Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Jackson/archive2: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Street walker (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Rdysn5 (talk | contribs)
Line 15: Line 15:
*'''Object''' per FuriousFreddy; those external link refs need to be formatted properly. Thanks! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color="brown">note?</font>]])</small> 16:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
*'''Object''' per FuriousFreddy; those external link refs need to be formatted properly. Thanks! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color="brown">note?</font>]])</small> 16:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. The article has now been properly referenced, see [[Michael Jackson#References]]. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]], [[User:Obli|Obli]], and [[User:Fritz Saalfeld|Fritz Saalfeld]] feel free to retract your opposing votes at anytime. I hope the article now lives up to your standards. [[User:Street walker|Street walker]] 08:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. The article has now been properly referenced, see [[Michael Jackson#References]]. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]], [[User:Obli|Obli]], and [[User:Fritz Saalfeld|Fritz Saalfeld]] feel free to retract your opposing votes at anytime. I hope the article now lives up to your standards. [[User:Street walker|Street walker]] 08:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support''' Article ticks all the right boxes for an FA. [[User:Rdysn5|Rdysn5]] 10:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:43, 26 February 2006

This article has been nominated for FA status before, but failed. All opposing comments have been addressed. It has been a very long time since this article was last nominated. Since then, it has really improved dramatically. This article definately deserves FA status. - Street walker 06:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There should be a References section with full citations of all the refernces given throughout the article (see Wikipedia:Inline Citation and WP:CITE). Also, years are overlinked in the lead (see date formatting). --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is this what you mean? I've only done the lead so far. Street walker 12:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, pretty much. Although a numbered list with full citations would be better (see Kylie Minogue for a Featured Article on a similar topic that lists the references that way). --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In the case of this particular article, citing a book doesn't add too much. I think the article is complete and well written. ChaTo 12:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Agreed, but since a request/complaint has been made for inline citation and it has cost this article an opposing vote, I think the best thing to do is follow up on the request/complaint made. Street walker 12:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As many reliable and professional books there are that cover Michael Jackson, citing a book would indeed add much. --FuriousFreddy 18:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditionally support as more bibliography could be in the list (as further reading). May be some part of the physical appearance could be embodied in the article. Brandmeister 13:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per ChaTo. -- Siva1979Talk to me 17:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, again. This article does not deserve featured status as it currently stands. Writing is not of featured article quality. Exceedingly excessive in-line citations (in general, things like when people were born and when albums were released don't need inline citations unless they are particularly disputed), which lead to dunios sources to dubios sources. In-line citations are not linked to references in a "Footnotes" or "Notes" section. The header is too large, and does not properly summarize the article it is supposed to introduce. There is a significant number of Michael Jackson biographies (including an autobiography), magazine articles, televsion interviews, and other materials that can be used as professional references to create a professional article on the entertainer. This article is not even decent on the basic levels being clearly formatted and clearly covering Jackson's life in a clear, professional tone. This is at least the third time this article has been nominated here in the last two months. Before it is relisted for a fourth, or fifth, or wherever we're at, Ithe person who keeps nominating it, We have an entire Manual of Style, pages explainging how to write and reference articles, and several templates to assist in that process. Just take a look at Phil Collins; while I'm not particularly fond of the writing and formatting, it is at least properly referenced. And reliable, properly formatted references are a basic requirent of a featured article. --FuriousFreddy 18:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just went through one section and found a handful of internal links that needed to be improved, either to avoid redirects or to lead to the most relevant article. I made the fixes in that section, but the rest of the article should be checked over. Other than that, this seems like a solid article. On another note, in regard to Brandmeister's suggestion, I think the information on his physical appearance is sufficient in this article, considering that there is a separate article entirely dedicated to that topic. I'll be happy to vote my support when the internal links are all fine-tuned. Kafziel 18:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Until those citations are fixed, the printable version will look disastrous. Obli (Talk) 22:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some of the prose is choppy. Example: "jackson caused a stir when he walked into a women's toilet" near the end. It has no place in the paragraph as written. I, too, find the incessant citations to be a hindrance to reading. Needs some work, although seems to be pretty well on the way to FA status. aa v ^ 00:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per FuriousFreddy; those external link refs need to be formatted properly. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article has now been properly referenced, see Michael Jackson#References. Flcelloguy, Obli, and Fritz Saalfeld feel free to retract your opposing votes at anytime. I hope the article now lives up to your standards. Street walker 08:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]