Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Jackson/archive3


 * 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 03:17, 24 January 2008.

Michael Jackson

 * previous FAC



I'm nominating this article cos i think it meets all the FA Criteria and I think it is one of the most referenced articles on Wikipedia. Σαι ( Talk ) 08:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: There are a great number of references, true, but more than a dozen of them are not formatted properly (refs 51, 57-62, 64, 69, 70, 75, etc). There is also a clean-up tag before the "Finances" section.  This article looks messy and unfinished to me. María ( habla  con migo ) 16:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I'm impressed with the references, but there are many more claims that need to be cited. Also:
 * Sources from websites need to have an access date (see Citation templates and Citing sources).
 * A copyedit is in order (see WP:LOCE).
 * There are many tags and neutrality disputed tags. Although this article is sourced well, all facts need to be cited, or they are unreliable. There can also be no neutral viewpoints in encylopedic articles.
 * Finances section apparently needs a cleanup.
 * Some quotes are not attributed, eg. "The true king of pop, rock and soul". All quotes must be referenced.

This is too early for FAC. I suggest a thorough copyedit (the League of Copyeditors provide a thorough and professional service), and then a Peer review. All tags need to be fixed, especially the sources. Readers must know where the claims are coming from, especially in controversial articles like this one. PeterSymonds | talk  20:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose per all the above, Plus at 122K it is WAY too long. This is an encyclopedia, not an effort to repo "war and peace". Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The article needs to go through a copyedit and shouldn't be nominated when a section has a cleanup tag in it. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * hahah - "section has a cleanup tag in it" - does this constitute failure to ensure article met FA status?--Kiyarr lls ton 03:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We are trying to bring the size down but the thing is that there's so much to write.. Σαι ( Talk ) 06:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then split it off to sub-articles. Then you make a one section paragraph summary on it in this article with a main link. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This article has a significant number of unresolved external links. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * um what does that mean? Σαι  ( Talk ) 06:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Check external links Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In the lead: " His successful career and frequently controversial, enigmatic personal life have been a part of pop culture for almost four decades " - "enigmatic"? "a part of pop culture" - not encyclopedic tone. "However Jackson's controversial [change in appearance and pedophilia charges] appearance and actions has [have] damaged his reputation in the eyes of some of the public " --Kiyarr lls ton 03:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - hmmm... per 1a - the article is not well written
 * - calling something "enigmatic" is not encyclopedic, enigmatic refers to "similar to an enigma", which is the opinion of somebody - not the "truth" and definitely not widely agreed upon.
 * - "a part of pop culture" is vague and somewhat meaningless, pop culture is actually popular culture, which is a very vague and all-encompassing term - we are all a part of pop culture.
 * - I see no reason to leave vagueness where one can be specific - I understood that "the actions" were the pedophilia charges, and that "appearance" referred to the change in appearance.
 * - "in the eyes of some of the public" is redundant and vague - what is "some"? 2 people? - "his reputation" is his world reputation, and if it has been damaged in the eyes of a percentage of the public then his world reputation has been damaged. - This is especially important as it seems to be connected to his falling record sales (this fact was set up as an explanation to his falling record sales within the article
 * ---I welcome anybody to look at the conspiracy theory article and at WP:CABAL
 * Kiyarr lls ton 01:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

See mate I told you not to bother trying to get it up to FA, wikipedia will never allow an article on such a controversial figure to get there. They are to scaried it`ll damage their reputation. Also have you noticed the very second you put it up for FA an army of Michael Jackson Haters drowned the article in pov, citation, fansite and pagenumber tags. There is a conspiracy against the article and people are trying to stop it getting FA. Realist2 (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not true. This article will fail based on it's unverified content and poor quality of prose. It has nothing to do with controversial issues; that alone cannot prevent it from becoming featured. PeterSymonds | talk  17:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC).


 * Now would you say the edit suggested by Kiyallston as change in prose? I sure wouldn't. it sure is a change in meaning and a change that makes the article "anti-MJ-ish". I guess Realist2 is correct. Σαι  ( Talk ) 04:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your part of it I suspect. Hum this conspiracy runs deeper than I originally thought. Realist2 (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. The people commenting above are raising legitimate issues with the article's quality per featured article criteria. Budding Journalist 03:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.