have been double checked for correct formatting. Dont know what else you want me to do? --Realist2 (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - still some info in the article needs to be verified/neutralized. For example, I'm having trouble verifying the claim that Jackson has donated US$300 million to charity. Also, is it necessary to quote Tom McGrath in the lead regarding Jackson making MTV popular? I'll try cleaning up the page in the next few days (or whatever the window for an FAC runs) to read better. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • DONE- The 300 million claim can be seen as the last source of the charity section. This is the source.here.
  • As for the quote, the issue itself is very important to MJ's career, just need a little clarification on what you do/dont want?
    • Here's my main concerns regarding the charity and MTV quote parts. The "$300 million to charity" fact is so far supported only by the Sri Lankan newspaper, whose reliability I feel is a bit questionable. And do quotes really belong in the lead? I think paraphrasing would be better, or adding who exactly said the quote. I do recall there was a [copyvio] Youtube link to support the "300 million" announcement, but those are my concerns that still need to be filled. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Ok removed quote , i agree it was a no-no. I will find a second source for the 300 figure. Two sources together should be reasonable.
        • Im gonna add all the links i find on this 300 figure here.1
          • I did some reading, the source i have only puts it at several hundred million, it doesn't give specifics (not all work he does is public), im not happy leaving it that unspecific but its probably for the best to avoid controversy. If we could use youtube there are plenty of examples where he was awarded for 300 million at the world music awards. Either way, ill stick with several hundred to keep the peace.

Ill be patient im sorry, i like these reviews ;-). I have resolved your issues so it would be nice if you would remove the outright oppose slogan as their is no longer any reasoning for it. Lol ive resolved everybodies issues but no1 wants to remove their oppose tags, DOH!! ;-) Realist2 (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the reasonable free and "free enough" images available at the Commons. I see you've already removed one, which is fine, but note that others commenting here may request more images. There's no harm in utilizing the free/free enough images, so it may be advantageous to seek out more. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I only removed it because a solo pic of janet wasnt needed, a picture of them together was ok but we dont have a suitable one. Realist2 (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just added another picture from Wikicommons. Should be on save side now. --Realist2 (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Has any decision been made on UnitedWorld Chart's accuracy?
  • - Yes the chart is now accepted, that chart only miss's 7.5% or the market

I'm leaving this one out for others to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

