The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:07, 28 July 2008 [1].

Michael Jackson

Nominator(s): User:Realist2

previous FAC

I'm nominating this article for FA. Just a reminder, English is not my first language, if reviewers have comments could they please write in clear, full sentences to avoid confusion on my part. — Realist² (Speak) 11:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note of interest to reviewers. Because this article was slightly long, we removed a few things to keep it all tight and neat. A few of the things removed were on the topic of Jackson's appearance and health. To help the FA review, we removed some of these details and I set up a new article for it which has been nominated for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical appearance, health and diet of Michael Jackson The article was nominated because it was "controversial and pov", we have reviewed this article and have all agreed that content was of an FA standard in it's own right. If the article is deleted we are going to have to bring some of the info back, wasting our hard work trimming. For those editors who understand the article and the content please help, that info needed its own article because of this article's length. — Realist² (Speak) 23:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments regarding MoS compliance:

• The Dangerous album had seven million shipments in the US, sold two million copies in the UK and sold twenty-seven million copies worldwide; sales figures were slightly lower to those of Bad.[43][14][22] Not a big deal, but try to keep blocks of references in numerical order.
• Shortly thereafter it was announced that Jackson was producing an all-star charity single — entitled "I Have This Dream" — to help raise relief funds for victims of Hurricane Katrina. The single has not yet been released. em dashes need to be unspaced.
• Image shouldn't be left-aligned directly under section headers like in the "Legacy, influence and artistry" section, but again, not a huge deal.

Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • OK, took care of those, cheers. — Realist² (Speak) 14:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am a complete novice when it comes to Michael Jackson, so I was looking for more info in your notes list and - sorry - found some I didn't really understand. There are several refs that just read "Taraborrelli, p. 464–471 or "a b Campbell (1995), p. 53". Please excuse my ignorance, but are these books or magazine articles or something else entirely?-- Seahamlass 16:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, they are all published books. The full details of their publication can be found further down, by here. Sorry if that confuses you. When an article is sourced so many times it becomes impractical to write the full book detail out every time. The style of notation is perfectly within wiki policy. The taraborrelli book in particular is very well recieved, easily the most comprehensive book on the singer, although not a favourite amongst fans of Jackson. — Realist² (Speak) 16:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. I was just reading the (recent FA promotion) Mary Shelley article, and the editors there had done exactly the same thing as you. Now I know why!-- Seahamlass 16:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, glad I could clear it up for you. :-) — Realist² (Speak) 16:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a reason to implement the usage of the Harvard citation template, which helps readers find which book a footnote is referring to. See Template:Harvard citation no brackets. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that not what is being implemented in this article? All the best, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 17:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I cant make heads or tails of that link, if it involves altering every single book ref I have used, my reply would be (as MJ once said himself) "No Way In Hell". The refs are accurate and reliable and it seems like a lot of unnessary work for nothing. — Realist² (Speak) 17:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. That template links the footnotes directly to the book its referring to in the 'References' section. Yes, it would be more work, and of course it was just a suggestion as Seahamlass had trouble figuring out the book footnotes. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• All FAs must meet the criteria:
  • (a)-Well written:Kodster is copyediting the article now and after reading the article several times I did not find any major problems
  • (b)-Comperhensive:The article is 108 KB long and covers his entire life and career,IMO that covers all the major facts and details
  • (c)-Factually Accurate:The article has 190 notes 14 books and 10 external links as references.IMO that is more than enough to verify the facts in the articles.
  • (d)-Neutral:Considering the controversy that Michael Jackson has gone through before, this article provides a neutral point of view and does not takes sides saying, "Michael Jackson is bad" or "Michael Jackson is the best singer in the world" instead it's "Michael Joseph Jackson (born August 29, 1958) is an American musician and entertainer. "
  • (e)-Stable:The article has not had any major edit wars recently rather it has only improved over the last few days.
  • (f)-A Lead:The article has a nice long lead though I am not sure if it really "summarizes" Michael Jackson.
  • (g)-Appropriate Structure:The article covers Michael Jackson's life and is excellently organized by the years of his life. The table of contents is of an acceptable length.
  • (h)-Consistent Citations:With well over 190 citations the article is well cited throughout the article.
  • (i)-Images:The article has 8 images and 2 audio files, enough for this article.In addition all the images have the correct rational.
  • (j)-Length:I do not feel that this article goes into unnecessary detail.
    • -After reviewing this article I feel it meets the criteria for being a featured article.Therefore Support--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 16:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are some minor WP:MOSNUM issues, or at least stylistic issues that can be resolved by referring to MOSNUM.

*It's nice to have the dates fully formatted for date preference settings.

• Non-breaking spaces in spelled-out numbers is always a plus, e.g $95 million.
  • Sorry, could you clarify what you would like me to do hear please, I don't understand.
    • $95 million. This will make sure that $95 and million always stay together, rather than million hopping down to the next line if $95 happens to be as far to the right that it can go. --Elliskev 20:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that's done, I got most of them. By the way, in this article, since numbers less than 100 are spelled out (i.e, "ninety-five" not "95"), should it be "ninety-five million dollars" or still "$95 million"? All the best, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 20:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe. According to the Manual of Style "In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words, when none of the other reasons indicate otherwise; numbers greater than nine may be rendered in numerals or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)." and "Careful readers may object to the use of 100,000 troops as a rough description of a force of 103 thousand; it is preferable to use one hundred thousand for such approximations." So I guess it depends.--Elliskev 20:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I went through it added about 6 or 7 but couldn't find more (I'm new to using that symbol so I might have bee a little conservative in my usage.) Hope that's ok now? — Realist² (Speak) 20:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't go back and check, but I'm sure it's fine. It's really a preventive measure. To see how it looks without the non-breaking space, take a look at today's (7/17/08) FA on the main page. World War II really should be all on the same line. With my browser size, World War and II are broken. You can see it by resizing your browser. Adding the nbsps just makes for a more professional presentation. Maybe you can nbsp Billboard Hot 100. I don't think you have to, but it makes it better. --Elliskev 21:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hehe, ok, I will, so are your issues resolved? Anything else I can improve you think? — Realist² (Speak) 21:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think so. --Elliskev 21:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• There is at least one instance of of between a month and a year (I found one in the 1995–1999: HIStory, charity, second marriage and fatherhood section). --Elliskev 19:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I resolved that one, I couldn't see any others, cheers. — Realist² (Speak) 19:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were no others (except "November of that year", which I believe is acceptable). I used the "Find" feature and searched for all 12 months plus "of". This is done. All the best, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 20:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing this article a very long time (just check my history, it goes back!)[2]. In the years i've worked with it, I've seen constant edit wars, agenda pushing either side of the spectrum and bizarre, bizarre editing from every possible source. This however (without gushing too much) changed when Realist2 got some experience in wikipedia and began editing the article properly. In the past months (not years, months - such is the degree of remarkable transformation) this article has had something done to it I didn't think was possible - it's actually bloody neutral. It's neutral. I cannot overstate this enough. Neutral!

I personally could not have done this, and anyone reading my comment should kindly take a look and see that this article is well written prose of the highest degree - deep, well written, practically existential at certain points! It's a work of actual art. The liberal use of photographs brings it into a class unto itself, the sourcing is just, plain, incredible. It's had zillions of people check, re-check, add more sources and change them over the years. In short it's a paradise of well written factual information.

The articles lead is so good I find myself re-reading it and pinching myself each time. It's better than the Britannica article, hell, it's better than the Taborelli book's intro (one of the best books on Jackson). Structure is exhaustingly well studied, overhauled. I've been part of a recent mind mapping in the themes section, we first theorised appropriate material in a mind map at mind domo. Realist2 found plausible sources and we ransacked them for information, before Realist2 wrote it into perfect prose. It was by far the most interesting and satisfying experience I've had on this article, and I've been working on it for years. So you see, this article has been sourced from good material ground upwards. This is so far beyond original research, it's unbelievable. Because 2 years ago, it was a hive of OR rubbish.

It's exhaustingly comprehensive. This mans' been places, and this article covers this man. Properly. There have been no edit wars going on 6 months, if not more. The current bunch of editors and moderators of the article are in-tune with each other, helpful to new users and encouraging to previous editors to continue the articles transformation, which whilst not complete is now by far and wide more than enough and actually representing a powerful achievement. Neutrality with such a cult, mainstream and notorious figure. This is beyond FA, it's been beyond FA for over 2 months now. If there's something above FA standard, this article is trekking boldly towards it. To think a couple over 8 months ago it was so bad I wanted GA status delisted! [3]. How the article has changed! Unquestionably - Support.--Manboobies (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been working on this article a lot (it's my second most-edited article, in fact). And I've seen it change. I've changed too. I supported an FA the last time, but I wasn't as experienced an editor as I am now. The MJ article that went up for review last time wasn't an FA (though I thought so at the time). Now it is. Let's run through the Criteria:

• Well-written: I've been copyediting this article ever since I've seen it, revising and revising until the prose was brilliant. I just did my last copyedit this morning, and I was stunned at this excellence of the prose that I was reading. It was incredible; literally beyond Brittanica.
• Comprehensive: 108 kilobytes of Michael Jackson. Nothing less.
• Factually Accurate: 190 reliable sources, nine books, no filler. It is factually accurate to the decimal, no doubt.
• Neutral: This is to be applauded. I mean, this is Michael Jackson we're talking about here. I've seen people with death wishes for this guy. And yet, this article manages to keep a neutral, informative, encyclopedic tone. This is sheer genius.
• Stable: No edit wars on the Michael Jackson page. Another mystery of geniusness.
• Lead: The lead summarizes the beauty of the article with an inherent beauty of its own. It's succinct, yet intriguing.
• Appropriate structure: Logical system of his biography followed by his legacy
• Consistent citations: Every citation is marked to perfection.
• Images:Images are used appropriately and with relevance to the article, and the two audio samples highlight some of Jackson's great work
• Length:108 kilobytes of Michael Jackson. No more. No less. Sure, the article is long, but this is Michael Jackson we're talking about, not John Power. Michael Jackson is one of the most influential, controversial, talked-about people of all time. There's so much to say. But still, there's no "bull" in this article, and nothing less than the best.

