Talk:Dangerous (Michael Jackson album)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Actual U.S Sales

According to the RIAA, Dangerous has shipped 7 million copies in total throughout the United States. Of those 7 million shipments according to Nielsen Soundscan, 5.8 million have been sold over-the-counter. Therefore I have made some revisions to the sales table on this page.

chart trajectory

why do vandals continue to remove chart trajectory????? I find it offensive that only Michael Jackson is targetted in this vandalism of album pages. please stop it and I implore everyone to fight these vandals. --121.208.67.44 11:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not vandals; it's policy. see WP:MUSIC/CHARTS#Chart_trajectories--AshadeofgreyTalk 11:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


Soundscan data

I have removed the data surrounding the 9m in sales inclusive of Soundscan and World Music Club. Reasoning is as follows - that Soundscan covers all RIAA certification sales, these are not additional. Refer also [1] which gives a weeks data from Soundscan for MJ sales - and when he was having in increase in sales. 500 units for Dangerous for the week, 200 the previous week. Even if you take the higher figure and say he managed this for the full 7 years since last creditation, this comes to 200,000 units total. I know it's speculation, but the figure isn't even close to 2 million. World Club sales may double this, but still 0.4 million only. Others have estimated 0.5 million, and this certainly seems more correct. 60.234.242.196 10:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Nirvana

Nirvana's initial success in the mainstream was punctuated by the fact that they knocked this album out of the #1 spot -- why no mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.68.67 (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

- Good point.


Also, how about people contributing to English-language Wikipedia actualy knowing English? Good idea, eh?

Fair use rationale for Image:Michaeljacksondangerous.jpg

Image:Michaeljacksondangerous.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Garden of earthly delights.

Todays main page featured article was on The Garden of Earthly Delights, a painting by Hieronymus Bosch. The artwork for the dangerous album makes lots of references to this painting. I spotted two details of the album cover that are directly lifted from the painting, the most glaring being the two figures in the bubble thing on the right hand side. Should reference be made to this somewhere in the dangerous article, what do other think? Is it relevant?Iiidonkeyiii (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, obviously we need sources otherwise it's original research. — Realist2 (Speak) 12:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

7Pt

The album sold 7 million in US in 2 months - did it never make 8 million? Seems odd. Rich Farmbrough, 10:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC).

Critical reception

The passage on critical reception seems a bit one-sided; the only "authority" quoted is the National Association of Recording Merchandisers, which makes it more of a comment on commercial reception. My impression was that critically "Dangerous" was - at best - mildly received; venerated for its craftsmanship, but viewed as something of a hollow and patchy album (albeit a step forward after the excesses and missteps of "Bad"). Certainly I'd suggest that reviews putting it on a par with "Off The Wall" or "Thriller" are few and far between. 220.239.203.208 (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Dangerous World Tour

This Song was planned from the start of the tour with Give In To Me,In The Closet,Dirty Diana and Remember The Time for the Dangerous World Tour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.50.33.93 (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Aleister Crowley

I think the potrait of Aleister Crowley on the lower right area of the album cover should be noted, especially considering MJJ's known fascination and interests he had with Occult imagery. (LonerXL (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC))

Do you have a reliable source discussing that about this album cover? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

== There never was a robbery at LA international of 30K albums.. remove this

Orphaned references in Dangerous (Michael Jackson album)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Dangerous (Michael Jackson album)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "SM Dangerous":

  • From Michael Jackson: Sony Music (2001). "Michael Jackson Dangerous Review". Sony Music Entertainment. Archived from the original on December 4, 2005. Retrieved August 27, 2008.
  • From Black or White: Sony Music (2001). "Michael Jackson Dangerous Review". Sony Music Entertainment. Archived from the original on 2005-12-04. Retrieved May 4, 2009.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sales/certifications

I removed two entries from the sales/certifications list. The first claimed sales of 1,985,500 in France based on [2]. Note that the website itself marks the sales figures with "* Estimation", so they are not official sales. The second entry claimed sales of 180,000 and 7x Platinum in Malaysia based on [3], which is self published and not a reliable source. Anyone can upload any image and claim anything in an online auction. Note also that the image itself does not mention the Recording Industry Association of Malaysia, which should be the awarding organization, not Sony. --Muhandes (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Sales in Japan

As far as I know "Dangerous" underperformed compared to "Bad". "Bad" sold over 800,000 units per Oricon, but "Dangerous" sold only about 300,000 and was certified Platinum, NOT 3x Platinum as claimed in this article. Also, the citations for RIAJ and the Japanese sales do not lead to anything specific... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.89.105.69 (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

is it too early to talk DANGEROUS 25

PERHAPS INDICATE SOMEWHERE IN THE ARTICLE THAT ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,like Thriller and Bad it too will have a 25th edition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.189.87 (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Cover Symbology