All other links checked out Ealdgyth - Talk 03:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK did did almost all of it, i just need a few things explained. Realist2 (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a question: you've marked DONE to a lot of the websites; but I still see unreliable websites like mjshouse, snopes, artistopia etc. What exactly has changed? indopug (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hum the user marked it as resolved so he thinks everythings fine. Could you give me ref numbers and ill sort them ASAP. Realist2 (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I just took another look, ref 140 is the only one I see that should go. You? Realist2 (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the road, and I don't see any snopes or those listed as publishers. I do see that 140 is showing CBS as the publisher but the website is showing something different, which means it is not reliable. IF YOU MARK THINGS DONE, I AGF and don't feel like I should have to individually call up each and every link out of what... 140 or so, and double check that you have taken the reference out. Done does NOT mean you hid the publisher information, done means (to me) that you agreed that the site was not the best and you took it out and replaced it. Do I need to go back through every single link again? Or do all the given publishers match up with what is the actual publisher of the web site? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The question of reliable sources as marked done (below) needs to be sorted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is resolved, there were a few bad ones still remaining but they are long gone, would someone please clarify once and for all that they are 100% good. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 20:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hum hang on i never altered nothing, im working my socks off, im not altering anything, it must have been someone else, im sorry. Ive looked through and i can see that 140 is not right, it is a easy mistake to make when you were up all night and morning correcting things. I will get that sorted and i would appreciate it if you can clarify what is / isn't reliable as im just following your orders. Can we all try to assume some good faith here. Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK i removed 140 as well as another 2 dubious transcripts. As for someone altering the publisher, i have no idea who did that, it wasnt me though. Realist2 (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Here we go, the editor changed the publisher but forgot to change the address. indopug (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So for all the other sites marked DONE, does it you mean that you've removed those sources or fixed publisher info or you believe them to be reliable? I wonder if you could add an short explanation after every DONE tag so that its clearer for the rest of us. Thanks, indopug (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh ill get that sorted. Once that one that you mentioned above is resolved i believe that all unreliable sources have been removed and all sources are formatted correctly. Realist2 (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK thats sorted, i believe whole heartedly that the article is accurately sourced with all citations formatted well, i should has noticed that someone hadn't changed the URL last night but we were all tired and i dont know why the other one was labelled CNN when it clearly wasnt. It must have been sliden in yonks ago. I apologise for not noticing these errors sooner. Realist2 (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I put a vote in to support the decision to make the Jackson article a featured one. It is highly comprehensive and well-sourced, aside from a few errors that don't heavily distract the reader. Still, we can continue fixing the article, such as using Template:Harvard citation no brackets for some of the book citations on the article.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow, so to date, the issues of 4 editers have been resolved and it has 1 support. I think we can really do this, ive managed to get two further copy edits done on the article from some very nice editers. It definately passes on grammer, spelling, comprehensive, pictures, reliability, citation format. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 04:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    • And incase there is any confusion yes i am the nominater, i just recenty changed the format of my signiture, sorry for any confusion. I look forward to further advise and support, yours. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 05:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I also believe its neutral, 1/3 of the lead talks about his controversy and that extends to the main content of the article. I believe that stricks a healthy balance of good and bad. Its hard to add more negatives as those are tabloidy stories and hold little credibility. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 05:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• • ", aside from a few errors "!! Andrewlp1991, can you list these errors, please? Any FA should not have known errors in it. Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I support this article becoming featured. It meets all of the criteria, even the elusive first one. It's a great article, and is definitely one of Wikipedia's best. I just want to add that I reviewed both the Thriller album and Thriller 25 for GAs, as well as doing a copyedit for this article and Thriller. So, I think I have a bit of knowledge on the subject matter, having done quite a bit of research. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 18:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support There has been a lot of change in this article since I first posted in this FAC. I'm a fan of Michael Jackson's music but not the person so I am hard to please. I would like to see this promoted.--DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 19:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Nominator Support - Ive waited for the right moment, when i originally put it up i knew it didnt quite reach FA standards, but a lot of people have given me advise over the last week, ive done everything i can possibly think of. Now I feel sure i can support my own nomination. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 19:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Although on a break, I came back and saw this article, and I believe it meets all the criteria for an FA. The nominating editor seems to have put in a lot of work on this, as well as heeding the complaints of editors. Although Jackson is less popular than he once was, that should not hinder this article's FA nomination in any way.--andreasegde (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Further Comments all of the above issues that were hidden have been taken care of. I double checked every page that it is listed with the correct site/etc. The following came up, but they are minor. I've left the issue of the charts out for others to decide.

that's it Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, so thats cleared up the sources are all good to go. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 00:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• To the nominator: please don't—by your own admission—put up a nomination you know is substandard; that is a violation of the instructions.
  • I knew it was close, i was just uncertain about certain areas was all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 21:55, April 21, 2008
• Oppose—Certainly fails to meet the requirement of a professional standard of writing. Just the lead provides fertile fields for my editing exercises. The whole text needs serious attention, preferably by someone new to it. 11 glitches and two suggestions in just three paragraphs spells lots of work for a long article.
  • In the lead: "Jackson has dominated pop music since the late 1970s"—is this an overstatement? Does it pass the NPOV test? Would some people object? "Since" means "still"; "dominated" is pretty strong.
    • DONE
  • MOS breach: no hyphen after "-ly".
    • DONE
  • Suggestion only: you might save the "on the map" quote, which is informal, until the body of the article; in the lead, a more formal equivalent is more appropriate.
    • We have had lots of discussion on the exact wording on that, its seems a waste to take it out unless its urgent
  • "With" is a poor connector and usually—as here—leads to an ungrammatical clause: "with Jackson maintaining his position as a dominant staple on MTV". Semicolon and stand-alone statement?
    • DONE - and its sourced in the content of article incase you were woundering
  • "He has been cited as the "Most Successful Entertainer of All Time" by Guinness World Records"”—you can remove the quotes and the caps for a smoother read. A year would be good instead of just "has been".
    • DONE
  • "seven more Guinness world records"—ok, they were all after the most successful entertainer one, were they? "Other" is safer in any case.
    • DONE
  • "sold over"—it's a term used in financial houses; better "sold more than".
    • DONE
  • "in the eyes of some of the public"—I think you can dispense with that.
    • DONE
  • "been in decline"—turn it into one word.
    • DONE
  • "both negative media coverage and public attention"—how are they different?
    • Sometimes what the media talk about isnt the same as what the public talk about. In this case they both pay attention.
  • "This resulted in Jackson being tried"—clumsy and, strictly speaking, ungrammatical.
    • DONE
  • "went on hiatus"—Is that a standard expression?
    • DONE- Removed entirely, its a tabloid thing anyway, just because he never recorded music for two years, its nothing new to jackson to stay dormant for years at a time be that doeant mean he's been on hiatus 8 times lol
  • "one million six hundred thousand copies worldwide in nine weeks"—save us: "1.6 million copies worldwide in just nine weeks"?
    • DONE - I sure if you wanted me to add the "just".

