Talk:Dangerous (Michael Jackson album)/GA2

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

New reviewer[edit]

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

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

Style[edit]

  • Lead too long for article, should be condensed
Do you think more stuff should be removed?. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Owynhart 04:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • "Jam" addressed similar issues seems very vague and uninformative in its context
 Fixed Owynhart 20:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Any examples you don’t seem to have worked on? Kingsif (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[[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)[reply]
  • Needs work - thanks for work so far. I may have more comments on the writing of the singles and reception if/when restructured.

Coverage[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
 Removed.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first and second paragraphs of Recording seem to be more like background.Kingsif (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Some recording stuff in the Composition section - particularly parts of the third paragraph
 Fixed.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Slash quote about this album?
Yes. Owynhart 04:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Album artwork section good
  • Ditto for Release
  • From my reading, coverage seems fair after this.
  • Needs work

Illustration[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • All other tables are as standard
  • Needs work - '88 image and accolades box
 Done.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stability[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Okay, thanks for giving links, too! The talkpage question still stands, anything on that? Kingsif (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

  • Fine
  • Pass

Verifiability[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Most of the sources looks to be RS
 Done I removed the non-reliable ones. Owynhart 08:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Track listing has no footnotes/note saying it is as found in the liner notes
 Done Owynhart 08:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • A quick read suggests everything else is cited inline
  • Needs work - see comments

Copyright[edit]

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

Overall[edit]

  • Will continue, but there's already stuff to work on Kingsif (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif I think we have addressed the issues you brought up. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good. Kingsif (talk) 21:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  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)/GA2&oldid=943266376"