Talk:Dancing the Dream/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 8, 2010, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: The prose is clunky and poor. Since the article is largely the work of a single editor, I suggest an outside copy-editor be recruited. It's difficult to edit one's own work.

For example,

1. "Brown asserted..." possibly a word to avoid, since it gives an editorial impression.

2. "Prior to release, it was hailed by the publishers as being a book that would "take us deep into [Jackson's] heart and soul", as well as "an inspirational and passionate volume of unparalleled humanity"

Perhaps change to: "The marketing stated...

3. "It became a bestseller for Jackson, but upon its initial release, was negatively reviewed in regard to its content and prose style."

Suggestion: "The book sold well, but both its content and prose were criticised in reviews."

4. "He expressed that he felt the book was best...."

Suggestion: "He felt that..."

The lead is not always an accurate summary. It should summarise, in fresh words, information that is directly stated in the main body. See WP:Lead.


 * 2. Factually accurate?:

There are not many different sources used, one or two reviews and very small sections from a book or two. In particular, plagiarism occurs from the Campbell biography, itself not a very reliable source. The entire section "Poems and Reflections", and again of "Photographs..." are copied verbatim.

I appreciate that good sources are hard to locate sometimes, but one may have to look outside of google searches for reviews. Try also histories of pop music or culture, or features on books my pop musicians. There should also be reliable, cited data for sales. Again, both on its release and re-release.

The lead states that Transworld announced an intention to do something at a date which is now passed. Did they republish or not?


 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Though I suggest a seperate sub-section clearly detail the differnt editions, and any changes that occured. The Background section discusses his autobiography, without establishing the relevancy here. Is there any information on the composition, who edited a book such as this?

In the "Reception" section, make a clearer distinction between the reviews in 1992 and 2009. A source that compares the reception between these two publications would be useful also.


 * 4. Neutral point of view?: The article includes criticism of the subject, and generally is written in an encyclopaedic tone.


 * 5. Article stability? There is a history of good faith, reliable editing. There was one edit war in the past, over a minor point. Alas, editors were reluctant to discuss it on the talk page (barely used at all). As it happened the solution was simple, and provided by a thrid party.


 * 6. Images?: The book cover is used, in low resolution, and a fair use rationale provided.

Unfortunately, given the lack of information, plagarism, poor writing style, and structural issues this article fails the WP:WIAGA. Try to gather new sources, which may take time, and feel free to ask me for a second opinion in the future.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.

Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)