Strange that no mention is made in this article about the album art and its blatant illuminati(I refuse to capitalize that word)symbology...anyone have any info on that? Robvanvee (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Information based on reliable sources that is not given undue weight would be acceptable; original research would not be. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dangerous (Michael Jackson album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 20:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi, there are huge sections without citations, and this needs to be taken care of before I can review the article. FunkMonk (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I would suggest fixing up a few of the citations' styles, too. 和DITOREtails 15:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I have a feeling this will go nowhere, the nominator hasn't edited the article even once. FunkMonk (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
If that's the case, then I would say to close this review as a fail. The citations are about half of what makes a good article, and personally, I'd fail it just for not having them. I took a brief look at the article and although it has some citations, there don't seem to be any unused bibliographical entries that just haven't been converted to normal in-line cites yet (i.e. we can't put a {{no footnotes}} template on it or anything like that). Until the article has more sources, and uses them, I'd say it's nowhere near being able to be a GA at this time. Further, as an album article, this should have been placed under the "Albums" subheading on the nominations page, not the general "Other music articles" subheading (not that this is a gamebreaker detail, but still...) LazyBastardGuy 05:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
If nothing is done over the weekend, I'll fail it. FunkMonk (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The editor was given more than enough time to address the issues, but he hadn't made a single improvement yet. Not to mention that he nominated the article without any significant contribution to it. I'm closing the nomination as failed.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Princess of Monaco???

It's highly unlikely Princess of Monaco was featured in this album? Does anybody know who wrote that there???--Dongiello (talk) 09:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Decade and Strawberry Fields

It is well documented that Michael was going to release an album called "Decade" prior to recording "Dangerous". However, where is it sourced that there were going to be 2 discs, one 1979-1989 and one 1980-1990? That doesn't make any sense at all, and I've never read anything confirming that. Also, where is the source that he recorded a cover of "Strawberry Fields" by The Beatles for the project? He recorded "Come Together", is that perhaps the song that you're referring to? WizardOfChaw (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dangerous (Michael Jackson album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dangerous (Michael Jackson album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dangerous (Michael Jackson album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox genres

@Isaacsorry:@Binksternet: I think that rock should be removed: I cannot find sources which say that Dangerous is a rock album. Only one song ("Black or White") is labeled as rock [4] [5] and sources must explicitly attribute the genre to the work or artist as a whole (WP:EXPLICITGENRES). I also have some doubts about dance. I previously thought that Rolling Stone confirmed that genre, but now I'm thinking that the review isn't explicit enough [6] Blueberry72 (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Right you are – let's remove rock. I think we should also remove gospel, dance and hip-hop. The main genres found in the literature are pop, new jack swing, and R&B. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Nope, "Give In To Me" is also rock. Isaacsorry (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Two rock songs in the tracklist don't make Dangerous a rock album. I've removed dance and rock from the infobox. Before removing gospel and hip-hop, I would discuss: in Entertainment Weekly it is written "Jackson tosses cohesion to the wind and instead touches on every contemporary style of R&B, from rap and hip-hop gospel to new jack swing [...] The love songs replace warmth with an unsettling sense of hostility, and even Jackson’s pop-gospel songs sound forlorn, not uplifting"[7] and in Blender "Jackson discovered hip-hop (a little late) and scored another five hits"[8]. I think they aren't explicit enough, but you could disagree. Blueberry72 (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Dangerous (Collector's Edition)

Whoever removed the tracklist for the second disc that comes with the Collector's Edition shouldn't have done that. It's a rare product, but it does exist.

JohnStartop (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dangerous (Michael Jackson album)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Abryn (talk · contribs) 17:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Abryn It's been over a month now. Have you finished the review or you dropped your plan to do so?.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
@Akhiljaxxn: I'm terribly sorry, depression has been hard for me and making it difficult to do this review. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Abryn: I’m sorry to hear that. I hope you have better and brighter days. May I ask another interested user to review this article on your behalf?. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Please do so. I'm disappointed that I slowed down the review process in this way. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 11:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

New reviewer

Hi there, I'll be adding comments on this one, since you've been waiting. Kingsif (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif Are you still reviewing the article?.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Style