That's all I have to say. This is from a completely objective point of view actually, not taking into account any work that I took place in this. Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 23:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. Support. :-) Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 23:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I share the concerns about using allmusic for a biography. While it's generally a reliable source for album information, it's not as reliable for biographical details that might be controversial.
  • I removed some that weren't needed, replacing others with reliable sources already used in article. The vast majority that remain can only be found in the "Themes and genre" section. — Realist² (Speak) 16:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaving this one out for other reviewers to decide on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just stumbled across this and I'm not sure if my input here is warranted, however I would just like to point out that stuff.co.nz is owned by Fairfax Media, the biggest media corporation in New Zealand and Australia. Also holds the title of New Zealand Website of the Year 2008. Very reliable source. ~ Ameliorate _{U T C} @ 09:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know but as there were questions raised about it's falidity validity I removed it so that it didn't damage the articles prospects. — Realist² (Speak) 12:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Validity, if anyone was confused. Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 18:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, cheers. — Realist² (Speak) 18:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see issues with some of the books that are used, and I think it would be better if you could substitute in more refs from Taraborrelli, which seems to be by far the most reliable-looking book source you have. The article relies heavily on two books by Lisa Campbell published by Branden. I cannot find anything about Campbell's credentials, the books look like extremely low-budget productions, and the publisher's website doesn't reassure me that they are reputable. The Lewis and Jones books are likewise published by somewhat marginal publishers. Any facts that could be instead sourced to Taraborrelli would be good, because he is clearly an established, reputable author in the field. Mangostar (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Taraborrelli is an acclaimed writer, the only acclaimed writer who has dared to write a complex biography on Jackson, I have surely used that book enough? Are there specific, controversial issue that you think should be sourced by Taraborrelli over Campbell? For the vast most part, I have not used the Campbell books for controversial material. — Realist² (Speak) 14:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A featured article should use the highest-quality sources available, even for facts that are not particularly controversial. I have much more confidence in Taraborrelli's (and Taraborrelli's publisher's) fact-checking than Campbell's or Lewis's. (By the way, Jones wasn't used in the footnotes so I removed it... perhaps it should be added to further reading.) If you are worried about relying too heavily on a single source, I would double-cite these. I don't think concern over relying heavily on a single source is really an issue though, since it is clearly the best biography there is. Mangostar (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I went through changing a lot of refs for the career overview written by an acclaimed writer on R&B/Hip hop artists. — Realist² (Speak) 18:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for replacing so many of these. I still think it would be better to replace the remaining Campbell/Lewis refs, but they're not the end of the world and I don't think it's anything worth opposing over. I haven't read the whole article thoroughly, so I can't support or oppose at this time. Perhaps some of the prose may need a bit of polishing. Mangostar (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I gave this article a copyedit a while back, right around the time when User:Realist2 really did some amazing work with it. Okay, I'll take credit for my small part with the lead, but Realist was definitely the power behind the throne and has done wonderful things with the article. I congratulate him/her, and feel that that the Michael Jackson article definitely fulfills all the featured article criteria. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thankyou for the vote of confidence and I'm a bloke. :-) — Realist² (Speak) 02:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "He has been the subject of long-term financial difficulties and health concerns."? I'm not sure what this means. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for any confusion, it means that for a very long time MJ has had money problems and health problems. There are sections of the article dedicated to this. Should I reword the sentence or have I cleared that up? — Realist² (Speak) 23:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A rewording would be appreciated, thanks. I'll take a more in-depth look later. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made it clearer, but by all means, feel free to tinker with it if it doesn't quite flow for you. — Realist² (Speak) 23:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But now it says something different. Has he had these difficulties for a long time, or just in his later (you have "latter", but the way, but I won't change it in case the sentence itself is wrong) i.e. more recent, years? Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • He has been having serious health problems since 1993 and finiancial problems since the late 1990's. — Realist² (Speak) 00:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good and clear now. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There's a lot of extraneous details best reserved for song, album, or other such articles. One example is an entire paragraph devoted to the name change from the Jackson Five to the Jacksons. That kind of detail doesn't belong here. I was telling Realist that this needed to be addressed before the article underwent another FAC. This article needs more focus, especially with a subject so well documented. This article needs to be as effective as possible, but it still needs some work.WesleyDodds (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I appreciate your advise, you told be that you wanted to remove aproximately 20,000-30,000 bytes, with the community consensus of only yourself, (if that was a slight joke or an exagoration then I didn't get it, I thought you were being serious). I am not of the opinion that much details needs removing and do don't believe it to be in the best interest of the reader, since I have actually studied Mr Jackson. I always made is a goal of mine to stick to a square 100,000 bytes which I am happy to support, but bringing it down to 80k is absurd. There are many FA article above 100,000 bytes. — Realist² (Speak) 13:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Updated response on your talk page. — Realist² (Speak) 15:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow-up I've gone through and removed a lot of details better suited to subarticles. At this point the biography section is pretty good, with everything from the early life through Thriller more or less perfect. There are some issues I have in latter portions of the bio, but I'll get to that later. I was trimming down the music videos section, but Realist kept revert me and even removed the in-use template at one point. Now, that's just not very nice, especially since I'm more or less working on this because Realist has asked for help in the past, but I'm not going to dwell on that. There are still some issues that need to be dealt with, and the entire second half of the article should probably be restrucured and definitely trimmed of detail. I don't feel like touching the "Themes and genres" section right now; I was going to remove a lot of unnecessary detail, but I realized that would have left nothing about Bad. In contrast, there's nothing about Jackson's voice. He has a very distinctive voice and phrasing, and I know there's commentary about that. The "Physical appearance" and "Finances" sections should be merged into the rest of the bio. I'll come back in the next day or so listing more specific items that need to be fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree completely. Detail levels are perfectly appropriate, and there's nothing about Jackson's voice because nothing authoritive exists about it that has been written. Simple, really.--90.213.175.101 (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a section on his vocal style. — Realist² (Speak) 18:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Intergrated "finances" and "physical appearance" sections. — Realist² (Speak) 20:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article is now at 53,000 bytes for readable pros, perfectly acceptable considering the nature of the topic. — Realist² (Speak) 02:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My concern was never the exact length. My concern is over how much of the material is actually necessary or pertinent to this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree some areas could be trimmed but removing chunks seems wholely inappropriate when quite a number of editors (some of whom have FA articles or are regulars on the FA circut) already feel the article is up to standard. The vast majority of them have voiced their delight at seeing an article on Mr. Jackson that is neutral, a good read, well written, "better than Brittanica" (two people have said that, one of whom was a long time critic of the article) and tells the whole story. I am interested to know what you think of the various improvements I made since yesterday at your suggeestion? Have the alterations further improved the article? — Realist² (Speak) 03:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there's still work to be done. It's not FA-worthy quite yet, but it's closer. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm not a fan of MJ but this is an article that every great encyclopedia must have. I was invited to review the article by the nominator, (see my talk page), and I reluctantly agreed. Reluctantly because, well because this is about Michael Jackson and I was expecting problems of neutrality and so forth. But I was pleasantly suprised; this is a great article, well-balanced, neutral, comprehensive and quite a good read. I noticed a couple of glitches:

• The musician then released... — presumably this is Jackson?
  • Yes, I wanted to mix it up a little, hearing "Jackson" over and over can drive one mad :-), if you thing I have over done the musician thing (he is a musician by the way) I will happily fix it. — Realist² (Speak) 17:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a problem. GrahamColm^Talk 17:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Jackson has been observed in public spending large amounts of money in an apparently frivolous manner, such as in 2003 when he spent six million in a single store, or from money given to charity. — There is no logical connection betweeen the two halves of the sentence; it needs to be split or otherwise fixed.
  • Consider it fixed. — Realist² (Speak) 17:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GrahamColm^Talk 17:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

• "The son of Joseph "Joe" Walter and Katherine Esther (née Scruse),[2] he was the seventh of nine children. His siblings are Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, Marlon, Randy, Janet, La Toya and Rebbie" - why the sudden change in tenses?
• You mention the term "gigs" in the first section - some people (including me, sort of) might not know what that means, could you use either a clearer word or explain in-text?
• "An unusually candid ninety-minute interview with Oprah Winfrey occurred in late 1992, Jackson's first interview in a number of years" - one of the most clear-cut cases of redundancy I've seen.
• "Huey asserts that throughout his solo career, Jackson's versatility has allowed him to experiment with a number of themes and genres." - as above. Not nearly as clear-cut, but still probably redundant.
• "Jackson was charged with seven counts of child molestation and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent in order to commit that felony; all charges regarded the same boy, Gavin Arvizo, who was under fourteen at the time of the alleged crime." Also, this is the topic sentence of a second paragraph that seems to have nothing to do with the first paragraph in the section - the transition is a bit choppy. This happens a few times in the article; could you please rearrange the paragraphs or reword the sentences to make the article read better?

Good work overall. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I resolved you specifics at least, cheers. — Realist² (Speak) 20:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are any further specifics feel free to let me know (also posted on your talk page). — Realist² (Speak) 01:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Now, let me say right off the bat that my oppose is for technical purposes. I don't like to render an "Oppose" at an FAC unless the article is nowhere near FA status. However, given a number of supports that have been listed it's only prudent to note that the article still has deficiencies which need to be fixed. A lot of work is still needed. I've been helping out for two days and I'm really exhausted. Now here's my attempt to to list as many issues as possible that need to be addressed.

• The paragraph on Thriller should mention that it's one of the best-selling albums of all time. Also, the other sections mention the album singles, so it would be appropriate to at least mention the top hits.
  • Done — Realist² (Speak) 08:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• On a related note, no mention of "Say Say Say"?
  • Done, connected it in with the stuff on the beatles catalog.
• The sentences "On May 14, 1984, Jackson was invited to the White House to receive an award presented by American President Ronald Reagan. The event, notable because an African-American met a Republican president at the White House in the 1980s (a time of racial tension), was seen as a positive move forward in social views towards race." is really blowing things out of proportion. Compared to previous decades, the 1980s weren't any more a time of racial tension", and it's doubtful that Jackson meeting Reagan had any sizable effect. Find a more objective source to describe the event.
  • Just removed offending sentence. — Realist² (Speak) 08:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• When did Jackson purchase Neverland Ranch?
  • Done
• "Jackson renewed his contract for $65 million; a record breaking deal at the time." Date?
  • Done
• The item about Jackson in a wheelchair at the 1993 Soul Train Awards seems out of place. Possibly remove it completely, as well as the following sentence about the awards he received there. Jackson has received many awards during hsi career; keep it to the most notable.
  • Removed the awards sentance, keeping performance, it was a noteworthy event.
• The paragraph about Ryan White should be cut. Their friendship isn't necessarily important to mention in this article. The part about the "Gone Too Soon" dedication belongs in that single's article. The most relevant thing about the paragraph is Jackson pleading for more HIV/AIDS research funding. It could possibly be paired down to a sentence like "Inspired by his friendship with AIDS victim Ryan White, Jackson publicly pleaded with the Clinton Administration to give more money to HIV/AIDS charities and research at the Inaugural Gala in 1992", and inserted as part of another paragraph.
  • Cut
• There's a lot of detail in the 1993 sexual abuse allegations section, much of which can be transferred to the sub-article. What especially worries me is the way many of the details are presented, which favors Jackson and really paints a bad portrait of Evan Chandler. My suggestion to Realist was to cut it down to the barest facts (Jackson was accused of molestation, the news became public, public opinion turned against Jackson, Jackson settled and he was never prosecuted) in oroder to maintain as neutral a POV as possible.
  • There are no neutrality problems with it, I provided all the evidence from both sides of the story, if that makes Jackson look innocent, too bad. Since they searched both his homes, found nothing, since they closed the case citing lack of evidence and Jackson was never ever charged it's quite bloody hard to make him look guilty. I provided the stories and evidence of both parties in their full, it just so happens they couldn't nail anything on Jackson. I provide the full facts of both parties, I have tried to avoid inappropriate tone. Its all factually accurate, sorry. Also on the talk page I have been encourage to write more, expose the full strong, something you dont hear in the tabloids where they only tell the accusers side of it. If the truth in controversial too bad. — Realist² (Speak) 12:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The detail on the courtship of Lisa Marie Presley is a bit much. Cut that down ([retty much, just say how they met, how they reconnected, and why they got married) but expand on where they were married and public reaction to the marriage (which was huge).
  • Im not going to cut anything from whats there, I don't thing it is too much but I will add the other points you suggested. — Realist² (Speak) 22:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added your suggestions. — Realist² (Speak) 22:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "In 1995, Jackson merged the catalog with Sony's publishing division a decade later, retained half-ownership and earning $95 million in the deal as well as the rights to even more songs". I put 1995 as the year, but the sentence should be rewritten to better describe the event as it happened.
  • It reads clearly to me, seems accurate. No need for rewording.

