Wikipedia:Peer review/Thriller (album)/archive2

Thriller (album)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
 * Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because... editor who has contributed significantly to the article would like feed back on how to ensure it becomes a Featured Article when nominated.

Thanks, Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx bookkeeper for setting this up. I really want people concentrate on spelling, grammer and pro's. Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from
This are broad comments so I hope we can reach a consensus. Thats all for now. If we can reach a consensus out of my comments, with help from other reviewers, we will go on line by line. --Efe (talk) 07:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As repeatedly asked during the informal and FAC of this article, the two infoboxes must be taken out. The re-releases must be merged to the release section. make subsections for each re-release and summarize them. Anyway, this is all about Thriller, not the re-release.
 * Recording and release must be separated to give way the above mentioned.
 * Bulky quotations; those are copyvios. Make it brief, taking only the most important points of the statement.
 * Remove credits for the songs. This is all about the album. Credits for the album is fine.
 * You dont have to mention much of the success of the songs. Just brief. Or, you can make a section devoted to the whole tracklisting. Make sure it is prose.
 * Too many certifications; I believe some of these countries do not have official album charts.


 * Ok the thriller special edition info box should go but my the Thriller 25 one? it has lots of additional info on it like specific release dates, new reviews, (Thriller 25 has 7 new songs its almost a new album), and it carries on his discography. Removing that would break the chain. There are no similarities between thriller and thriller 25. Realist2 (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Even me, I get a lot of infos about the latest re-release. Just summarize it; really, be brief but remain meaty. Make another page about the Thriller 25 and I will help you to defend if other users will nominate it for deletion. For the mother page, you have to be brief. Its about Thriller, not Thriller 25. BTW, I think there are infos about the production of the latter in MTV. Akon is one of the contributor right? --Efe (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just put it right now in Thriller. Lets see if its works. --Efe (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Im afraid i cant, im not going to destroy months of work, the consensus was that thriller 25 came here but nowhere was it mentioned that thriller 25 would be trimmed down to a few lines in the process, i would rather keep the article at GA giving respect to Thriller 25 than have Thriller 25 destroyed just to reach FA. It should have been allowed to keep its own page but its too late for that now. Realist2 (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to do that i need proof and a wiki ruling that it can be given its own page and not be tampered with, otherwise thriller cant be FA, nowhere in the merger consensus was this discussed or pointed out. People voted not knowing what would happen and i bet they would change their vote knowing this is what happens to merged articles. Realist2 (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Every single album or versions of it can be given with independent article providing that its notable, and fortunately it is, and can stand alone as one without its mother article. It does not mean you have to destroy it. Maybe three to four paras can suffice Thriller 25 on the main article. You have to mention what transpired the new version and its new music or vibe, how it was received by the media and summarize its commercial success. Thats it. --Efe (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, im just gonna leave it, unless i get some sort of backing that it can have its own age im not going any further, i spent months investigating sales figures etc, unless it can have its own album as well with a stamp of approval im not doing it. Realist2 (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. We're on the verge of WP:COI but I will not let that happen. Just ignore the trimming of Thriller 25; just continue revamping. Although you worked hard for this, its not worth it if it fails to reach FA. --Efe (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead is not well written. The subjects in each para are mixed.
 * What I mean is each para should have one subject. When you talk of the album's style, talk about it. When its the reception, state them. Something like that. But you need not to be very specific in each para. Just try to merge related stuffs. --Efe (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Too many entries in each chart. Try to cut them down; those big markets that readers will really care about. --Efe (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from
I for one think that there is no reason to separate out Thriller 25 to its own article again. It was previously separate but a lot of work was put into making all of the album's releases cohesive in one article. There are not many albums that can be re-issued twice and become a best-seller each time out. The reissues are a part of the overall history of Thriller and therefore belong where they are now.

As of right now, there is a lot of information about Thriller 25 because of its very-recent release, and perhaps some of this can be cut down a bit, but I don't believe that the mere presence of the Special Edition and Thriller 25 hurts the article in any way. Overall the article is in very decent shape, especially when compared to its condition 3 months ago. - eo (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, making another page for T25 is doable and is fine. There are a lot of informations out there that will make the article compact. I suggested Realist to somehow make a draft for it, using his sandbox. --Efe (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have left a comment of Efe's talk page about this, i has a very sneaky master plan. Realist2 (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from
I would rather Thriller and T25 stay together but if it prevents the article reaching FA they should be seperated leaving only die hard essentuals here. On the flip side if we seperate them we can get two articles up to FA much easier rather than risk having Thriller stuck at GA. I think we need to bring more people in and ask them these fundamental question in order.
 * A) Does/could/would the T25 content, (when its as indepth as it is right now), negativly effect the chances of the article becoming FA?
 * B) If so, how much needs removing to ensure FA?
 * C) Is this in the best interest of T25, which has the potential to get an FA in its own right?
 * D) Would the original merger consensus have differed (it was quite close), in hindsight, if they/we knew this was a requirement for FA?

