Wikipedia:Peer review/Bubbles (chimpanzee)/archive2

Bubbles (chimpanzee)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FA. The article has already had two archived FACs, so I was hoping for some input on how to improve it for a third run.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks,  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 22:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Common terms like "cameo appearance", "fedora", "diaper", "suicide" and "cardiac arrest" should be unlinked. Also, why is Bubbles' categorized as "living people"? Crystal Clear x3 05:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I always link if I think a reader would benefit from reading the linked article in relation to the one they are reading. All of the above links I feel benefit a reader when looking at this article. Diaper for example has a section on animal use of diapers. The suicide article may be interesting for those who want to find out if animals can attempt suicide. And if I wasn't a Michael Jackson fan, I probably wouldn't know what a fedora or cardiac arrest was. I agree with removing the living persons category, and have done that. Thanks,  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 11:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, reference 49 is a dead link. Crystal Clear x3 21:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 22:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is out of control and could stand extensive revision by expert editors. Most of this article is based on rumor, allegation, and gossip, and this is not the "stuff" of a Wikipedia article. Bubbles is only notable because he's been mentioned in the tabloid press in connection with Jackson - and then only to emphasize Jackson's eccentricity (the chimp used Jackson's toilet, for example). Bubbles is not notable in himself - he didn't have a film career, for example, nor was he used to test an important drug or scientific theory, nor was he the poster chimp for a worldwide Save the Primates campaign. Every tidbit about a celebrity does not deserve a stand alone article. Bubbles is a tidbit and doesn't deserve a stand alone article. That said, much of the tabloid-type rumor, allegation, innuendo, gossip, and fancruft supporting Jackson's publicity-gathering eccentricities surrounding this exploited animal should be removed and the focus directed upon Bubbles. Publicity stunts such as the tea party with the Japanese mayor should be included. Such things can be verified and emphasize Jackson's willingness to exploit a defenseless animal and to affront distinguished others for his selfish publicity purposes and/or his warped, drug-fueled sense of what is appropriate in certain situations. Wikpedia is not the tabloid press and all the gossip and rumor should be suppressed. Jackson should not be the focus of the article. Bubbles should be the focus - and there is so little to say about the chimp that the article can be effectively reduced to a paragraph or two. I tried to revise the article and was protocol-corrected by the main contributor (?) who apparently wants every edit to be pre-approved - though a banner on the talk page invites editing without pre-approval. The main contributor insists every single word in the article is relevant. Of course it is - to the main contributor - but others see things differently and every itsy, bitsy tidbit about Jackson doesn't need to be preserved at Wikipedia and that's why this article is out of control. I hope other editors will step in here and try to wrangle this article into something appropriate for an encyclopedia. The main contributor should stand aside for a week or two and let other editos whip this article into shape. PS - What is a "private toilet"? Did Jackson have a "public toilet"? Or what? I don't understand... SoniaSyle (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't think the subject of the article is notable, then take it to AFD, instead of ranting here with your anti-Jackson agenda. The article reports the rumours and speculation because it is a substantial part of the chimpanzee's notability. And, no, I do not have ownership issues. I just don't appreciate you hacking this GA to pieces to suit your own biased views.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 17:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If Bubbles is notable, it certainly isn't evident in this article. Notability is not inherited. Just because your Dad was notable and has an article at Wikipedia does not make you notable and deserving of an article - even though you were mentioned briefly in every tabloid article about your Dad.  If you think this article is FA, then send it to FA. You've brought the article here for advice, improvement, suggestions, etc. but when you get what you're looking for, you shoot it down. What's the point? This article is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination and is not FA material. Its focus is diffuse. It records rumor, allegation, innuendo, and gossip. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. It attributes human qualities to Bubbles (he tried to kill himself, for example). The focus should be upon Bubbles - not Jackson. You won't let others help you improve this article. Every itsy-bitsy, teenty-weeny tidbit about Bubbles recorded in tabloid journalism does not need to be reiterated and preserved in a Wikipedia article. You need to stand aside for a week or two and let other editors take a look at this piece. You're too close to it. You don't need to "hover" over the article watching and weighing every edit. SoniaSyle (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Bubbles is not mentioned briefly in articles only about Jackson; he himself is the subject of thorough independent articles. Again, if you disagree, take it to AFD, instead of going on about lack of notabilty here.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 19:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are just a few examples of turning the focus from Bubbles to Jackson:
 * "...Bubbles moved to Neverland Ranch in 1988, after Jackson purchased it for $17 million." How much Jackson paid for the ranch has nothing to do with Bubbles and should not be recorded. If this juicy detail MUST be recorded here then "Bubbles was moved to Jackson's $17 million Neverland Ranch" is better though how much Jackson paid for the ranch is still gossip, even if true. "...Bubbles moved to Neverland..." is bad because it attributes some sort of human ability to Bubbles - making a choice. Bubbles had no choice in the move. "Bubbles was moved" is correct, not "Bubbles moved". There are other instances of this in the article.
 * This section could be said more effectively in less words: "The chimpanzee slept in a crib at the corner of the singer's bedroom. Bubbles would frequently sit and eat candy with Jackson in the property's cinema. He also ate at the dining table. When it came time for the animal to relieve himself, Jackson would allow Bubbles to use his private toilet, although the chimpanzee sometimes wore a diaper." How about: "The chimp slept in a crib in Jackson's bedroom, ate candy in the Neverland movie theater, was fed at the dining table, wore a diaper, and used Jackson's toilet." This stuff does not need to be recorded here anyway because 99% of chimps kept as pets do the same sort of things. It's not material for an encyclopedia.
 * This section can be completely deleted because it has NOTHING to do with Bubbles: "Jackson's maids later stated that they were not impressed with the behaviour of the various chimps that the singer had kept over the years. One housekeeper told of how she had to clean up the droppings of one of the chimpanzees, after it had hurled its feces at the bedroom wall. Another maid described a chimpanzee called Max tearing off his diaper before crawling into Jackson's bed." Nothing to do with Bubbles - delete it. Use it in a larger article called "Michael Jackson's pets". SoniaSyle (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)