- This article has previously been nominated for feature article, but failed.
I am re-submitting this article because every problem that it did have when it was nominate for feature article last time around has been addressed. I think the current state of the article is the best it has ever been. I used The Beatles as a blueprint for re-writing this article. Alot of sections have been summarised and explained in more detail in sub-articles. The article is now only 9 KB's over the recommended article size. Basically, everything that people said was wrong with the article has been addressed, so in theory, there should be nothing wrong with this article now. Street walker 10:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As with some many other articles, years and months are totally overlinked. Usually, years and months should only be linked when they are part of a full date (e.g. January 28 2006). See date formatting. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose. Writing is still poor and of the fan magazine variet, and the article is hard to read. There is not a single inline reference. Album titles and song titles are often improperly formatted. An entire section and subpage of the article (Artistry of Michael Jackson) contains a strong bias with no proper references; it is entirely dedicated to gushing about how great the author thinks Michael Jackson is. I strongly suggest that the nominator stop renominating this article, and send it to peer review as was originally requested. --FuriousFreddy 15:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I did, and after nearly two weeks there was no replies.Street walker 22:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment→ yes, peer review has become quite delinquent. I'm gonna raise this issue. Oran
e (t) (c) (e) 23:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Needs footnotes, some of the sentences need refernces like This short film was the most expensive film ever produced at the time, with an estimated total production cost of US$17 million. Source?, as there was probaly many movies that total production cost is more than seventeen million back than, and the Artistry of Michael Jackson section should just be removed. I agree with FuriousFreedy also to sent it to peer review. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 18:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose per above (refs v. nb for FACs), there is a neutrality dispute under "Artistry", it is too long (41 kb), etc. Mikkerpikker ... 21:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Regarding Artistry of Michael Jackson, as I said, I used The Beatles (which is a feature article and was featured on the main page) as blue print. The Aristry setion and sub-article is the equivalent of The Beatles#Studio style evolution and The Beatles#Influences and music. The artistry section and sub-section covers everything that wasn't said in History, or said in brief terms (e.g. his moonwalk and acclaimed dancing, his vocal technicalities, his songwriting and composing style etc.). Let me ask, if that section was cut, or maybe re-written, how would the article stand then?Street walker 22:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose poorly written like a fan would write; topic is trivialAnlace 04:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please read Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Supporting_and_objecting and re-word your objection, or it will be overlooked. "Topic is trivial?", "poorly written?" Are these supposed to be specific and addressable points? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 05:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It would be greatly appreciated that instead of people claiming a "fan" wrote it, they edit it themselves and re-word some parts that might seem fan bias. Also, just because someone is an admirer of a certain person, doesn't mean they can't edit that person's biography. See The Beatles, obviously written be a fan with a strong pro-Beatles POV, but no-one seems to complain about that article. Street walker 07:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You shouldn't use the Beatles article as a blue print for this article. Michael Jackson is a person, not a band; using an individuals article like Elvis Presley or Paul McCartney would be a better choice.--King G 08:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It shouldn't make a difference. I used The Beatles as a blue print because it's a feature article. Just because they are a band doesn't mean they should be praised as Gods. Street walker 08:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The article is listed as being developed, if it is still being developed it shouldn't be given FA article status. In addision there are NPOV issues with the page. Until those are dealt with i don't think this is even a candidate for FA statusThethinredline 13:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose. This article is even longer than it was previously, whereas it was a nice 40 something KB at one point it is now a gargantuan 60 something KB and half the pages it links to are radically undersourced and full of incorrect and unverifiable information. It is wholly underdeveloped and completely inappropriate to add this article.--Manboobies 00:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]