Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Thriller 25/1

Thriller 25

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: delisted Concerns have beenm expressed about lack of information, poor sourcing and poor grammar These do not appear to have been addressed, so delisting would appear to be appropriate. When these concerns have been addressed a renomination for GA status may be appropriate, although a peer review might be best first. Jezhotwells (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't plan on nominating this article to be delisted, but there are just too many issues with this article. I was planning on doing a nice little update to the article (as guidelines were different back in 2008 when it originally became a GA), but then I noticed that the article is lacking a lot of information, and overall contains a large amount of unsourced information. Furthermore – I don't want to sound bias – but as a reissue of the best selling album of all time, the article is lacking a huge amount of content.

Let's break it down with the GA criteria:

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

For the reasons above, I am nominating the article for a reassessment. Your comments and thoughts would be appreciated.

Thank you!

— Status {^talk_contribs 04:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the article can be expanded before the reassessment is closed, then I have no problem with keeping this GA. Sources are my biggest concern. Fansites and social networking sites are being used and the citation formatting is inconsistent and needs clean-up. The Charts and certifications table needs updating to today's standards and per WP:ACCESS. Prose issues lie throughout, such as "The success of Thriller put Jackson into the dominating position of pop music, becoming an international pop-cultural icon." This is a very poor structure and gives the impression that the success is the pop icon, not Jackson. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 16:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Have the primary editors and projects been notified as per the notice at the top of this page? Jezhotwells (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user who nominated it hasn't edited since February of this year. — Status {^talk_contribs 20:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about those actively editing the article now and the projects? Jezhotwells (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This particular article hasn't been touched in quite a long time, so I guess I could just ask some people who edit his articles in general to comment here? — Status {^talk_contribs 17:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.