"In 1995, Jackson merged the catalog with Sony's publishing division a decade later" Was the year 1995? Either way the "decade later" part needs to go. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AH!!! I see, you know that is why I should never has been incharge of intergrating the finances section. :-) — Realist² (Speak) 12:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There's nothing about the atmosphere in which Invincible was released. At the time, it was touted as Jackson's big comeback. Then it disappointed everyone (including me; man, was that a waste of money).
  • Done — Realist² (Speak) 23:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The sentence "While most reviewers felt that the album was one of Jackson's least impressive, negative reviewers often discussed the singer's perceived eccentric image rather than the music" is too vague and gives the impression of dismissing the negative response to Invincible. Possibly quote some reviews instead.
  • Done — Realist² (Speak) 23:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Wasn't there some controversy about the release of "What More Can I Give?" I remember it kept getting pushed back and atatched to different charities.
  • Yes, sony pulled it's release because they didn't want it competing with the Invincible album. Then there was an issue about the director being involved with gay porn which caused a number of companies like McDonalds to pull out. Jackson eventually released it 2 years later. I don't think its important though, in the near future it will have completely vaded from public memory. — Realist² (Speak) 12:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The paragraphs about Number Ones and Visionary are really short. Possibly combine these two into one paragraph at the beginning of the section.
  • Done, I reshuffled that section, its better now. — Realist² (Speak) 17:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Reports of financial problems for Jackson became more frequent in 2006 . . ." This seems to indicate there were financial troubles for Jackson beforehand, but I can't find any mention of them previous to this.
  • done Took out the "more". Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 15:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The bit about Jackson returning to the US for James Brown's funeral is only necessary if it indicated a permanent return to the country. Right now it seems pretty vague: did he return just for the funeral, or did he return and stay afterwards?
• Cut down on the details for Thriller 25. It's a reissue anyways.
  • You took army control of the article, randomly chopping it as you see fit yourself. — Realist² (Speak) 02:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The sentence "Fortress considered a foreclosure sale of Neverland Ranch to service the loan, but ultimately sold the debt to Colony Capital LLC in May of that year" just hangs there at the end and could possibly be cut.
  • I disagree, it is almost guaranteed that more financial info will come in the future to add to it. — Realist² (Speak) 17:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, the musical style section. This will need some serious work. The main problem is the "Themes and genres" section spends an awful amount of space describing styles and meanings from specific tracks, often to the point of detailing entire albuum tracklistings. In contrast, the "Vocal style" section is more effective. Use the "Vocal style" section as the basis for the musical style section. Cut the "Themes and genres" section, and readd relevant details from that section to the vocal style section. The sentence "Unlike many artists, Jackson did not write his songs on paper. Instead he would dictate into a sound recorder; when recording he would sing from memory" is definitely worth keep; most everything else can go to the song articles. Instead of describing the sound and meanings of various songs, try to summarize typical styles and lryical themes Jackson uses often. Also, mention something about how Jackson arranges songs; there were some details about this on the Off the Wall reissue disc.
• There should probably be a section on Jackson's dancing. See Joy Division for reference, where there's a "live performances" section to describe an important element of the band.
  • I wont be commenting on his dancing unless I'm allowed the assistance of a video clip, his dancing and the power it has over an audience are too hard to explain in pro's alone and wouldn't do him justice. — Realist² (Speak) 12:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You won't be able to include a video of him dancing, but there needs to be more discussion about his dancing in order to be fully comprehensive, since it's a major part of his performance style. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article already talks about his Motown and Super Bowl performance in their relevant sections, I also talk about his sexual dancing in the "Bad", "Black or White" and "In The Closet" videos. — Realist² (Speak) 23:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there's plenty more to say about his dancing ability besides that. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The music videos section needs to be more concise. See The Smashing Pumpkins and Tool (band) for effective subsections about artists' impact with music videos. Just like with the musical style section, don't describe each and every video. Summarize and talk about recurrent approaches/themes, then get specific when you absolutely have to. I would also strongly insist the screenshot of "Scream" be replace with one from, say, "Billie Jean" or "Thriller". There's plenty of talk about the fact that they were important videos, but next to nothing about why they were important (In the case of "Thriller", it was a big expense\ive shot with lots of extras in complex makeup); a screenshot of either of these would be more helpful to someone who hasn't seen much of Jackson's videograpy.
  • I won't be changing the scream shoot (although I would be ok with a shoot from "Black or White"). We have 3 pictures of Jackson in the 80's and only one from the 90's. If we do what you want that will make it 4 pictures from the eighties and there will be no pictures of his changed appearance in the 90's. NO MORE 80'S US NOLSTALGA. Like I said though, if you can help get a pic of the black or white video (that is a good pic), I will go with that. — Realist² (Speak) 09:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the desire to try and cover as broad a scope image-wise, but frankly videos from Thriller are the most important. "Black or White" could possibly work, but it might be hard trying to screencap the most notable aspect of that video, the "morphing" bit. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's my offer, actually the end sequence is also very noteworth and I could write some great pro's on the sexual imagery, the dancing and the banning of the end segment on MTV. If not "scream" is staying but I am actually warming to the idea of black or white. — Realist² (Speak) 09:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's more about the controversy about the end segment "Black or White" than Jackson's approach to making videos. Remember, the point of screencapping a video in this article is to illustrate to the general reader unfamiliar with the article's subject Jackson's impact through the music video medium. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and it was also one of the artistic highlights of the video, it's up to you, I've compromised as far as i'm willing to go, the scream video was considered fine and has sufficient rational. If not I will just have to bit my lip and accept your oppose. — Realist² (Speak) 09:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a better image from "Scream" to post, go ahead. But the one that's currently there . . . it's just Michael and Janet, in black and white. It's not very enlightening to an unfamiliar reader. Compare that to say, Michael dancing with zombies or Michael touring in stop-motion inside a theme park version of himself or Michael transforming from a pile of sand in Ancient Egypt. Do you understand what I'm getting at? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well bookkeeper showed us a much better version of "scream" but you haven't commented on it (as far as I'm aware). Maybe "Remember the Time" would be better, his fashion sense and graphics are very inique in that. I suggest we arrange a consensus on my talk page unstead of here as this is taking up a lot of room. — Realist² (Speak) 09:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's most of the pressing concerns. I would like more editors to take a look at the grammar. I'm also somewhat wary of some of the book sources. Ssome of these titles (The Magic and the Madness, Michael Jackson: The King of Pops Darkest Hour, Michael Jackson, the King of Pop: The Big Picture : the Music! the Man! the Legend! the Interviews!) are rather sensational, and I'm curious as to if these are the most credible bios about Jackson available. I'm busy with the article prose, so I would like someone else to check out the credibility of those sources. There's lots of work still to do here, but we might very well get this done. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The books have already been checked once, all books on Jackson have sensastional titles, even the very best book ever written on him The Magic and the Madness is a "sensasational" title. He's had an interssting life unlike the beatles. :-) — Realist² (Speak) 08:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to make sure because given he's one of the most famous celebrities of the 20th century, there are a lot of subpar bios created for sensational/monetary purposes floating around. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley, Have you actually looked into the sources in detail or are you going on a gut feeling? It seems you are judging these books by their titles, rather than the author and/or publisher's credibility for accuracy and knowledge on the subject. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ask because I haven't had time to look at the sources myself since I've been heavily editing the article, which is pretty difficult on its own. If someone else can vouch for the books, great. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys don't argue, we have done the source checking already, lets get on with sorting this article before I give up.— Realist² (Speak) 09:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ about the Beatles not being interesting (;-)), but the sources have already been checked, so it's a moot point. Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 15:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it worth mentioning [5]; #35 on the Rolling Stone Immortals list? (Also, why don't the internet references have access dates?) —Giggy 09:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone removed them two days ago, I let it go without reverting, I assumed it was an FA thing, I can dig up the edit and revert it? — Realist² (Speak) 09:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found the edit but it wont let me revert it. — Realist² (Speak) 09:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Copy and paste the retrieval dates from the earlier version. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did them all manually by todays date and double checked there were no dead links. Off to bed, will continue my work tomorrow but if I don't get some sleep I'm going to get ill. — Realist² (Speak) 00:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I see many examples of the prose tightening needs mentioned by Wesley Dodds, example: "He was referred to Dr. Steven Hoefflin, who performed Jackson's second rhinoplasty as well as more throughout his career." More ... rhinoplasty? More ... surgery? Only throughout his career, or throughout his life, and what is the difference ? WP:MOSNUM attention still needed, as mentioned above (is it 25 or twenty-five? what is the boundary on spelling out numbers)? Eleven years or 11 years ? mid-1980s needs a hyphen. Little glitches like that are easy to find: User:Epbr123 might be willing to help with the MoS issues, but prose tightening is also needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, thats it, I have had enough of this stupid number business, different people are giving different advise. Sandy, I trust you, what pattern should I follow for the numbers and I will do it now, but I need it down in words so I can say "Sandy said so", every other week someone has a different opinion on it and they get changed according to that preference. Someone give me a cystal clear system and I will implement it. I'm tired of changing the numbers every other day. — Realist² (Speak) 01:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've read your talk page, the article talk page, and this page, and I can't find the contradictory information; can you point me to what you were told by others? We just need a consistent boundary, that doesn't disagree with WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words. For example, you spell out many numbers, such as twenty-five, but then we find, " ... Although the group scored several top 40 hits, including the top five disco single "Dancing Machine" and the top 20 hit ... " where five is spelled out, but numerals are used for 20 and 40. It's not clear what your boundary is for spelling out vs. using numerals. Perhaps you've decided to spell out most numbers to avoid too many digits because of The Jackson 5? If so, you just need to be consistent in choosing a boundary for spelling out vs. using digits that is consistent with MOSNUM. Also, see WP:HYPHEN on -ly adverbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, we have a good number system now, finished hyphens. — Realist² (Speak) 15:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see an image was added: can you make sure someone checks the licensing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it was a different shot from the same music video, we swopped it as opposed to adding one. I will get Giggy or someone on it. I'm off to bed now. — Realist² (Speak) 02:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MOS#Captions on punctuation on image captions. Also, the grammar in this caption needs attention (I'm not sure how to best fix it, but their status didn't display frustration) ... Michael Jackson and sister Janet Jackson display their anger and frustration suffered by their status as celebrities in the acclaimed music video for "Scream", primarily a retaliation against the media for misrepresenting them to the public SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fair Use rationale on this image would be okay except that as far as I can tell, the information in the caption is not cited anywhere. Is there a citation that they intended the video/song as a retaliation against the media? Once that's cited, I think we're okay here. I believe the caption has been rewritten since Sandy's remark, as it reads well to me and is punctuated correctly. Just need that citation... --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is the picture isn't needed to get the point across that the video is a retaliation against the media, so it's fair-use rationale is shaky. Additionally, that's more appropriate for the "Scream" article than for this one. This is why I'm saying a different video screenshot should be used if any at all, because trying to illustrate this point about the "Scream" video is unnecessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree with "shaky" because in addition to illustrating the retaliation, it's also a striking image from an iconic video. And, I'm really just saying that the Fair Use rationale is valid. Whether or not there's possibly better images, or better places to use this one, is more of a content decision than a matter of satisfying Fair Use guidelines. Does it satisfy WP:WIAFA#3? WP:NFCC? In my opinion, very clearly. That's not to say Wesley's points are incorrect, just that they're not something I consider critical to my (limited) review of Fair Use. May still be relevant toward having the best possible article, but I'm agnostic on that point. --JayHenry (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Bookkeeper added a lovely pro's section about the video, it is fine now. — Realist² (Speak) 13:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. An article that deserves an FA rating, IMO.--andreasegde (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
• A lot of work has gone into this article, but since it's about Jackson, it has to be better than good.
  • Can I just ask you on that, are you sayin that this article passing FA should be set a higher thresshold because it's about Michael Jackson? Surely it should be the same thresehold as any other article. — Realist² (Speak) 14:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overall organization. It might assist to separate Jackson's musical career from his personal life in the article. Instead of a biography encompassing the two, try a non-musical career biography, then one about the career.
  • At its last failed FA I was told to intergrate the two and since I've done that I have come to agree that intergrating was a better option. — Realist² (Speak) 14:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The article reads like a publicity bio of Jackson. While I understand Realist2 is a big fan, and only the insanity that comes with being a fan will allow the kind of time and effort in getting an FA, it might also cloud judgment in the more human aspect of Jackson's development as a person and a musician.
  • If you think it's biased thats ok, there are a number of people who disagree with that opinion, but you are entitled to it. — Realist² (Speak) 14:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessarily biased, but it's incomplete. And it's not as compelling as it should be. You have described Jackson's major accomplishments, of which there are many, without giving the reader insight into his development and creative process. Michael Jackson is one of the very few superstars that puts him on a plane that is very difficult to understand. His immense popularity has clearly affected his personality and how he deals with people and events. But he is still the son of a Gary, Indiana working class family. You have to take your reader from relating to the kid in Gary to the mask-wearing monster of a publicity machine. Walk us through it step by step. I see you've already expanded the abuse section in his early life. That's a good start. --Moni3 (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 1958–1975: Early life and The Jackson 5:
• I know Jackson's siblings are famous, but the sentence naming them all is odd, kind of halting the flow of words.
  • This is something I was specifical told to add in the last review "all his brothers and sisters should be named together". Maybe it needs better wording, but I would like to avoid removing it at the expense of being told later to reisert it. — Realist² (Speak) 15:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• You're building a framework here to address Jackson's eccentric behavior and motives for his alleged molestation. You need to be very specific about the kinds of abuse Jackson endured. Everything must be cited well.
  • Added more detail about childhold abuse & added a few details amount other mental conditions. I dispersed them in their chronological order to avoid coatracking of mental illnesses. — Realist² (Speak) 15:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 1976–1981: Move to Epic and Off the Wall
• Open the paragraph about The Wiz (which is one of the scariest movies I have ever seen, btw, but not because of Jackson) with a topic sentence about Jackson getting into acting. This was based on the Jackson 5's multiple TV appearances on variety shows, yes? Can you tie that in?
  • Yes, he definately wanted to break into movies, not so much acting, he got a grip of that just from his general music videos. But, yes, he did want to take it one step further but that wasn't until the mid 80's. Jackson actually hated all those variety shows, he was gutted when it was successful enough to go into the second year. However the point of the Wiz wasn't so much about getting into movies (like I said that was the mid-1980's), it was more about Jackson leaving the family setting, travelling and getting his first taste of independancy. I can certainly add those details if you like. — Realist² (Speak) 15:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 1982–1985: Thriller
• I think you really, really need to supply the article with a very powerful paragraph about how big Thriller was. Thriller, by the way, was monumental, and anyone who was listening to music at the time—I don't care if it was Merle Haggard or Yo Yo Ma—stared at the radio and thought, "Wtf is this??" Provide quotes and statistics from the music industry. Have you researched Rolling Stone for their literature on Jackson's early solo career? His videos for "Billie Jean", "Thriller", and "Beat It" on MTV stopped action because they were so unlike anything ever seen, and they probably kept the fledgling station alive. It's my opinion that if Jackson had done nothing after Thriller, that alone would have earned him his second induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
  • OK, I added a huge part about how it affected the industry. It might be a little too much detail, so feel free to trim if needed. — Realist² (Speak) 15:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the level of detail about Thriller was already sufficient, getting the main points across. some of the detail needs to be trimmed, or else this article is not using summary style effectively. Remember, there's always the article for the album itself. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wes, I'm going to ask you to step away from the article, you are over complicating my job. You have overhauled the article to meet your personal taste way more than awayone else. If you have further problems to with the article then add it to your list of opposing reasons. You have a vested interest in this article and it's unhealth for the process at this point. If you oppose the article that is your perogative. — Realist² (Speak) 01:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is the Michael Jackson Burn Center?
  • Hehe, I have clarifed that since it does have a rather misleading name. It was actually a piece of new technology funded by Jackson that helped treat people with severe burns. Rather odd title therefore but thats Mr. Jackson for you. :-) — Realist² (Speak) 16:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, I don't agree that Jackson paved the way for Prince. If that guy thinks so, then put his name in it as in, "Richard Harrington from The Washington Post says..." then I can write to him and tell him he's wrong.
  • I gave the name of the publication which is the genenral style I follow, I think adding the name adds undue sceptism of the statement and the source is very good. — Realist² (Speak) 16:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to comment on this. The comment about getting black music back on the radio is inaccurate; there have always been "black music" formats on American radio. If anything Jackson allowed it to "cross over" (as they like to say in the music industry) to "white" radio. I'd be in favor of just excising the Washington Post comment. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Altered. — Realist² (Speak) 02:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What award did Jackson receive from Reagan?
  • I don't now the name of the award and I have previously done research on it. However I did add what the award was for. In all honesty though, it was really just an opportunity of the Reagans to meet Jackson. I'm personally of the opinion that Jackson should have run for President around 1985. No-one really knows if he is a democrat or a republican though. Hmm.— Realist² (Speak) 16:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how to respond to that. --Moni3 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you also need to discuss Jackson's publicity stunt-like behavior here. I don't know if it was a reaction to the very strong fanatical following he earned, or if he cooked that up, but his oddball style started to come out at this point: the one white glove, the quasi-military costumes, and the legions of screaming fans. In later videos and concert footage, it's not clear if his publicity machine supplied these screaming folks, or if they came out and screamed of their own volition, but the immense popularity that Thriller earned him set him so far apart from anyone else that it increased his loneliness. Hence, Bubbles, Liz Taylor, and the rumor machine starteth.
  • Added more info about the oxygen chamber, elephant mans bones and bubbles. I'm not getting into clothes or his choice of friends. Considering the number of mental problems that he has been sourced as having it is impossible to prove that he is acting that way for attention. A number of people who know what they are talking about say he has no understanding of how he is perceived and has the mental state of a ten year old. Considering that, I think it goes against the concept of basic human dignity to imply he his behaving in a deliberate manner without strong proof. I disagree with complying with the tabloid sentiment that he is an attention whore. There is strong evidence that suggests he has little control over this behavior. I also feel some of this stuff would cross into original research or be totally subjective or suggestive. — Realist² (Speak) 18:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it also contradicts the truth, Jackson it not an egotist, he is the complete opposite. He is shy, reclusive, hates his own appearance and it quite evidently depressed. He lacks self esteem not has too much. — Realist² (Speak) 18:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, regarding the glove, sunglasses and the mask, having done some research on the disease vitiligo and after viewing statements made by Jacksons makeup artist, it is very possible he was using these to cover up vitiligo. Around the mouth and eyes vitiligo is very hard to cover, purple patches can appear. We know looking at Jacksons finger tips that covering the vitiligo is almost impossible. Of course you won't hear this in the tabloids, who blindly continue to refute photographic evidence, legal evidence & medical evidence. — Realist² (Speak) 17:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Jackson royally pissed off McCartney by outbidding him. You need to expand that. That's serious stuff, and probably keeping Jackson afloat financially today.
  • Done, explained full story with both sides of view. — Realist² (Speak) 20:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 1986–1990: Bad, autobiography and films
• Moonwalk is mentioned, but not cited. Why? Specifically in terms of abuse Jackson endured.
  • The info on Moonwalk is supported by two refs, am I missing what your saying? If so feel free to Trout slap me. :-) — Realist² (Speak) 20:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More to come... --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I go on, or will the FAC be withdrawn? --Moni3 (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not being withdrawn, Sandy has given a 24 hour break from FA stuff in order for me to catch up on lost sleep. Sorry, Moni3, this has become somewhat unnessarily stressful. — Realist² (Speak) 14:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is not necessarily the place to bring it up, but will someone please ask Realist to not revert me when the "Under construction" tag is on the article? It's very discourteous and frustrating, especially since I edit this article primarily in large blocks of time. I've asked Realist a few times to refrain from reverting while the tag is on the page but he continues to do so. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are disregarding the requests I resolved of other editors. You are being controlling and over powering, you have said your piece. If you continue I will withdraw this nomination. — Realist² (Speak) 01:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I simply ask that you assume good faith and don't revert when an under construction tag is on the article. You can revert afterwards. Reverting while I'm editing really throws things out of wack. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No Wesley, I have worked bloody hard on this article today for Moni3 and I specifically asked that editor to review my additions. Instead you revert them because you don't like them. BACK OFF. If you have more problems with the article add it to your already accessive wine fest above. You are over stepping the mark, making my job harder and more confusing. Unfortunately this has all made me ill from lack of sleep. Stop now. — Realist² (Speak) 02:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I remember the previous FAC. I don't see any major image or formatting problems. Only one image tends to overlap a heading, and thats in a section that will slowly expand and resolve (the 2008 section). The article appears to be long and comprehensive. Plus, the primary editor has proven themselves as willing to fix any minor problems and is devoted to making the page as good as it possibly can be, which shows after multiple FAC and Peer Review edits. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thankyou, you don't know how hard and draining it has been. — Realist² (Speak) 03:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen enough to have a guess, and your situation normally leads an editor to stop trying. That shows a lot of commitment. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support to make all of his life and career comprehensive, it's simply 106kb long, but manages to be well-referenced and written. igordebraga ≠ 19:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I worked extensively on this article a while ago, and although it had some serious problems back then, most of these have been resolved now by Realist, who has been a tireless contributor to all things Michael Jackson on Wikipedia.UberCryxic (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Comprehensive and well-written. Even better now than it was when this FAC started!:) Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:13, 25 August 2007.

