Wikipedia:Peer review/Michael Jackson/archive4

Michael Jackson

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have really improved this article since it last failed FA. Its so much better now, I just need help spotting any obvious mistakes. Cheers

Thanks, — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 08:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wackymacs (talk · contribs)

I'm concerned about this article. The prose, layout and amount of information look great—and indeed, a lot of effort has obviously been put into this article. But then I checked out the references. Allmusic.com is used too often. For example, the biography here seems to be unreliable, as it does not cite its own sources. Why have you not used some of the available books to cite the biographical information? I also think this is a poor source. There are others, but they should be obvious. It's also sad to see the omission of a photo of young Michael - can you add one? At the moment, I feel that you're relying on online sources rather than books, when it should be the other way around, especially for an article on such an important and influential individual. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about Allmusic, I have used it too often although it is generally considered a reliable source. Luckily I discovered how to use google books about two weeks ago and have found several that provide free previews. I could definitely replace some of the Allmusic sources with these online books. Good books about Michael Jackson are very hard to come by, 90% of them set an agenda either for or against the guy. I can look into a picture of Jackson as a youngest but I cant promise anything with wikipedias absurd policies regarding pictures. Not even the Jackson 5 article has a free image of them. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 18:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no free picture of the Jackson 5 or a young MJ on commons, I don't think we could get a fair rational for it either, unfortunately I think we can scrap that idea. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 18:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I replace about 35 web links with book refs. That should even it out a little better. :-) — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 07:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Andrewlp1991 (talk · contribs)

(permalink for version I'm reviewing)

To address the concern of the user "Wackymacs" I've removed the suspicious SundayTimes.lk source, for which I question its reliability.
For some consecutive paragraphs, I notice that they use the same beginning word. For example: tracing back to the 3rd paragraph in the "Early Life/Jackson 5" section to 2nd paragraph in "Jacksons/Off the Wall" section: All those four paragraphs begin with the word "The".
- DONE
The "1987-90" sections and beyond (I'm too lazy to type all properties) read a lot like a timeline as they use "In year, this happened...on this date, this happened" structure a lot.
- Made it a lot less datey. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 09:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also the article doesn't mention if Jackson was ever religious in his life if ever.
- The article does say he was raised a Jenova Witness. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 01:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]