What I have done so far

 * I got it copy edited my an established user.
 * Added info about the first reissue to the release section. Havent done T25 yet because of unresolved issue.
 * Split recording and release section.
 * Removed the first sales and certification box, turned it into pro's, and sourced it.
 * Removed info box on first reissue.
 * Trimmed down quotes.
 * Took out song credits, left in album credits per request
 * Resuffled lead, added some info
 * Turned 3 quotes into pro's, only 3 quotes left in article, no longer too bad imo.
 * Cut down list of coutries (minus Thriller 25 as we dont know whats happening there yet).
 * Structured the influence and legacy section
 * Combining the issue of music videos and race as they are so closely related.
 * Made a section called "reaction". Gave it the subheadings "Critical" and "Commercial".
 * I think reception would be better. Although the word is kinda worn out, its more proper, i think so. --Efe (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * DONE

indopug
General comments:
 * WAY too many blockquotes throughout the article (Influence/Reception). They aren't a substitute for prose.
 * The AMG review was written some ten years after the album released; it doesn't count as contemporary reception.
 * Remove all that details about T25, its just a bunch of charting information. Make everything about t25 into a para and add it to the release section; its reception in to the Reception section; its track listing into the Track listing section and so on. Plenty of albums get re-released but they don't deserve much importance (most of the hype about it is just a marketing blitz). I don't think a separate article for the album is warranted either. Please reduce the charting info table of it to something like a quarter of its size. Articles shouldn't be too listy.
 * I'll say it again, the article as of now simply does not tell the story surrounding the album in a succinct and clear way but rather is a repository of charts, awards and sales; all three of which should be peripheral to the prose of the article. I mean, its like, we understand the album sold a lot; we don't the sales figures in India nor the chart position in Colombia to realise that.
 * Look at Be Here Now, Adore and Loveless, they are—in my opinion—model album FAs, and see how much of prose (compared to tables/lists) they have and what great stories they tell.