Ronald Reagan

previous FAC

I know I've said this before, but Ronald Reagan is finally ready to be a featured article. It meets the FA criteria, complies with the manual of style, is neutral, stable, and claims are verifiable. Citations are provided throughout. The recently "remodeled" 'Reaganomics and the economy' section is much more engaging and neutral, plus shorter. This article does a great job presenting the life of America's 40th President, and it is ready. Best, Happyme22 06:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment At 106 kilobytes long, there are still concerns about the WP:LENGTH. Some browsers or internet connections may struggle to load this page. Also, it may help to split off some of the information into separate articles. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:LENGTH is concerned with readable prose, not overall length, and suggests "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose." The Ronald Reagan article is currently about 9,000 words and 55K of readable prose. While this is at the upper end, it complies with the recommended length guidelines.--Paul 14:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the US president articles will be understandably at the upper end of length recommendations.Sumoeagle179 15:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know how hard I've tried to lower the kb count on this article. I'll keep trying, but I don't know if it's going to get much lower. Also, Gerald Ford, a featured article and a U.S. President, is 110 kb long. Happyme22 18:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least six FAs that I know of that have between 60 and 85KB of prose, surpassing WP:SIZE guidelines. No double standards here; at least Reagan is within guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The current prose size is 49KB according to Dr pda's script—completely within WP:SIZE guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree that articles about US Presidents are likely to be longer than the average Wikipedia article. For the record, my computer loaded the page in about 12 seconds including images. The article will be seen at its best with a modern browser and broadband connection. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (again) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You so much! Happyme22 15:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I have watched Happyme22's work on this article, including five FACs, since March 2007; I believe it now deserves featured status. I've edited today to remove over-linking, complete refs, do some minor ce and WP:DASH, WP:HYPHEN and WP:MOSNUM fixes, correct some extreme oversized images per WP:MOS#Images, replace some non-reliable sources (e.g.; About.com) and add some missing citations (noting that some incorrect, uncited data was apparently drawn from other Wiki articles). I added three cite tags, which I expect will be attended to before this FAC closes; if citations can't be provided, those three statements could be removed. Disclaimer: I figure as a top editor of the article, but almost all of my contributions have been ongoing ref and MOS cleanups during the FACs; I've contributed no text, and only a few minor copyedits. When I work on refs, I work by section, and it chunks up a high edit count. On his first appearance at FAC, I doubted that Happyme22 could complete this job, but s/he has persevered and done a fine job over many months. I am particularly impressed by the tight focus and effective use of summary style, and adamantly disagree that length is an issue here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You so much Sandy. You have helped this article to be great, and we're so close! Happyme22 15:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rlevse 10:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. Happyme22 15:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I think the progress this article has made is outstanding, and it is fully deserving of FA status. JCO312 17:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for all your help with the Reaganomics section! Happyme22 18:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose This article still reads in a lot of places like its either POV or its exaggerating his status in American history. -- CJ Marsicano 19:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive me, but that's too vague to be an even barely constructive comment. You would help the editors working on the article by giving a few examples. Also you may like to provide an assessment of where he does fit in American history and how the article deviates from that. Thanks. Mark83 19:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's not a legitimate reason to oppose the article without an example. Happyme22 19:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No examples? Reagan's status in American history is established by reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hapyme22, you thanked someone below for simply writing, "Support." I agree it would be helpful to have specific examples of POV (which is what I am trying to do below), but sometimes what people give is a general impression of the article. Thank you Cjmarsicano for contributing to this discussion. Wikipediatoperfection 23:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thanked someone for supporting the article that I nominated. Happyme22 23:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. Towards the end of the article, there is too much WP:PROSELINE. I don't like reading an article where every paragraph starts with "In 1987/On January 6, 2003/etc"-Wafulz 19:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. Does it look better now? Would you consider supporting? Happyme22 19:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to read through the full article, but I'll strike my opposition.-Wafulz 21:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great work, its one of the most informative articles on wikipedia, it shows perfect NPOV and is well written.--Southern Texas 22:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Happyme22 02:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The economics section still has remnants of the problematic sentence I criticized last time around and some of the same problems are still there. Quote: Critics of Reagan's economic polices dubbed them "Trickle-down economics,"[65] due to the large budget deficits spawned,[66] and the U.S. trade deficit expansion.[66] Unquote. The causal relationship is still wrong. Critics did indeed use the term "trickle-down economics" but not because of the deficits but because of how the theory was supposed to work. Tax cuts that directly benefitted mostly the well off were supposed to have beneficial effects that "trickled down" to those less well off. Critics did criticize the deficits but the nickname didn't come about because of them. Additionally the section is now too short in relation with the rest of the article. It should be lengthened again while some of the later sections could be shortened. The Death/Legacy/Popular opinion/Honors sections take up disproportionate space with sentences like: "The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority voted to rename Interstate 88, which was formerly called the East-West Tollway, in his memory, before being awarded three posthumous honors in 2005." Including information like this (and I'm not even sure I understand the sentence, presumably the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority did not get three posthumous honors) is much less important than covering Reagan's economic policies, theories and governance. I'd recommend reinstating the Regan quote, for example. Haukur 22:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The specific issues I complained about have been largely addressed. I still wouldn't say the economics section is good or well written but there aren't any real howlers now. Haukur 20:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you dislike one sentence, why not fix it ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the sound of one editor building consensus? If I knew of a great sentence to use instead I would make a change. On the other hand I also think FAC reviewers that stay out of actual editing can, perhaps, give a more neutral perspective. Haukur 23:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you seem to know how you want the sentence fixed, so I thought you'd give it a whirl. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not at all sure what I want the sentence to say. I do want coverage of "trickle-down" and I do want coverage of the deficits and I don't want errors but beyond that I haven't got any ideas. Why don't you give it a try since you seem to know what I want it to say? ;) Haukur 23:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen User:Ling.Nut and User:SandyGeorgia working very hard on the Reaganomics and the economy section, and it seems now to imply really what trickle down economics means. Happyme22 17:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. NPOV, well written and well sourced. --RandomOrca2 02:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Happyme22 02:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article reads much better than it used to. My main concern is the general lack of scholarly sources, on a topic that academics have devoted a huge amount of time studying. Though a number of respectable scholarly and semi-popular sources are listed in the References, for most it is not clear to what extent (if at all) they were used in writing the article, as they do not appear in any footnotes. The biographies by popular writers (Canon and Reeves, in particular), meanwhile, appear frequently in the footnotes. I'm not intimately familiar with Reagan historiography, so I can only give a few pointers on further scholarly sources. In particular, the book The Reagan Presidency, (an edited volume from University of Kansas Press) is an important one in terms of historical assessment of his presidency. I also expect that Diggins' book is a fairly rigorous source, as he is an eminent historian. Whether or not these source issues warrant withholding FA status... that depends on how much the definition of reliable sources varies with spectrum of sources available for a particular topic. My own view is that an FA should use not just reliable sources, but the best sources available; this article doesn't do that.--ragesoss 03:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've been staring at the article, and in particular its section about "Reaganomics" and the economy, for some time now. It needs help from people who understand economics, that much is absolutely certain. I only have an MA in Econ., and that was from too many decades ago for me to feel really confident about myself, but some of the mistakes in the section were fairly obvious. Some result from oversimplification which has been extended to the point where the facts are just wrong; some from trying to connect thoughts into summary sentences in a manner which creates flawed connections... I'll try to fix them. I still haven't fixed the connection drawn between Reagan and Black Monday market crash; the stark wording makes that conclusion seem far more cut-and-dried than is tenable. In general, I agree with everything Haukur has to say about this article, though I have hope that it can be fixed quickly. I mgiht suggest getting help from WikiProjects related to economics — but on the other hand, that could be harmful, as it might draw out the POV-heads with their never-ending arguments... I dunno. I don't know anyone reliable in those projects because I have had no contact with them... --Ling.Nut 07:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen User:Ling.Nut and User:SandyGeorgia working very hard on the Reaganomics and the economy section, and it seems now to imply really what trickle down economics means. I think the section looks a lot better and more neutral now also. Happyme22 17:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article says Reagan was posthumously awarded with the Order of the White Eagle, but it doesn't say what good he did for Poland. I suppose the "Cold War" section should mention his support for Solidarity, opposition to Jaruzelski's martial law and close coöperation with Pope John Paul II (the "Holy Alliance" as Time dubbed it), all of which was crucial for the eventual fall of Communism in Europe. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I added a setence on Reagan and Poland, and the Pope, in the "Honors" section, because it would be too difficult to add it in the "Cold War" section. Happyme22 17:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I think this is one of the best articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Very thorough! Excellent Job! Mike Searson 13:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Happyme22