TONY (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have resolved the visible list Tony1 has left and informed him personally, asking him to come back and make further comments when he is available.Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 04:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You may well have addressed the examples I raised here, but this entirely misses the point. Did you read my entry? "The whole text needs serious attention, preferably by someone new to it. 11 glitches and two suggestions in just three paragraphs spells lots of work for a long article." Please let me know when you've had the whole article thoroughly worked on; it's quite a task. TONY (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Well, written. Deserves nothing less than FA. Indianescence (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I finally had a chance to read the article all the way through. I echo Tony's concern that the article needs a thorough copyedit from an uninvolved party. I also think the organization needs to be rethought, and I found several areas where the article seems to contradict itself. Following is a list of suggestions (these are primarily examples; I did not identify every single problem in the article).

• There is an overlinking of basic words, such as controversial, egninmatic, revolutionary, etc. Please go through the whole article and remove wikilinks from regular words.
  • DONE- Only wiki linked in lead
    • Not done. There are still wikilinks to things like personal life, reputation, humanitarian, film director, etc. Please go through the entire article and remove all of the unnecessary wikilinks, not just the ones I've explicitly mentioned. Karanacs (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I did remove tones of others, clearly it still wasnt enough, will give it a second go.--Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 18:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
        • DONE
• 750 should be numerals and not written out; this is also the case for other large numbers that are written out throughout the article
  • DONE - worst offenders altered
• There are several instances in the lead where he is referred to as "Michael Jackson" instead of just Jackson. This is warranted in the sentence just after the mentionof the "Jackson Family", but not in other places in the lead.
  • DONE
    • Still at least two instances of this that I saw. Karanacs (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • DONE - Found some, others that remain are from exact quotes, awards or buildings renamed after Jackson. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 18:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Mix of written out numbers and numerals in a sentence is usually discouraged (example only: "forty-eight weeks on the top twenty and went 7x platinum")
  • Disagree, numbers can be written as either words or numeric however when talking about certifications its always written in figures.
    • This should be consistent within a sentence. Karanacs (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • DONE
• The prose needs a thorough copyedit. These are examples of the problems I see:
  • redundant phrasing suc as "he later took a more pivotal role within a year"
    • DONE
  • Repetitive phrasing ("Jackson released...These were released..)
    • DONE
  • Some sentences/phrases have an improper tone (more magazine-y than encyclopedic) such as "hit stardom"
    • DONE
  • overly long sentences (ex: They changed their name to "The Jacksons", featuring youngest brother Randy in Jermaine's place, and continued their successful career, touring internationally and releasing six more albums between 1976 and 1984, with Jermaine eventually re-joining in 1983, making them a sextet)
    • DONE
  • There are misplaced commas throughout the article
    • DONE - article has altered a lot, shouldnt be such an issue
• The part about Jackson performing "Remember the Time" seems like a bit of trivia that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.
  • Disagree, its one of his most notible performances —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 21:41, April 22, 2008
• The organization of the article seems off to me. The first part discusses primarily his albums, with a few bits here and there thrown in about his personal life (some of which references information that we haven't gotten from the article yet). Generally, a biography starts first with information about a person's life, then discusses their artistic works. This article is organized the opposite way, which is jarring.
  • Disagree, as his personal life is vastly negative it would pay to much attention to that aspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 21:43, April 22, 2008
    • Following the normal organization of a biography article is not paying too much attention to a negative aspect. Not everything in his personal life is negative either. The current organization is awful. There are tidbits mixed throughout the music sections that have nothing to do with a particular album, and should rightly be in the biography sections. There are references in the music sections to things that are discussed later in the personal sections. Karanacs (talk)
      • Altered the headings to dates, that way it doesnt have to be just about that album. The album name as a heading is stupid anyway. --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 20:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Mariah Carey is a featured article and her career comes first, i see nothing wrong with the career coming before the personal life. Michael Jacksons personal life is half the article not just a few paragraphs, you would spend 30 minutes reading before you even get to his career, im sorry thats not gonna work at all. It might be better to intergrat some aspects of his personal life into the career sections. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 20:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• I think the article should explicitly list the names of all of his siblings together.
  • DONE - all brothers, sisters non important with exception of Janet, who is mentioned further down
    • I have no idea where this information is in the article. It should be in the personal life section. Karanacs (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • DONE
• There are issues in the article with clauses that are not complete sentences
  • DONE - wow that was a hard long one

