Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Billie Jean/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 not promoted by Karanacs 19:23, 14 April 2009.

Billie Jean

 * ''Nominator(s): Pyrrhus

I'm nominating "Billie Jean" for FA because I believe it meets the FA criteria. It was promoted to GA in February, and had a very helpful peer review the following month. Thank you,  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 14:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Using WP:REFTOOLS, the ref formatting is found up to speed.
 * Using the dab finder tool, disambiguation links are up to speed, as are the external links checked with the links checker tool.-- T ru  c o   15:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support — Well referenced and written article with plenty of context. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

Oppose—1a. Great work overall, but there are too many problems with precision and flow. This is just a sampling of issues from the lead, which suggests that someone new should comb through the text. This is a well-known song, we need it to be really good for our readers. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "after he and Jackson had a falling out. " Too loose, what does this mean? A disagreement?
 * "female fan claimed Jackson"-->female fan claimed that Jackson
 * "The dance-pop R&B song was mixed 91 times" Why don't you mention the genre/style in the lead sentence instead of the bottom of the first paragraph?
 * "The song rose to prominence through the distinctive bass line and Jackson's vocal hiccups." So the bass line literally carried the song to the top of the charts?
 * "becoming one of the best-selling singles of 1983, and dominating the US and UK charts simultaneously. " Not grammatical: "it became one of the best-selling singles of 1983, and dominated [dominated is POV, what about "topped the charts"?] the US and UK charts simultaneously."
 * "Considered one of the most revolutionary songs in history, "Billie Jean" was certified platinum in 1989." Usually, I don't ask for sources in the lead, but this is a pretty large claim you're making.
 * "the song and music video propelled Thriller" You made no previous mention of the music video, so introduce it more gradually: "the song and corresponding music video propelled Thriller".
 * "promoted with a short film that broke down" "with" or "in"?
 * "Jackson suffered severe burns to the scalp"-->Jackson's scalp was severely burned
 * "Covered and sampled by modern artists, including Kanye West, "Billie Jean" sealed Jackson's status as an international pop icon." Another extraordinary claim.
 * Resolved the above issues.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 08:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. — R  2  18:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS, no left-aligned images under third-level headings. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. — R  2  18:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose on criterion 3
 * File:Michael Jackson - Billie Jean.ogg - This clip has no fair use rationale for the Bille Jean article.
 * The "purpose of use" in this FUR is too vague - "Critical commentary included in article" is insufficient. Please explain what the commentary is and why this particular clip is being used.
 * File:Billie Jean music video.jpg - There is no clear purpose of use for the screenshot. Why is a shot from this particular scene being used rather than another?
 * "The screenshot is intended to represent the nature of the single." - This is not a clear purpose of use. Please provide a detailed purpose of use (see advice in the dispatch I linked below). Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is it important to have a screenshot from this part of the video? What is significant about this part of the video? What does the reader learn about the song and the video from seeing this shot of the video? Awadewit (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a more detailed sentence to the rationale.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 19:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Michael Jackson - Motown 25.jpg - Please explain why the moonwalk is "iconic". Providing a source would be even better. Since the moonwalk is a dance step of sorts, I would actually suggest a video clip for this, rather than a still shot. I do not think that a still shot conveys the nature of the moonwalk very effectively.
 * "The screenshot is used for critical commentary of an well known performance." - In no way does this convey the "iconic" nature of the moonwalk, which became one of Jackson's most famous trademarks. Again, a source describing this famous dance move would be the best way to go. Secondly, I really feel that video clip of the moonwalk would be much better. A still shot of the moonwalk does a very poor job of representing of what was unique about the step. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What is distinctive about this part of the moonwalk? How does the image convey an individual part of the entire dance move? I would like to reemphasize how much better a video of the moonwalk would be. Have you tried to find one? Awadewit (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've tried but I can't find one. I don't have the equipment to create one either. In regards to the still, I've added a more detailed sentence to the rationale.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 19:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm confident that these issues can be resolved and I look forward to striking this oppose soon. See this dispatch for help on using non-free images. The section at the end on "purposes of use" should help you in particular. Awadewit (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've addressed your concerns. I'm no expert with images and files, so you may want to check it over and fix any problems :)  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 19:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've responded beneath each issue. Please read the dispatch that I linked to above, particularly the section on "purposes of use" (as I recommended before). Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've added a bit more to all three files.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 08:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The remaining two are still extremely vague. I've responded under each again. Awadewit (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded under your comments. :)  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 19:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.