• Comment: Once again agreeing with Haukur, every US President gets boxes of awards. Can we delete the high schools and other trivia? There is less than one sentence about his focus on rebuilding the military... I think that there are a few instances of this kind of misplaced emphasis in the article... Ling.Nut 13:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ok, but not everything in the honors section has to go... Happyme22 16:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - excellent article, meets all the criteria. Truly deserving of FA status. Well done. Johntex\^talk 15:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Happyme22 16:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Image issues. Image:Reagan Boraxo.jpg is said to be in the public domain because it is "a work of the United States Federal Government" but it seems unlikely that the Federal Government was advertising a brand of laundry detergent. Additionally, many of the images come from the Reagan Library Archives with a note that the RLA says that all its images are in the public domain. They did, indeed, say that a couple of years back[6] but they have since conspiculously removed the statement which suggests that they've found out that it wasn't true. This may still be good enough for us, I just wanted to make a note of it and say that maybe the image description pages should be updated with a note and an Internet Archive link. Haukur 15:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well let me quote from the Reagan Library's image page: "...The over 600 selected images represented here are only a small portion of the over 1.5 million photographs available. Please credit "Courtesy Ronald Reagan Library." Wouldn't they have said that they couldn't be used commercially if they didn't want them on Wiki? Happyme22 16:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they're happy for us to use the images. That doesn't mean they are all in the public domain or that the RL holds the rights to those that aren't. Haukur 20:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on reference format: Hey, I know Wikipedia is flexible on referencing formats, in order to accommodate the large number of differences between the styles used within different academic fields... but... this one has full references formatted as both footnotes and within a reference section. I thought that if you used both sections, the footnotes were strictly for two things: author/page no. (eg. Smith 1999, p. 26), and additional comments e.g. "Historians disagree on whether or not Reagan wore a wig, with the consensus being that he simply dyed his hair." But full refs are in both sections; some (perhaps many; haven't looked closely) refs are in the footnote-style section that are not included in the following section. Is that permissible? Sandy? Ling.Nut 16:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've always disagreed with the nonsense about repeating all sources in both notes and refs; there's already a size issue here. Imagine what will happen to the load time if every note is also repeated in refs, just to comply with a nonsensical rule that sometimes says we should do that. I hate the articles that do that, even more so when I'm forced to use a dialup. Why everything should be listed twice escapes my peabrain, I guess. The way the refs are presented here, IMO, is the most logical considering article size and load time. If the rules say otherwise, IAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One editor's nonsense is another editor's golden logic. :-) But if you're OK with it, then I'm OK-ish with it.

I've made some additions to the econ section so the errors aren't so — please do forgive me if I am being too blunt! — painfully obvious. Really, the dedicated editors of this article should have made friends with some econ people a long time ago! The additions I've made don't really seem to flow perfectly, please forgive me... but... I may add one or two more little things, but then may have to beg off due to real life responsibilities. I apologize deeply. I will definitely keep tabs on what's going on here and will put in a clear thumbs up or down in time (striking my comments above if they are repaired). I won't leave you hanging. Ling.Nut 17:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS (don't overlook my comments immediately above) One problem with the econ section is that it makes no attempt to tease apart the relative degree of praise/blame that Reagan should get for economic events as opposed to the praise/blame due to Congress. I dunno, I suppose one brief mention, done in an appropriate place, could be enough, given that most of the full-blown details should be in the Reaganomics article -- Ling.Nut 18:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MUCH improved already. It looks to me like past edits had sacrificed accuracy for brevity, because of claims the article was too long. If this article is too long (now at 48KB prose), then something MUST be done about the FA Ketuanan Melayu (at 82KB, almost twice the size of this one). What's good for the goose is good for the gander. It also appears that simplistic arguments had crept into the text to satisfy a certain POV; your rewrite is much more thorough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have gone thorugh what was added and tried to simplify some of the words and make the section sound more netural; I have probably been labeled as POV right-wing nut more than anyone on Wiki, but if this article even has just a few (maybe two or three) POV statements, it's not going to pass. Great job Sandy and Lig.Nut on all your work in the Reaganomics section. I think the reason why Congress was largley overlooked was that this article is about Ronald Reagan, not the Congress. Although Congress might deserve a mention or two, I know that I was trying to focus it more on Ronald Reagan. Try adding things about Congress into the Reaganomics article. Nonetheless, thanks so much to both of you for your help. Best, Happyme22 18:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Sumoeagle179 19:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Happyme22 20:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (don't want to oppose) Though this article is extensive in coverage in a compact (sort of) way, I feel there isn't a need to make a separate section for the popularity poll. It could rather be integrated in the article in a single sentence. Having a opinion poll as a separate section, doesn't go well with the overall standards set by the article. Trimming it will also trim the article on the whole. Good article BTW. Regards, --KnowledgeHegemony 09:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well thanks for your comment. Are you talking about the sub-section in the "Legacy" section entitled "Popular opinion?" We are saying that Ronald Reagan is regarded to be on of the most popular presidents and we have to give examples to back that up, for it's been attacked numerous times. Maybe I'm missing your point, but is that what you mean? Happyme22 17:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose There is still lots of debate over POV/NPOV of this article. I added a peer review page so we could get some feedback on this and was informed on my user page that an article is not supposed to be both up for featured article status and under peer review (I have no idea). This needs more editing and a through peer review of POV/NPOV more than it needs a star. Wikipediatoperfection 19:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you don't bring up actionable points, your oppose itself is likely to be perceived as POV-based. Would you please list POV details that are a source of concern to you, here on this page, so they can be addressed if necessary? Thanks! Ling.Nut 19:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Per instructions at both WP:FAC and WP:PR, articles listed at FAC are to be removed from PR (I've removed it). The article is not undergoing POV debate; it is undergoing the routine improvements that happen during FAC. If you have POV issues, pls list them so they can be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List as Requested:

• There is a disagreement on the talk page as to whether he should be called a controversial president. I would say that there is no question that he was a controversial president. Both the contents of the article and objective outside sources reflect that. It should be stated within the intro, but not in the first sentence of the article, that he was a controversial figure.

• Look at Jimmy Carter, a controversial president; does it say on his page: "James Earl Carter, Jr. the controversial 39th president?" No, because all presidents are controversial. If the president's a Democrat, Dems will like him and Repubs won't, making him a controversial figure, and visa-versa. Happyme22 21:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Clinton's page doesn't say he was controversial either; non-starter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this discussion is best confined to the talk page where it has been on going. This same argument has been used on the talk page and it has been unconvincing to those who think the word should be included in the introduction. The talk page has several arguments for adding the word that have gone substantively unanswered. I will add more to the talk page on this issue and we can continue the discussion there. Wikipediatoperfection 07:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reaganonmics section: As has been pointed out in the talk page this section divides into one section of raw data, considered the facts, and another section, the criticism. This section is unbalanced and poorly written.

• The section recently had a "facelift," is much more neutral and gives both sides of the Reagan economic record. Your comment here is very vaugue for we do not have "facts" and "criticism." Those comments you were reading on the talk page were written before this problem was fixed and addressed by User:SandyGeorgia, User:Ling.Nut, User:Paul.h, and myself. Happyme22 21:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This structural issue seems to be resolved. I was going off memory when I wrote this. This section is still POV Pro-Reaganomics. There is no explanation of why critics called it trickle down economics. Real wages have stagnated since Reagan (I'll get you the source for that in the next couple of days, I remember reading it somewhere in a peer-reviewed sociology journal article). This article has done a good job outlining the pro-Reaganomics position/statistics but it lacks a well reasoned critique of Reaganomics. When we are talking about Reagan being called controversial, this is what we are talking about. This was massively controversial and still is. Wikipediatoperfection 08:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The War on Drugs section: This could use a good edit. It seems haphazardly thrown together. I think we could all look at the war on drugs article as a reference point. In terms of POV/NPOV I do not think either point of view is well represented in this section, but the counterargument particularly leaves something to be desired. The assessment of the "War on Drugs" and Reagan's drug policies seems to lack the advantage of time. What do I mean by this? Most people today agree that that the "War on Drugs" has not worked. That is not to say that there is a consensus that the US should stop, but there is a consensus that past efforts have largely failed. I think this is at least part of the counterargument that is missing from this section. This section should mention the ballooning prison population as a result of the war on drugs.

• Can you cite the claim that most people think the war on drugs hasn't worked? And that's in todays world, not the world on the 80's. Happyme22 21:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't reference other Wiki articles, as they are rarely reliable, and this article must stay tightly focused on its subject. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I said that most people think the War On Drugs has not worked in the past because I have never met someone, liberal or conservative, who thinks it is going well. A quick google search popped up a 1995 poll which has only 11% of Americans giving the War on Drugs an A or a B in terms of drug-related crime. Only 2% gave As. The best results were for Drugs and the Workplace where 1/3 of Americans gave an A or a B. Here is the source: http://ndsn.org/april95/poll.html I can work on finding a more recent poll from a better known source for you, but I think the results are going to be roughly the same. Wikipediatoperfection 06:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I noticed after I wrote this that you said "And that's in todays world, not the world on the 80's." I think this is myopic in outlook. The over the top, but apt analogy is quoting someone who died of a drug overdose on what an awesome high you get. This is about Reagan's policy in the 80s (the awesome high), but it is also about the lack of positive results both in the 80s and later on from the policies (the overdose resulting in death). There is a fairly strong consensus in the wide world that these policies had little or not effect on drug use/drug problems. This is shown by the poll above. This side of the story should be in this section, minus my over the top analogy and with proper reliable sources of course. Wikipediatoperfection 08:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Air traffic controllers' strike: This summary of the main article leaves the reader wondering why on earth this is important enough to make a President's page. This is because it lacks the context of the strike's importance. For the right it is seen as marking a balance between business and organized labor. For the left it is seen as crippling organized labor and workers' ability to fight for decent wages. Whichever side you're on this section does not due justice to what both sides consider a major turning point in the history of organized labor in the United States. As it is, someone who knew nothing about the topic would think it merited deletion from Reagan's article.

• This article is about Reagan; in order to remain tightly focused and stay within WP:SIZE guidelines, every issue can't be explored in depth here. It's enough to mention that it was an issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, this is not about making it longer or looking at the issue in depth per see, it is about placing the issue within its proper context so that the reader understands why the section is there. I think we can do this and keep this section down to size. As it currently stands I do not see how a reader who knows nothing about the event could possibly understand why this is important enough to make a President's page. If I did not know better, I would ask, what is the significance of this? Why is this important? As it stands currently the section does not justify its existence. It does belong in the article, but it needs some work to show why. Wikipediatoperfection 01:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Iran-Contra Affair: This section solely quotes Reagan's denial of any personal involvement and has nothing substantive on the Tower Commission's report. Even if we talk Reagan at face value (which many of us don't, but I digress), the Tower Commission's report was highly critical of Reagan. From the Iran-Contra affair main page:

It did not determine that the President had knowledge of the extent of the program, although it argued that the President ought to have had better control of the National Security Council staff. The wording of the report surprised some since it was expected to have been weak in its criticism of the President. Instead, it heavily criticized President Reagan for not properly supervising his subordinates or being aware of their actions.

This information is certainly worth adding to this section to balance it out. I would also suggest adding that Reagan's testimony before the commission had inconsistencies and he had troubles recalling certain things. Here is how the main Iran-Contra affair puts it:

President Reagan appeared before the Tower Commission on December 2, 1986, to answer questions. His answers were not entirely consistent, and he was (allegedly) plagued with poor memory, because the questions were regarding details that occurred months and years prior. It was also said that during the time in question he was almost constantly using heavy pain medications. ^[1]

We should never take text from another Wiki article (a non-reliable source) and if you think the text there is accurate, then this article does the right thing by linking to it. For this article to remain tightly focused and within size guidelines, it need not repeat detail covered in another article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at bottom of section, this info is needed to balance the article. Wikipediatoperfection 01:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a sentence recommened by Wikipediatoperfection for balance about the determinatino of the Tower Commission. Happyme22 02:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is exactly what I am talking about. You made a good faith effort to try and balance the article. However, you did not add a sentence "recommended" by me. You added your own sentence in the place recommended by me. Your sentence distorts its BBC source. I believe this is the sentence you added (if I am wrong, I apologize, but it is still a useful point of discussion):

The commission determined that the president did not have knowledge of the extent of the program, therefore he didn't lie to the American people, but criticized him heavily for not properly supervising his subordinates or being aware of their actions.^[2]

• Now here is the critical passage from the BBC article:

Mr Reagan gave the impression of knowing little of what was going on. The Tower Commission report on the scandal absolved him from deliberately lying to the American people but criticised him for being out of touch. Later the final Congressional report laid the blame squarely on the president. It declared: "If the president did not know what his national security advisers were doing, he should have." The report was seen as a devastating indictment of Mr Reagan's style of government.