Karanacs (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe ive resolved your concerns, with the exception of a few ideas you suggested that i oppose. Ive made 85 edits to improve it so hopefully you will agree its helped. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 02:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I rereviewed the article, and the prose is still not up to FA standards. The punctuation is not good (misplaced commas, lack of apostrophes sometimes). There are numerous instances of mismatched verb tenses or clauses that don't make grammatical sense. I understand that English is not your first language and that the article has been copyedited, but I think more copyeditors will be necessary. Look through the list of articles already promoted to FA and see if there is another pop culture one that you like. Ask the main contributor or copyeditor of that article to help. Karanacs (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok ,ill keep working at your stuff, it is getting better, we are still working on the copy edit. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 18:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a 1b, 1c, and 1d. I concur with Tony and Karanacs, who provided myriad examples of the work required. (1a) The article is "good", but the prose is much too unpolished for FA standard. There is some quite sensational language. (1b) The article is not comprehensive; it lacks useful information about Jackson's musicianship, songwriting style, and other abilities, and relies on pop media quotes about his performances. (1c) There are statements that are eventually and apparently sourced to the Taraborrelli book but much more accurate citations are needed. There are many statements that are sourced to dubious works when I'm sure more reliable works are available. (1d) The article has a pro-Jackson POV and lacks thorough criticism of his work and personal life. Examples:

Completely disagree, article pays a LOT of attention to his private life, too much infact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 05:43, April 23, 2008