  • Lead too long for article, should be condensed
Do you think more stuff should be removed?. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 Fixed Owynhart 04:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Lead is written well
  • Background is fine
  • The clause most work had proceeded by three producers in three distinct fronts doesn't seem to follow rules of grammar, is it saying there were three different producers for most of the recording, coming at the project from different ways?
    • What are the different fronts?
Definition of front[1]. It means the three producers worked separately from each other but all with Jackson, as explained in the following sentences. It is grammatically correct and verbatim from the source. Owynhart 02:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I know what fronts means, I’m not stupid, I was saying that it’s not clear what the three different ones are, if each of the three producers took a different one or if they all did all three. Work on it. Kingsif (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
You asked the question "What are the different fronts?" which implied you didn't understand the usage of front in the sentence, so I gave you the definitions of front to show you that the sentence is grammatically correct. No one is saying you're stupid. The current sentence reads: During this time most work had proceeded by three producers in three distinct fronts: Bill Bottrell, Bruce Swedien and Bryan Loren—all of whom recorded in different studios with Jackson. In what way is this not clear what the "three distinct fronts" were? Distinct is a synonym for separate. Owynhart 19:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Owynhart: Yes, what are they? If I were to say "the three people wore three distinct colors" and you asked what the different colors were, I could answer "red, white and blue". What are the fronts? It's not a hard question. It also in no way implies I don't know the meaning of 'front'. Unless asking 'what colors?' would mean the asker doesn't know what a color is. Kingsif (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif: I removed "front," because it was too abstract in the context of the sentence. As you said, it's too ambiguous and confusing. The sentence now reads:During this time most work had proceeded with three producers (Bill Bottrell, Bruce Swedien and Bryan Loren) in three distinct studios with Jackson. I hope that's clearer. Owynhart 19:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Seems strange to have a little mention of Bottrell right after the three are mentioned, it doesn't read fluidly, and implies he was the most important (but mostly, it reads like the info on the other two has been forgotten)
 Fixed Owynhart 20:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The list of unreleased songs in the last Recording paragraph reads quite staccato, any way to make it flow a bit more?
 Done.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Could perhaps use some more wikilinks - propelled by horn samples and a subtle scratch effect, and includes a fleet rap could include, e.g., Sampling (music), Scratching, and wherever fleet rap should point - though the term only appears on Wikipedia in relation to this particular song, so maybe find a more accurate one?
 Fixed Owynhart 20:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Jam" addressed similar issues seems very vague and uninformative in its context
 Fixed Owynhart 20:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Final paragraph of Composition is also a bit of an awkward list - if there's nothing more to say, it can still flow more cleanly. Although, not all those songs have to be mentioned - "other songs on the album have been said to X, some were Y," etc. is possible with that many in a list.
 Fixed Owynhart 20:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Album artwork section good
  • Grammar in the opening sentence of the Release section is also poor - needs rephrasing
 Fixed Owynhart 19:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Made a few tweaks but Release otherwise generally fine
  • The third paragraph of Promotion is one long sentence that loses direction after the Grammys mention - could it be broken up etc so it's readable?
 Fixed.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the sentence of the HBO concert special reviving sales be moved from the second paragraph, where it's tacked on awkwardly, to the fourth paragraph, which already mentions it in context of the concert tour.
 Fixed.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Varying the Singles section to not start each paragraph with the single title (it looks like a list) would help. Some paragraphs could potentially also be combined.
  • Similar with the reviews in Critical reception - it doesn't need to be one review per paragraph, this can mean its not fluid when reading, starting over each time rather than connecting.
  • In Accolades, the 'Male' part of the category has been removed in the wikilinks for the Grammys, but is present for the Soul Train awards, shouldn't it be consistent?
 Fixed Owynhart 04:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • In the accolades table, is it right to call the event 'Award' (and have the specific one in a separate column)? Is this standard in album articles
Yes, those are awards, like the Grammy Award is an award. What do you mean by "the specific one in separate column?" There are awards for specific categories, and they are in their own row. Owynhart 04:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Aren't the personnel and track listing generally above the reception, as they are part of the production and release
No, they are not really. Here are few examples of few FA And GA pages of albums: Thriller, 4 (Beyoncé album), Bad, Off the Wall, Invincible.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Any examples you don’t seem to have worked on? Kingsif (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
[[User:|Kingsif]] "I didn't work on the Beyonce album, and it has that format. And the Album style guide says similarly." Akhiljaxxn (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Needs work - thanks for work so far. I may have more comments on the writing of the singles and reception if/when restructured.

Coverage

  • The second paragraph of the Background section seems completely unrelated. If it is important, it's not made clear how. If there are no RS that connect his various other deals with this album, it should be removed. Kingsif (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 Removed.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The first and second paragraphs of Recording seem to be more like background.Kingsif (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 Fixed.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there a way to resolve the uneven coverage of the producers? The Recording section sets it up like the three are going to be discussed, but there's a line for one, then two paragraphs for another and nothing on the third. If there isn't the information, perhaps reorganizing to not imply there will be such coverage?
What sentence implies that the section will discuss three producers? There were more than three producers who worked on the album as described in a detailed account in the section. Owynhart 04:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Some recording stuff in the Composition section - particularly parts of the third paragraph
 Fixed.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Is the Slash quote about this album?
Yes. Owynhart 04:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Album artwork section good
  • Ditto for Release
  • From my reading, coverage seems fair after this.
  • Needs work