• Your sentence is an extremely selective and deceptive cherry pick of this BBC article. I assume you edited in good faith, but you are quite simply incapable of unbiased coverage of Reagan's darker/more criminal moments. Just as I am incapable of writing unbiased coverage of what his supporters consider to be his successes. Your sentence absolutely distorts the BBC source. They did not find he did not lie to the American people, they found he did not deliberately lie. We already quote Reagan's denial of any wrongdoing, you do not need to further cover his ass, especially with things which were highly critical of it. The congressional report laid the blame squarely with Reagan. And as the BBC puts it, "The report was seen as a devastating indictment of Mr Reagan's style of government." This is what is missing from this article. It also goes back to the issue of controversial. Gingrich may have tried to impeach Clinton for lying about a blow job while he himself was having an affair, but most of the public do not see Clinton as a crook. Certainly not in the way he ran the White House. There is a large portion of the American electorate who do not simply dislike Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush, they think they were/are crooks. Wikipediatoperfection 19:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose I did try and pick the most-carefull wording, and I didn't include the Congressional report because I didn't want the section to be too long (although it was added). You're talking about not having POV, but here you are expressing it. It's a very biased and POV statement to say that most of the country doesn't think that Clinton's a crook, but thinks that Nixon, Reagan and Bush are. I could argue the exact opposite by saying Clinton was impeached and Nixon, Reagan and Bush weren't (although Nixon came very close). Happyme22 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ... Reagan's darker/more criminal moments ...hmmm, hello pot, this is the kettle speaking. By the way, it might be helpful if ya'll would move the big discussions of specific text to the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I laughed out loud at that :) Still, I think that what he's saying is that the article was written by too many pots and not enough kettles. Haukur 23:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it might be helpful if I reviewed this section and see what you thought:

====Iran-Contra Affair====

In 1986, the Reagan Administration was found to have illegally sold arms to Iran to fund the anti-communist (the bottom of the article says many critics think they were just plain murderers, starting out with this takes a position that they were not) ^[3] Contras in Nicaragua. The Iran-Contra Affair was the largest political scandal in the United States during the 1980s.^[4] President Reagan professed ignorance of the plot's existence and quickly called for an Independent Counsel to investigate. Norman H. Gardner Jr., a congressional specialist for the CIA, said (He did not just say this. I assume he testified to this. The current phrasing makes it sound like he spilled the beans to a gossip columnist) that Reagan signed a finding, which was drafted by the CIA two months after the missile shipment, intended to help free U.S. hostages in the Mideast.^[5] (So what on earth is the significance of this? If I am learning about the subject from the article do I really know? I believe the signifigance is that this is seen as evidence that Reagan was in on it, This, however, is not clear from the article) The International Court of Justice (whose jurisdiction to decide the case was disputed^[6]) ruled that the U.S. had violated international law in Nicaragua^[7] due to its treaty obligations and the customary obligations of international law not to intervene in the affairs of other states.

John Tower, Edmund Muskie and Brent Scowcroft made up the non-partisan, three-man "Tower Commission," appointed by Reagan, to review the scandal. (Were they appointed to review the scandal, "Yep, this sure is one hell of a scandal," or were they appointed to investigate it?) The commission determined that the president did not have knowledge of the extent of the program, therefore he didn't lie to the American people, but criticized him heavily for not properly supervising his subordinates or being aware of their actions. (I have already said what's wrong with this sentence above, but looking at it again I would like to add that there is also something wrong with the sentence structure. The "therefore he did not lie to the American people" splits the sentence making it awkward.)^[8] Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger was indicted for perjury and later received a presidential pardon from George H. W. Bush. In 2006, historians ranked the Iran-Contra affair as one of the ten worst mistakes by a U.S. president.^[9]

According to The Washington Post (Is this standard Wikipedia practice to name of the paper in the article???), some Central Americans criticize Reagan for his support of the Contras, saying he was an anti-communist zealot, blinded to human rights abuses, while others say he "saved Central America" and helped "nurture democratic governments and free-market systems across the region." (There has to be a better way to say all this. I am going to look for some polling on Reagan and central America. I think most people in central American would fall on the anti-Reagan side, but I will find something to back that up. As this is currently written it does not properly articulate this particular critique of Reagan and is more of a some critics say, but look what a great guy he is line.) ^[10] Daniel Ortega, Sandinistan leader of Nicaragua from 1979 to 1990, said that he hoped God would forgive Reagan for his "dirty war against Nicaragua."^[10]

We can discuss the various criticisms in here, but even if you think only half of them are accurate, this section has serious problems with POV which are reflective of the article. The best way I can describe it is the criticism of Reagan is given a some critics say, but look what a great guy he is treatment. Wikipediatoperfection 20:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Look at the section now. Happyme22 22:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Easily fixed to fairly include the BBC coverage in a more complete way. As an aside, I think that your comments regarding your opinion of how the American people view President Reagan or Clinton are irrelevant to whether this article should be featured. JCO312 19:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I had originally written that most Central-Americans didn't like Reagan because of this this & this, but someone added how he is liked there for "balance." Happyme22 22:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Cold War & Star Wars: This section also seems to lack the benefit of time in relation to Star Wars. The way the article puts it is Reagan said Star Wars would work, critics said it wouldn't. This may have been the disagreement at the time (I think is was pretty clear it would not work at the time, but I doubt we can get a consensus for that), however, we now have the perspective of time that the DoD still can't get something similar to Star Wars to remotely work 30 years later (my definition of working is precisely the same as everyone else's, it has to be able to differentiate between decoys and real nukes and shoot down 100% of incoming ICBMs carrying nuclear warheads, and they still are not anywhere close to shooting down a single ICBM).

• I don't fully understand your point. Happyme22 21:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What I understand is that, if this article explored in detail every topic as suggested, it would be 3 times too long. Right now, it makes excellent use of summary style, and the interested reader can go to the other articles for additional detail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My point, which in retrospect was not very clear, is that many people think it was not simply a difference of some say it would work, some say it wouldn't. His critics do not think he was simply wrong about this, they think he sort of knew it would not work, but did not care, ignored the science, and pushed for it anyway. My point was that with the perspective of time it is fairly clear that Reagan was full of it when he said Star Wars was technically feasible. Wikipediatoperfection 20:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Legacy: This section reads like a fan page. It lacks a serious analysis of his legacy from the left or the right. This part of the section should be seen as a starting point for a serious look at his legacy:

Reagan's supporters believe that much of America's success today can be attributed to Ronald Reagan, including a more efficient and more prosperous economy,^[11] a peaceful end to the Cold War, and a world safer from the threat of nuclear war.^[12] Critics argue that his economic policies caused huge budget deficits, tripling the United States national debt.^[13]

• Umm can I ask what's wrong with this? Citations are provided. Happyme22 21:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the part that is fine. What I am saying is that the rest of the legacy section reads like a fan page and this quote from the article should be the starting point for a good legacy section. Wikipediatoperfection 21:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Example of fan page text, please ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If Ronald Reagan were my hero I would put this quote on my wall:

The noted presidential biographer Richard Reeves summarized in President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination that Reagan understood

• Ronald Reagan is not my hero, but this quote is currently the lead in to the legacy section. Wikipediatoperfection 01:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed the quote, because I can see how it can be POV-ish. Happyme22 08:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, please look at the Legacy section now. It is much more neutral and presents a more fair picture of Reagan's legacy. Happyme22 17:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me to be a sufficient list of problems that need to be tackled before it can be a featured article. I obviously expect there to be disagreement on a lot of what I have criticized (particularly the stuff about Star Wars), but I think a lot of my criticism is that from both the right and the left this article lacks substance on certain issues. I think this is particularly true of the legacy section and the article's general lack of explanation of Reagan's importance in shaping the conservative movement. For better or for worse, Reagan's presidency was a coming out party for the conservative movement. This is missing from the legacy section and largely missing from the article. Wikipediatoperfection 21:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my comments to the above "questionable issues." Happyme22 21:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit worried that you're quoting from other Wikipedia articles, expecting this article to incorporate information from an unreliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wiki articles are a good starting point, a quick way to show you what I am saying. These other Wikipedia articles could be better referenced and we can find good sources for what they are saying. However, once this content is better sourced, it will essentially say the same thing as the Wikipedia articles Wikipediatoperfection 21:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which means there's no reason to repeat the text here, since this article is already at the size guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Sandy. It seems pointless to repeat what's said in other articles in this article. Happyme22 22:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And I have to say that I am not surprised at all, you two have agreed on everything up and down this page. I think you are both missing what I am trying to say. I am not saying that the article should be longer per se, I am saying that the above information is what I think needs to be incorporated to make the article NPOV. Without info from the Tower report and/or hearings the section on the Iran-Contra affair is unbalanced. What you are saying to me (at least as I perceive it) is the equivalent of me saying to you, "Oh, you think the article in anti-Reagan? You think Reagan had no knowledge that Iran-Contra was going on? Well, why would we we repeat text here. That is in other articles anyway. The important information, that he could not recall certain things during the hearing and that the Tower report was extremely critical of Reagan is all there. The article is already to size, why would we add your text to it?" This may be over the top, but I think it will make my point. There is a time and place for sending things to smaller sub articles (see this peer review I did Wikipedia:Peer_review/Mountain_Meadows_massacre#Wikipediatoperfection_review) and that is when uncontroversial nonessential background information is cluttering the page. This hardly qualifies.
• I am going to try to respond to all of your questions above as quickly as possible. Out of curiosity, I know Happyme22 is the main conservative contributor/ main contributor overall to this article, but is there a main liberal/progressive contributor to this article? The reason I ask is because I think that, correct me if I am wrong, this article has primarily been written by diligent Reagan fans who have in general made great strides to make the article NPOV, but do not have a regular main liberal or progressive contributor to balance the article out. Anyway, this is my impression, correct me if I'm wrong.
• You are unlikely to change my mind this go around. If this fails to become a feature article this time around (which obviously I think it should) I would be willing to work with both of you (and any other main contributors), make significant contributions, iron out the sections where we have differences, reach a consensus, and recommend the page together to be a featured article. Wikipediatoperfection 00:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I added a sentence in the Iran Contra affair section about the Tower Commission's findings. Is that better? Happyme22 02:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This article is well-written and well-laid out. The issue of POV is a difficult one with any political figure in living memory, but the editors of this article have done a very good job of keeping things as neutral as possible. Coemgenus 20:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Happyme22 21:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-Comment: Yes, Happyme22 I was talking about the sub-section "Popular opinion" in "Legacy" in my earlier comment. KnowledgeHegemony 06:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well I removed the header and kept I think 2 out of the 4 setences that were in the section. I wanted to keep the most recent polls as well. Does the section look better? Happyme22 17:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither oppose or support I don't see any explanation of his politico-economic philosophy. I think that's crucial for an article on Reagan. Operation Spooner 04:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide bullet points/outline for reference... what exactly are you requesting? Ling.Nut 04:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he read the classical liberal economists, such as Bastiat, Mises, and Hayek. [7] He accepted their prescriptions as his own. His economic philosophy was laissez-faire. And if you listen to his inaugural speech it was very anti-government control over the economy, anti-welfare state, and pro-self-reliance. If we are to know the man, we need to know more about what he was thinking. There was a method to his madness. There has to be references out there explaining his philosophy and what writers influenced him. What was the message in the speeches he wrote? Without this, I think the article is too superficial. Operation Spooner 04:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for your comment. Happyme22 08:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is a "Religious beliefs and philosophy section." There should be a discussion of his political and economic philosophy there. Operation Spooner 18:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you oppose the article over a single matter than why don't you fix it yourself, because you seem to know what you're talking about per one of Wiki's policies: Be Bold. Happyme22 06:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added something about it. I changed my mind about it being in the philosophy section. It is only a sentence and is essential. Other than opposition to political communism, his economic philosophy of self-reliance, low taxation, opposition to the welfare state, is what he was all about. He spoke about it all the time. It deserves a sentence in the introduction. Operation Spooner 22:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and I have worked that out. Would you consider supporting now? Happyme22 01:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well done. Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 13:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Happyme22 17:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support Support - The last time I voted on this FAC (previous nomination) I objected because of prose. I'm not comfortable stating that any article has "brilliant" prose, but to pick two other terms in the criteria I certainly think it is engaging and of a professional standard. As for my conditional support, there are a few things that bugged me:

• Regarding " Reagan tested the Presidential waters in 1968 as part of a "Stop Nixon" movement which included those from the party's far right. Reagan won the pledges of some 600 delegates, but Richard Nixon quickly steamrolled to the nomination" -- the steamroll comment left me thinking how? So I went to Richard Nixon, not covered there either. So finally I made it to United States presidential election, 1968#Republican Party nomination which explains. Of course a paragraph of the same size would be crazy here - maybe just say "Nixon arrived at the convention with 98% of the votes needed for the nomination. ...oh and possibly link one of the words using the piped, maybe convention?

 Done Happyme22 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Led by William J. Casey, the 1980 presidential campaign was" made me read it twice. Would it not be better to say "Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign, managed by William J. Casey, was..."

 Done Happyme22 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "The diaries were recently published" is a no-no. Recently soon becomes out of date. More accurate to say "The Diaries were published in May 2007" anyway.