It looks like T25 will gets its on page AGAIN with only the important parts remaining here. It worked quite well when it was by itself. Thanx for your imput though, see you at FA later. Realist2 (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are only 6 quotes in the entire article, 2 of which are only a line long. I wouldnt call that WAY too many.Realist2 (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course as we found out from the original review you would rather hear about his "Weird cloths" and "eccentric behaviour" in the recording studio, hum.... Realist2 (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem relunctant to mention any of its sales achievements.
 * I tell you now T25 has sold 1.5 mil copies in 7 weeks, i will not watch one of the best selling reissues of all time be religated to 2 paragraphs. If it only has 2 paragraphs here it needs its own article again, end of, if you think its no more than a media blitz, great thats your opinion, but please respect the opinion of the the 1.5 million people who bought it making it the 3rd best selling album of this year, im sure they like to read some indepth info on it.
 * Not too many quotes??!! The critical reception section is entirely in quote! Point to me one other (preferably recent) FA that does that? Its simply not good writing; besides, if people were to read long quotes reproduced verbatim, why wouldn't they just go to the original source?
 * I'm not reluctant to mention sales figures, that's obviously an important aspect of the album's influence; by all means stress on the album's charting details in the US and UK. I'm just saying that sales figures of the album in India and Colombia are hardly important on any level, neither is the fact that ""The Girl Is Mine 2008" reached number two in Japan, three in Mexico, six in the Netherlands". All that info is meant for MJ's discography page. Also, for some reason, you consider T25 to be as important as the Thriller itself! I find that amusing.
 * "weird cloths" and "eccentric behaviour"? Huh? All I wanted was the more detail about the artistic and creative effort from Jackson and Jones that went into the making this monumental album. Also, an in-depth discussion of the music inside; because even after you remove all hype and applause for it, at its roots Thriller sounds frigging great. And this "sound" (the music) is hardly well-discussed during the article.
 * I'm ready to work with you on this on the long run, giving comments on the overall structure and content etc, so I do hope you don't rush this to FAC. indopug (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If you would support a seperate article for thriller 25 none of this would be a problem. However all you want is 2 paragraphs of info to document its success on wikipedia. Its not far off being the best selling reissue ever, if you would allow it to have its own page again then i frankly wont dont care how much is or isn't here. As long as respect is paid SOMEWHERE on wikipedia to T25 im open to all ideas here. If you allowed a seperate article we wouldnt have to mention india etc here. You are making it difficult by saying that T25 should be chopped in half and thrown away. T25 is worthy of GA by itself. Frankly sales, your just gonna have to get over it, the album is huge, sales is something everyone talks about with this album. I have not found you to be helpful so far, calling T25 nothing more than a "media blitz" is concerning to me. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue. Realist2 (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry if I didn't understand the magnitude of the awesomeness of the Thriller 25 reissue. I did not mean to offend. Clearly I'm a dolt for not realising that Thriller 25 was more important and path-breaking than Thriller itself. indopug (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No1 is saying it is, but patronising me isn't helpful is it? Are you here to help or disrupt? Realist2 (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops! That was a bad response. --Efe (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Not particularly, i set up this peer review to get the opinions of those i respect and need such as yourself Efe. I did not set this up and am not working this hard to be patronised by someone who knows less about the subject matter than myself. Realist2 (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, no worries. Just wanna let you know that if they intend to disrupt, do not bother their comments. --Efe (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern Efe, with time you will come to realise i can handle myself, ill take on anyone if i believe im right, i can name admins who will support that claim as well. We need positivity people, we can do this if we work together, this article is just around the corner from becoming FA and NOTHING with stop it. Realist2 (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Realist2. Thriller 25 deserves its own article, and I think it should be created. Until then, no info about Thriller 25 should be removed from this article, and if that means that this can't get an FA, then so be it. Cheers,  Kodster  (Willis) (Look what I can do) 16:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a new vote/discussion on Thriller 25 having its own article, when the merger was agreed (by a slim majority) no1 was aware that this would be in outcome. It doesn't reflect the wish's of those who spent weeks and weeks on that debate. I see only the following options
 * We allow Thriller to pass FA with the Thriller 25 contact as it is now.
 * We allow Thriller to pass FA with MINOR parts of T25 removed.
 * We only include 2 paragraphs on T25 with T25 having a full article like it once had and nominate it for GA which it could pass in days.

Its one of these options as far as i see it. Realist2 (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can someone explain exactly why the inclusion of Thriller 25 would prevent Thriller from reaching FA? Is it simply the length of the Thriller 25 section?  I still think they shluld be merged - why have Thriller and Special Edition in one article, then have Thriller 25 on its own?  That makes no sense. - eo (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree eo, i want it to stay here but i dont want it to be half destroyed either. I myself am a little confused how it will stop FA. The article is rather good now and im not sure the Thriller 25 stuff alone it enough to stop that....Realist2 (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It takes a lot to make FA. The Thriller 25 info is quite long for an article about the Thriller album.  One or two sentences should do. For example, many albums, including those for artists who don't even have recording contracts, have Facebook and MySpace pages.  That is one example of info that needs to go if you want the Thriller (album) page to make FA.--DizFreak talk Contributions 05:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Are you here to help or disrupt?" Really? When I offer to "work with you on this on the long run...on the overall structure and content"? And I'd appreciate it if you'd stop with the "you know NOTHING" personal attacks please. indopug (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To Eric. It would not, of course. As for Thriller 25, it must be chopped down to three to fours paras (prose only, excluding list and tables), then, thats it. FA! --Efe (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from

 * Concerns on it coming close on COI
 * Thriller 25 section is way too lengthy for a reissue.

Intro

 * Different information on facts in articles such as the link to best selling album page saying over 100 Mil copies sold then later in intro contradicts saying "the album is cited as selling between forty-five and one hundred million copies worldwide." Which is it?
 * Intro needs to be shortened. No need to list major media sources giving good reviews in an intro.
 * "2008 saw a second reissue as Thriller 25. "Thriller 25" was a commercial success, selling more than one and a half million copies in eight weeks, becoming one of the best selling albums of the year."
 * Needs source, for all I know Sony lost bundles in marketing and hasn't turned a profit
 * Its only the middle of April

Will include more later if Realist2 comes back or another decides to work on the article.
--DizFreak talk Contributions 06:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion
Peer review closed, we are going to sort out T25 before we continue. Realist2 (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)