Illustration

  • Infobox looks fine
  • How does an image of Jackson in '88 relate to a section of recording from 90-91?
 Fixed.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Good rationale for song clip inclusion
  • Review box looks good
  • The accolades box is non-standard - did it win those awards or was it just nominated? (Where's that column?) And, why is there a country column - does it matter, can it not be found on the award page if it does?
    • The NARM\HoF isn't an accolade in the sense of the table, either - it would go in a 'best-of list' or 'rankings' subsection, or similar.
 Fixed Owynhart 09:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • All other tables are as standard
  • Needs work - '88 image and accolades box
 Done.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Stability

  • There's a bit of recent content disputes, some little bits with an IP, but also
  • I'd like an explanation of this edit, the latest edit to the page, which is a large-scale unexplained removal of what doesn't appear to be contentious content, added by one of the recent main editors of this article. You also left a message on that editor's talkpage back when this was nominated to tell them not to add anything else, reverting another of their edits at that point with no apparent reason except that you don't want new material added while the GA review is happening. New material in itself is not something that can immediately fail a review; if it's bad, reviewers can suggest you improve - only if it's a dispute or something else where the context is clearly unstable will it qualify for immediate fail. So, actually, your approach to the other editor is probably quite disruptive, and something that reflects negatively, particularly on this review. There's lots of articles I maintain, which is much different from just removing everything that anyone else adds.
  • Also in recent months, most of the nominator's edits to the page are small copyedits, changing refs, and reverting things, like this good edit at the end of November. Being definitely a good edit, there seems no reason to undo it unless the nominator wants to preserve one version of the article.
  • there's currently a question on the talkpage about a large removal. Should probably be resolved.
  • Question - why remove everything that particularly Isaacsorry, but also other editors, write? They are quite large content disputes, and with one as the most recent edit I can't see how this is stable unless you have a good reason for excluding them from adding content.
The additions of isaacsorry were very extensive and unnecessary. It included trivia, puffery and non-free images. I was worried his additions will affect the stability of the article that's why I reverted most of his additions. He was also warned by multiple users for his extensive additions and changes on Jackson related pages 1,2,3, 4,5 6. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Had detailed discussions about the recent edits of Isaacsorry here and here and he promised me that he will refrain from further editing.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for giving links, too! The talkpage question still stands, anything on that? Kingsif (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The collector’s edition doesn’t have a second disc. It’s just a gold disc with the same tracks. MJ wanted to do a Special Edition that was supposed to have more tracks, but it didn't happened.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

  • Fine
  • Pass

Verifiability

  • A few inaccessible sources - do copied exist that are available?
Those sources are archived behind a paywall, because they are old. Hard to find a newer version. Owynhart 08:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Most of the sources looks to be RS
 Done I removed the non-reliable ones. Owynhart 08:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Some citations need cleaning up - adding source, dates, at least one has the author's name duplicated
 Fixed Owynhart 08:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Also, the Joseph Vogel Guardian article ""Black and White: how Dangerous kicked off Michael Jackson's race paradox" appears in separate cites. Are there more?
 Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The placement of the footnotes in the certification table is confusing - some are in different places and I can't make out why
You mean the footnotes on the regional chart and the sales numbers? The footnotes on the regional chart mark the certification, while the ones on the sales numbers mark the sales numbers. Owynhart 08:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Owynhart: Could the footnotes for the certification then be moved to that column? I had assumed that being next to the chart/market, the footnotes were for all the info. Kingsif (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif: The placement of the footnotes comes from a template, so I cannot change it. I see that other albums' certification charts use the same template. Owynhart 21:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The singles chart has no footnotes - though I'm not sure if a singles chart is needed
 Removed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Track listing has no footnotes/note saying it is as found in the liner notes
 Done Owynhart 08:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • OVERCITE at the first sentence of Composition and lyrics - if there's that many sources absolutely needed, can I suggest an efn or refn, or to spread through the sentence if possible
 Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • A quick read suggests everything else is cited inline
  • Needs work - see comments

Copyright

  • Check seems alright
  • Album cover in infobox under fair use
  • Other photos seem appropriately licensed
  • Pass

Overall

  • Will continue, but there's already stuff to work on Kingsif (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Kingsif I think we have addressed the issues you brought up. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Looks pretty good. Kingsif (talk) 21:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Artwork

Love MJ or hate him, this has one of the most iconic album artworks of the modern era. But nothing on it in the article. This is a failing, undoubtedly, and a shame too. but a small section, yes, would be necessary. Cheers, ——SN54129 14:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The artwork is wonderful, but we also need sources to add relevant information. Owynhart 09:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ "front - Wiktionary". en.wiktionary.org. Retrieved 2020-02-01.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dangerous_(Michael_Jackson_album)/Archive_1&oldid=1073875093"