 Done Happyme22 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "In his first inaugural address, which Reagan himself wrote,[50] he addressed the economic malaise he inherited, arguing: "Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem." The Reagan Presidency began in an historic manner: on 20 January 1981 just 30 minutes into his inaugural address, 52 American hostages, held by Iran for 444 days were set free.[51]" is disjointed. Would it not be better to say "In his first inaugural address on 20 January 1981,..... rather than mentioning the date later.

 Done Happyme22 23:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger aborted the mission, however, reportedly because of his concerns that it would harm U.S. relations with other Arab nations. " is both too significant to remain unreferenced and also weasel words without a reference i.e. "reportedly"

 Done - I worded this a little more neutrally, but I don't know if I can find a source for that, so I just said the mission was aborted. Happyme22 23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, this instance is "Caspar" a later instance says "Casper" - I believe the former is the correct one and the latter should be corrected.

 Done Happyme22 23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 2006, historians ranked the Iran-Contra affair as one of the ten worst mistakes by a U.S. president" - would be better to say "9th in the top ten worst..." - Gives it a better context and I personally was interested to see and had to go to the reference.

 Done Happyme22 23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Good work though to all involved. Mark83 18:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The check marks I added speak for themselves! Would you consider a totally supporting? Happyme22 22:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I also see NPOV issues with this article, particularly in the legacy section. I opposed commented on (but would have opposed later) the last nomination of this article, and none of the concerns I raised were addressed. (See the last nomination for what I said then.) Instead of a balanced assessment of the impact of the Reagan presidency, we have quotes from what people said at his funeral. People say nice things at everyone's funeral! Get a historian and not a eulogist to tell me what Reagan's legacy is. Calliopejen1 08:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added two critiques of Reagan in the "Legacy" section, and removed the Dick Cheney quote. See what you think. Happyme22 22:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, now it's more balanced, but it's still insubstantial. I would hope after reading an article about Ronald Reagan, the reader would have a good idea of who (among reliable sources who normally assess this, i.e. serious historians) thought he was a good president, who thought he was a bad president, and why. All we have now is a couple people gushing, and a couple people saying the gushing is unwarranted. Calliopejen1 10:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please look at the "Legacy" section now. I have removed all the quotes by George Bush, Bill Clinton, etc., and replaced them with quotes by historians. Better? Happyme22 17:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There's a misplaced modifier in the lead: "After surviving an assassination attempt during his first term, experiencing a period of economic growth,[1] and ordering a military operation in Grenada, Reagan was...". Surely it was the U.S., not Reagan, that experienced the period of economic growth. =) Perhaps substitute "overseeing" for "experiencing"? Although I guess some might argue that's not NPOV. 69.202.45.153 15:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have done that. Thanks for the heads-up. Happyme22 22:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Oppose The legacy section in particular is highly biased in Reagan's favour and the clique of self-confessed Reaganites will not allow any mention of how his policies directly lead the deaths of some 300,000 in Central America.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 21:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You are also the one who thinks Ronald Reagan is a murderer and wanted that to be written in the article. We already took your "advice" and wrote that many Central Americans don't think highly of him at all. And you still have not provided a citation to show that Reagan's policies "led to the death of 300,000 Central Americans." Happyme22 22:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even a busted clock is correct twice a day, Hap. All of the user's Big Bag of Crazy aside, he makes a valid point that he is largely reviled by a large number of people even now, almost 30 years later. That balance is missing from the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what he wrote on my talk page:

"The Contras were not anti-communist because the Nicaraguan government was not communist. See the Wiki page on the FSLN. I am not committing vandalism I am correcting an error which I will continue to do. If you have some God-like power to block me then I hope you feel really good about yourself for supressing the truth.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 06:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject I note that you call yourself a Christian. Well, you may care to know that some 300,000 died in Central America as a direct result of your hero Reagan's policies; 60,000 in Nicaragua, 80,000 in El Salvador and the rest in Guatemala. The Contra terrorists gouged out eyes, chopped of genitalia, stabbed pregnant women in the belly. These were all routine. Those charming freedom-lovers who Reagan called the 'moral equivalent of the French Resistance'. And for what? What possible treat did these tiny countries thousands of miles away from the USA pose?. I will tell you: a threat to the profits of United Fruit (Dole) and Del Monte. The land-reform policies of the FSLN were a threat to the profit margins of these two US-based fruit multinationals. Block me if it makes to feel better to deny these truths but I must tell you that I am Christian too and one day we will both have to stand before God. Don't say you weren't warned.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

NPOV? I even consider that a personal attack! And a citation still has not been provided! Happyme22 16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Oppose - This article reads like a Republican Party advertisement. The Lead is so over the top with peacocking and over-blown claims that reflect little of its actual purpose of reflecting the article via summary. The sections are bloated, and on one case (Religious views) utterly unnecessary. there seems to be strong opposition to change within the article, and a significant re-write is long, long overdue. However, the pics are nice. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well we have already talked about the lead on the talk page - when I get around to it in the next few days (I probably can't do it today) I'm going to work with you on the lead and we'll come up with something. And I will get rid of the religious views section and incporate the text throughout. Best, Happyme22 16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Good article, seems neutral and generally stable; once the wording is fixed in the above critiques, should be good to go. Judgesurreal777 04:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Happyme22 16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The honors section seems needlessly long and listy and would probably be better summarized and moved to a subpage. I'm not sure what work has been done to incorporate the criticism that Wikipediatoperfection mentioned was lacking, but I think that is definitely more important than this if we're prioritizing for space. Calliopejen1 10:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually there's been a lot that was done. We removed much of the less-important things named after Reagan (i.e. highways, roads, schools, etc.) and made room for a more neutral Reaganomics section. The Iran Contra affair I must admit is a lot more neutral, with substantial criticisms of Reagan and his admin. The War on drugs was almost completly redone... Wikipediatoperfection has had an impact on this article, bottom line. Happyme22 16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Oppose - On two grounds: 1. Does not comply with requirements for FAC, specifically stability and neutrality. This is a fan page strongly protected by partisans who gang up on anyone who points out factual errors, POV concerns, and innappropriate sources, and calls them "anti-Reagan" (and Happy and Sandy et al: please don't waste our time trying that on me; take a look at my contributions and you'll see that I am scrupulous about NPOV, facts and reliable sources, and not letting politics enter my edits). It is not neutral, and it is not stable. 2. The second objection is far more serious: this is the (5th? 6th?) time we are being asked to consider this article for FAC within a very short period of time. Besides taking up a lot of valuable time (and proving my point about it being a fanboy lovefest for Reagan), each time the article is submitted (by the same editor, who is the protector and "owner" of this article) before the concerns, problems and errors have been completely resolved...there appears to be a great anxiety on the part of the "owner" that this article achieve FAC status, as soon as possible and at all costs. That alone should raise enough eyebrows regarding its acceptance as FAC. Info999 17:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

1. Please do us all a favor and re-read WP:NPA. Then live it.

Comment Perhaps you would like to point out exactly how you think I've violated this policy? The policy guards against attacks against a person, instead of arguments against reasoning, sourcing, logic, etc. I have attacked no one personally. Relevant (and ironic) factoid, Ling: the policy expressly states that accusing someone without justification of failing to adhere to the policy is in itself a violation of the policy! Info999 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. As for the articles multiple noms.. in fact.. if it fails this time, then I plan to hit it very very hard in the first or second week of next month (real-life permitting, which may actually be a concern)... yes I like Reagan but am a (nascent) scholar first, last and always, so I'll be keen on NPOV. Then I plan to re-nom it almost immediately. So feel free to include me in the broad brush strokes of your ad hominem comments if you like, even though I hadn't touched this article before this particle FAC nom. -- Ling.Nut 18:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, you accuse me of something "bad" without being able to point to any specifics. Pointing out that an article is a fan lovefest is not a personal attack, even on those who are participating in the lovefest! Not only is the neutrality of this article regularly questioned by well-meaning and politically-neutral editors (that alone fails the FAC test), but it should concern many of us that there is a great urgency to have it accepted as an FA - while continually failing to adhere to the rules governing FAs, and continually failing to be accepted. Info999 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I've nominated this 5 of 6 times and it has failed all times...so what? The MOS doesn't say how many times an article can/should be nominated therefore your second objection is irrelevant. This time we actually have 12 supports and it just might stand a chance of passing. And if it doesn't, like Ling.Nut said, there's a pretty good chance it will pass soon afterward. I know this is suprising to you Info but I'm going to complement you - yes me, the mean old conservative. Thank you, Info999, for adding more facts to the iran Contra affair section and making it more balanced! Happyme22 03:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrasing then: Comment on content, not on the contributor. (Quoting from NPA). But I had forgotten the cardinal rule that responding to ad hominem is always and everywhere conterproductive, because people who resort to it never admit they are making ad hominem attacks, never admit any viewpoint beside their own, etc etc etc. So will strike all above.. as per WP:USELESS. -- Ling.Nut 19:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. It's remarkable how this FAC has brought out the POV pushers (most of whom have yet to provide reliable sources for the content they want inserted) and unsubstantiated claims about editors protecting the article. I don't have this article watchlisted, did not support it on the previous SIX FACs, and have largely confined my edits to ref and MOS cleanup (intensive work that results in a high edit content, making me look like a significant contributor, but you'll find I have a high edit count on any article I do ref and MOS cleanup on—I'm also one of the highest contributors to Barack Obama because I cleaned up refs). The POV of the persons opposing the nomination is abundantly apparent ("Reagan's dark/criminal side?") and no actionable POV has been identified and backed by reliable sources. If POV pushers can sidetrack this nom, then they should take an equally close look at the featured article Barack Obama or the standards set on Wiki for featured bios by articles like Austin Nichols. A double standard is at play here, and POV pushers appear to be attempting to destabilize the article so they can claim its unstable. Ah, such is the Wiki ! Will they succeed? Only Raul knows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The Borateen image is still listed as a work of the US Federal Government, which makes no sense. Just because it's found on a .gov website doesn't mean it's in the public domain. Haukur 15:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The picture problem has been fixed. Would you consider striking your opposition? Happyme22 16:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Good (becuase *that one* was a valid oppose :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I take note of the many opposes, but suggest that every president is controversial, and is both beloved and be-hated :-). There simply isn't room enough in one article to explore the many nooks and crannies of the arguments on both sides, but this article does a good job of at least bringing them to the table. I strongly suggest that all remaining concerns be addressed in subarticles, such as Reaganomics Cheers! -- Ling.Nut 18:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ling.Nut for your help! Best, Happyme22 18:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I believe I read once that, by definition, the president of the united states is always simultaneously the most-loved and most-despised person in politics. I read the article with only consideration of the POV-concerns. I come away with the impression that he did some things quite well, some things quite poorly, and historians and pundits disagree about a lot of it. The article takes an excellent and appropriate just the facts, m'am approach. Bravo! --JayHenry 02:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Best, Happyme22 03:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Refuse to participate - usually I'll just quietly abstain from FAC discussions, but in this case I think some uninvolved commentary might prove useful. While most articles that reach FA status have some good shepherds who steward articles through the FAC process, I think that we've moved past that and are bordering on ownership issues. When each and every comment or concern is vehemently dissected and answered, and each support vote is thanked by the same one or two editors it has a chilling effect on dissent and discussion. Couple that with said shepherds characterizing opposition as "invalid" (or commenting that only one oppose vote is "valid") and we have a process that is hopelessly tainted. I would vote strong oppose for many of the reasons listed above, but I don't care to have my motives challenged or have a list of POV concerns nit-picked by those who are pushing so hard to have a gold star at the top of this article. I have no doubt that this FAC will probably pass, however my abstinance should serve as a record of concern regarding the validity and vigorousness of pre-FA discussion. /Blaxthos 13:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

Cricket World Cup

This article has undergone massive renovations to bring it up to scratch with the likes of FIFA World Cup and Rugby World Cup. See first PR, failed FAC, second PR. It is a GA. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 21:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support(partial contributor). This article meets the criteria and it's a really important sports related article.--Thugchildz

• Object For now because it is almost there. Tournament and Media coverage sections need exspanding. The "Performance of teams" section looks a bit odd stuck between two tables. The lead infobox should only have the current champion. A lot of original reserch. Buc 22:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Please point out the occurences of original research so that we can fix them. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  what else is there to do? the tournament and media coverage have been expanded, the tables are the same way for the fifa world cup and thats a FA, and you still have not pointed out orginal research.