• • The lead speaks of "physically-complicated dance techniques" which is actually a pretty wild claim to someone who knows something about dance. I scrolled down to the next time you talk about the moonwalk and you have a paragraph in which you assert that people viewed Jackson as one of the greatest dancers of all time. That statement is not sourced - the next citation is two sentences later. Are we to assume that citation covers the sentences leading up to it? If so, does it cover calling Jackson's dancing "physically complicated"? Where are the sources in which people call his dancing ludicrous, silly, vulgar, etc. as I'm sure there are many? This issue alone demonstrates the neutrality and verifiability issues.
    • Oh please, silly, vulgar... im not going to even comment, absurd and The whole section is sourced by the following source. Do i need to write it out again REALLY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 05:46, April 23, 2008
      • I'm afraid you might have missed my genuine point: There are those who criticize and may not appreciate Jackson's dancing as you do. These sources need to be included for a neutral presentation. --Laser brain (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Im not going to discuss in the article that 1.5% of the population find his dancing silly and vulgar, its pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 05:41, April 23, 2008
          • OK, I discussed the sexual tone/violent tone of some of his performances. --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 12:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Your additions will need to be copyedited by a third party. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
              • DONE - third party copy edit complete
  • There is some excessive wikilinking going on to unrelated topics and even disambig pages or simple definitions - please check throughout. Examples from the lead are "controversial" and "enigmatic" (which links to a disambig page).
    • DONE
  • MoS breach in the lead: space between period and footnote.
    • DONE
  • Sensationalism in the lead: How was his use of music videos "revolutionary" (and why is that wikilinked)? This and other statements are sourced to All Music Guide, which is not a very reliable source considering all you have to choose from for someone as prominent as Jackson.
    • DONE - revolutionary part
      • I'm not sure what you did you address this, but you left a sentence fragment in the lead. I don't mind your using the term "revolutionary" but it should be explained how it is revolutionary. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Altered it, most of which is sourced in article
  • Ditto the myriad statements sourced to Fox News. That biography doesn't even have an author listed, which means they probably lifted it from somewhere else. Please pick a better, more reliable source. You should be able to source almost anything about Jackson to media that actually has a reputation for fact-checking and journalistic integrity.
    • DONE
  • More MoS: the "See also" under the Influence heading isn't indented.
    • DONE
  • The meat of the article seems to be about his music, and that's fine considering he is a musician by profession and legacy. However, you pretty much gloss over a lot of the bizarre aspects of his life and considerable criticism that has been leveled at him. Take for example the Influence section. It is, like many other sections, a laundry list of awards and sensational terms, but it is lacking balance. There must be sources that say he is a negative influence on the music business or on individual artists?
    • Gloss over, over a third of the article is on his negative public life, how much more do you need?Im not sure how he had a negative effect on industry, never heard that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 05:32, April 23, 2008
      • I'm not ready to accept that no one has criticized Jackson's effect on the music industry. I think that POV must be out there, and it should be represented in the article for balance. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I have heard people say that his music videos/MTV damaged the quality of music, not sure if that would do?--Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 16:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't know - is there a reliable source out there for that? If there is nothing, then there's nothing. Nothing you can do about that! --Laser brain (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Time Magazine "noted his notable style"? Prose.
    • DONE
  • The Style and performance heading seems strangely lacking any comprehensive information. You have two sentences and a pop media quote followed by an overly-long account of one performance. Compare some other FA-quality articles on musicians. They include text about musicianship, techniques (not just dance moves), studio use, production, and so on.
    • DONE - created themes and genre section
      • Good start. The section needs thorough copyediting by a third party. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
        • DONE - copy edit by third party
  • The Physical appearance section lacks any reliable criticism, really. You cover tabloid speculation and Jackson's own statements (which are not reliable). I know I have read actual, published information from experts, some of whom worked on Jackson, about what he has actually done to himself.
    • Why be critical of a personal choice to have surgery, thats not encyclopedic at all. What are we ment to say? All "criticism" is nothing more than POV edits. Its a matter of taste—Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 05:54, April 23, 2008
      • We need to represent the professional and medical opinions about the extensive work he has had done, because it is out there in droves. I don't doubt that you have long struggled with editors who come in simply to attack Jackson; that's not what this is about. This is about being objective and presenting each angle to his story, including those that fairly criticize his actions. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
        • No one has ever tryed to add that sort of detail, its never come up, i have some stuff in my book, but i get the impression you dont like me using that even though its reliable, there is some stuff though? --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 16:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't have any problem with the book. Can you find some of the material I am talking about? I know I have read print interviews with physicians that have worked on Jackson and also physicians who have turned him down for plastic surgery requests. --Laser brain (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The Finances section is also woefully lacking - you need to cover the financial practices that got him in trouble to begin with. He is known in many circles for having purchased part of The Beatles' catalog - where is that info?
    • DONE
      • As with your other additions, a thorough copyedit needed by a third party. The citations will also need to be fixed for formatting. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
        • DONE - copy edited by third party

Good start, but a long way to go. --Laser brain (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Realist, please sign your posts by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after your edits; it is impossible to know who said what here without signatures. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I know how to sign my name thankyou, although you apparently dont know how to respond to messages on your talk page. Oh and there is a 2 on the end of my name for a reason. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 06:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Realist2, pls don't alter reviewer comments; you can add your comments below theirs, and please sign. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Got my name right, good start, still havent replied to my message tho lol. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 07:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Realist2, please be a little more civil. These kinds of comments are unnecessary on an FAC page. SandyGeorgia's talk page explicitly states that she responds to message there rather than on your talk page, and there is a response there to your last question. Karanacs (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nearly 2 days later and only after i had brought it up here, great. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 17:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose After being asked to copy edit the article as a set of fresh eyes, I made a number of textual changes and suggested a list of areas that needed to be addressed, which are listed on the talk page. All of the edits I made were rejected, which I found a bit troublesome; but in any event I'd want to see the substantive issues raised on the talk page addressed before I could support this nomination. Aside from copy editing problems, the themes and genres section needs a lot of work, the 2003 trial section needs expanding to include the TV documentary, and the lead needs to make more specific reference to Jackson's musical work and albums. Gusworld (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ive closed the nomination for now, there is so much that needs doing, there isnt a consensus for FA. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 13:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Nominator attempted to withdraw the nomination [1]. Karanacs (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

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