• Object (for this state:[8]). The article looks good, but I still have some comments below. (Note: please don't mix your replies/answers/comments on my comment below as it will confuse who said which. The darkred fonts were copy-pasted from the article.)
  1. Please complete all fair use rationale of all fair use images used in this article. Some fair use images, esp. logos, have high resolution. Its size should be reduced, per WP:FAIR.
  2. I'm not really good at compelling prose criterion, but the following sentences do not have a good flow. The first cricket Test match was played in 1877 between Australia and England. Cricket was included as a sport at the 1900 Summer Olympics, where Great Britain defeated France in the final to win the gold medal. Cricket was not included in subsequent summer olympics. The next international cricket competition was the 1912 Triangular Tournament. They just look like bulleted items presented in a paragraph. No conjunction words and there is big gap between sentences.
  3. I'm not also good at grammar, but this is the first time I read the word "while" is used strangely without a complete sentence. Here they are: Non-Test playing teams from the last World Cup automatically qualifies for the Qualifier. While, the next best ranked teams are seeded in division two and division three. From division three, two teams are promoted to division two. From that, four teams qualify for the World Cup Qualifier. While the others are still in contention. (see the bold part). Also, it confuses me to read "From that". Which "that" is it? the division three or the division two?
  4. Again with the cutoff half-clauses (main and subordinate into two sentences) like these: The top two teams from division five then moves up to division four. From which, the top two teams are promoted to division three (second edition).
  5. Could you just draw a graph to show how the qualification process works, rather than confusing sentences of "from that", "from which" and other "from..." ?
  6. The television distribution rights to the 2007 Cricket World Cup have been sold to EchoStar Communications Corporation, which will be broadcasting to viewers from countries around the world, including an estimated 12 million viewers in the United States, which is a non-cricket playing nation. (too many "which"es)
  7. The number of references is a bit thin, compared to the article size. Some sentences need inline citations, for instance:
     • The first cricket Test match was played in 1877 between Australia and England.
     • Australia won the championship by defeating England by 7 runs, the closest margin ever in World Cup final history.
     • ...,were awarded victory by default after riots broke out in protest against the Indian performance.
     • The 1999 event was held in England, with some matches also being held in Scotland, Ireland and Netherlands.
     • In 2009 the name "ICC Trophy" will be changed to "ICC World Cup Qualifier".
     • The 2007 Cricket World Cup will feature 16 teams allocated into four groups of four.
     • There is still room for another ten teams to have their name inscribed.
     • The tournament today is one of the world’s largest and most viewed sporting events. (I don't believe this. Compare to the FIFA World Cup?)
  8. Now let's look at the current references:
     • 2. ^ Cricket World Cup PDF → please complete this.
     • 3. ^ a b Ruthless Aussies lift World Cup. bbc.co.uk. Retrieved on 29 August 2006 → when did this news appear?
     • 17. ^ Wisden Cricketers Almanack 2004 → what is this? book? newspaper? who is the publisher?
     • 18. ^ ICC Cricket World Cup Anti-infringement programme → infringement? It's only FAQs. Which one is it?
     • Ref. 18 & 19 link to the same place, but they give different citations.
     • For all citation to news, please provide also when the news appeared. It's not informative to state only when you accessed it.
  9. Numerous sponsorship deals have been made for each of the World Cups, for example, the sponsors for the 2007 Cricket World Cup include LG Electronics, Pepsi, Hutch, Hero Honda, Indian Oil, Scotiabank and Visa. Of course, all modern sport events now have sponsors. I don't think spelling out sponsors for a tournament is an encyclopaedic terms.
  10. In the "See Also" section, there are two wikilinks: "International cricket in 2006-07" and "International cricket in 2007". Why are they different?

— Indon (reply) — 23:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment all objections have been addressed and explained to the users who objected;here & here--Thugchildz

(Moved from my talk page, please address all concerns about this article's review here. Please don't put them in my talk page, okay?) — Indon (reply) — 08:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello, thank you for pointiing out the things that needs to be improved on the article. Right now most of you ojections for the article's FA have been addressed so can you please strike out you objection and comments (with <del>...</del>).

Edit:i found out im not supposed to do that so sorry about that.--Thugchildz

Response I know how to strike, but I don't like striking reviews. It's awful to read strikes in a review. I will only strike my oppose vote later after running a second look. — Indon (reply) — 08:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second look. I'm still opposing it after a glance look again to the page. Take one example, ^ Book:Wisden Cricketers Almanack 2004. Is this a good way of citing a source? Please read examples in WP:CITET and then you know why. (Note: WP:CITET is not mandatory but it is a good place to see what minimal parameters for a citation to be informative.)) — Indon (reply) — 15:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it has a better source now--Thugchildz

• Comment some images still lack fair use rationales. Also, the refs need to be completed with authors, dates (and pages for the PDF files), for example, ref no. 3 has an update date, but isn't cited; ref no. 7 also names the author but it isn't cited either. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 06:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  what do you mean by ref no.3 abd 7 not being cited? also all of them are complete with authors and the dates, plus PDF have now the page no. and plus as said above WP:CITET is not mandatory--Thugchildz

  I mind, this source names the author and the publication date (Martin Williamson / April 30, 2005), if you cite that source as a reference, you've got to include all the information, it doesn't matter if you're using a citation template or not. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 01:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:CITET does not say you have to include all the info. it only says that the bold ones are required and plus those templates don't even have to be used, so i dont think its mandatory include every single info about the source. may be i am wrong but not that i know of--Thugchildz

  The bold parameters in WP:CITET are required for the template to work. If you don't use the "title", or the "url" parameter, the ref will show an error. Read Wikipedia:Citing_sources and Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 02:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is not directly related to the article. I use a widescreen display and the "Infobox Cricket Tournaments" is grossly oversized in that format, i.e. I think its default size should be set so that its the same size in a 4:3 or widescreen display - just big enough to hold all the information. As it is there are massive empty spaces. Mark83 12:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The trophy section of the article has an embedded comment that says <!--Need to add data about the original trophy -->. Is the article complete or incomplete? — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 13:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's complete that was just left there from before--Thugchildz

• Support An excellent, well-illustrated, informative article, with a considered, appropriate use of stats (in a stats-crazy sport) - deserving of FA status. --Dweller 15:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I've pooped out better articles than this. --24.235.229.208 21:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign in and provide some constructive criticism as to why you voted oppose.Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 21:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need to sign in to make coments here? Buc 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you check the history, I didn't strike out his comment, he did it himself, with the edit summary of "vandalism". But I think that if you want your vote to count in the tally, you need to be signed in as this means there can be no sockpuppetry or vote stacking. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 22:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm sorry about forgetting to cite everything using proper templates. It's done now. Please point out any other problems and I'll quickly go and fix them, referencing format shouldn't be the factor keeping this away from FA. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 21:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't think "Most Successful" "Top run scorer(s)" or "Top wicket taker(s)" are really notable enough to be in the lead infobox. Maybe move them to another part of the article. Also I think the lead image should be either the logo or just the trophy on it's own. Buc 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

they are, because cricket is a stats-crazy sport and those are summary of the stats provided in the article--Thugchildz

I think you're right... the leading batsman/bowler need to remain. The "most successful" stat is, however, misleading, as it gives the impression Australia has won 40 world cups. I agree with comments above regarding the image in the info box... perhaps the Australia team image and the trophy image could just swap positions in the otherwise excellent article. --Dweller 23:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

taken care of; the pictures is a issue.--Thugchildz

Not sure what the problem is with the pictures (unless it's a landscape/portrait problem) but the stat is still a bit unhelpful IMHO (although no longer misleading). Surely the reader interested in the most successful side wants to know who's won the most World Cups, not matches? England's win record is pretty decent in terms of matches (joint second best, according to the article)... but they've never won the shiny metal thing. Surely the natural thing to list would be "Australia (1987, 1999, 2003)"? --Dweller 23:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah its lanscape/portrait so the other way looks odd and your right about world cups won not/matches--Thugchildz

• Support A great article; provides good information, well supported with images and good knowledge about this world cup.--Superplaya 01:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment i think you have to sign to have it count, right?--Thugchildz

Superplaya (talk · contribs) newly registered user - first edits to WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Having worked on the article I don't wish to support or object it, but I would like to bring out a few problems I have with the article at present.
  1. The infobox for me serves little to no purpose when all of the information quoted in the box is already stated in the introduction right next to it (with the exception of the top run scorer and wicket taker). On top of that I have problems with what is in the infobox: "Time Line" should be read as timeline and "round robin, super sixes and knockout" should not be capitalised. "Total participants" is misleading - this could mean a number of things and is ambiguous even to a reader familiar with the topic. But all of that said, I still believe it should be removed altogether and would like to hear the thoughts of other editors about this one.
  2. I have major issues with the use of some images. I fail to see the purpose of the inclusion of the 2007 Mascot under "Media coverage" and the use of Clide Lloyd's photo with the number 75 stuck on. The Trophy image should be used as the lead picture instead of the picture of the Australian team. The topic in question is the Cricket World Cup, not the Cricket World Cup champions.
  3. The article has a few factual errors. Instantly when I read the introduction I see that a "Super 6" stage is one of the tournament stages. This is incorrect, as the upcoming tournament will have a "Super 8" round robin stage.
  4. I don't see the purpose of "Process summary in chronological order" of qualification. Maybe it's just me, but I think it goes into too much depth.

That was just to point out a few major issues. I don't think this article is ready to be featured just yet. --mdmanser 02:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for enlightening us, will take these to account. also super 6 will be changed to super 8 when it happens, not before. the mascot is related and Clide Lloyd's picture is for the 1st world cup and is fine with fair use as it's not better than it would be printed from original copy, that said it belongs to represent the 1st ever world cup; you cant expect pictures back to the same as picture of later on. chronological order is what the explains it best. these have already been addressed and/or discussed in the peer reveiw--Thugchildz

also on the other hand the topic is the cricket world cup not cricket world cup trophy, so what makes the tournament- world cup- the trophy or the people?--Thugchildz

It's up to you whether you want "Super 8" or "Super 6" in the article, but whichever it is, the wording needs to be changed accordingly. "Nowadays" implies the present; Super 6 is no longer used. Also, let's get opinions from other editors about whether the infobox should stay or go. Peer review is much less critical than this stage (as I've learned before) and it would be smart to address all possible concerns now rather than in 2 weeks. --mdmanser 02:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough--Thugchildz

• Comments. Why are the news report citation not reporting the date of publishing of the news? Without them, citations look incomplete. Also, I think that the "format" in the infobox is highly misleading. Any reader who reads it now would most likely be interested in the format in place, not the one outdated. For a casual reader who came to the page to confirm how the format would be like would be misled by the infobox that it would involve a super six. While it is true that until the event takes place, super eight would never be in place, but it is equally true that super six is is no longer in use. I think we should mention the latest format decided by the ICC, and make a footnote saying that the event with this format is yet to take place. Also, the world cup tournament isn't an everyday phenomenon, so writing "nowadays" in the lead is highly misleading. Also, it reinstates the view that the upcoming world cup would follow the super six format. Now, regarding the image to be placed in the lead, there could have been a possibility of a debate if there were two possible images. However, as I noted on the article talk page, the Aussie cricket team image violates the fair use criteria since a free replacement of the world cup's image is available. It needs to go and the trophy's image needs to be put in its place. Regarding the "Participants" in infobox, it is not clear what "from 97 entrants" mean. By standard dictionary definition, entrant is a synonym of participant. How are they different? — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 06:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Like most world cups in sport, many countries fail to qualify for the finals tournament. --Dweller 06:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I knew that all along. What I was trying to say is that a reader not knowing it would get confused. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 08:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  as said above entrants are the teams that tried but failed to make it to the final 16 for the final tournament. picture is not a replacement because it trophy alone doesn't show australia with the trophy does it? so its not a vio for fair use criteria. also the citation is a only big issue now and it would be great if anyone could solve it--Thugchildz

  Why do you think it is important to show Australia with the cup? I don't think that provides any additional information. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 08:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Super Six to Super Eight change has been made. I'm not sure about the image placement in the lead but neither do I really care which image ends up there. If people really want to get rid of the Australian win image then we can do so. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 08:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I request other editors to assess the issue of fair use claim of the image. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 08:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As much as I'm a cricket fan, I'll have to Object per 1(a), the prose doesnt really seem that compelling, with some redundant terms in there (eg. The number of teams getting selected through the ICC Trophy has varied from event to event. Currently, it selects six teams for the Cricket World Cup.) just to point out one. (Referencing in concerned section has been done --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 01:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC))The Performance of teams section could do with some references per 1(c). --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 14:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Further to that, the tournament format could be referenced, especially the Super 6 stage, cause its unclear whether the Super 6 format may continue into WC 2007. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 23:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I personally disagree with Super 6 and Super 8 being separate articles (as both can change over time as the WC expands and more associate nations eg Canada.. (go Asish Bagai!) have to qualify to participate in expanded World Cups). All concerns have been addressed, and will be more than happy enough to Support. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good article, easy to understand for the most part, but thats because i don't know much about cricket--Kbk1 22:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: Above user's first edit Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 23:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The infobox is unnecessary and rebundant. Most of the information could be found easily in the lead or in respective sections (the statstics section at the end). So what is its use? CG 17:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  it was answered already "I don't believe the infobox needs removing because it is more informative then a picture of the world cup alone. It is not more or less useful than a biography article having an infobox about the person's death, birth and occupation etc. As all these things are presented in the article itself. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

  --Thugchildz

• CG, discussion on the infobox is on the article's talk page. You will notice that I supported the removal and I still do despite Thugchildz's and Noble's arguments. However, I don't mind if it stays especially after it has undergone a bit of renovating and no longer misleads the reader in any way. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  can anyone check and strike out the objections that's been addressed; that would be most of them I think.--Thugchildz

• Suggestion. Is it worth putting this bid on hold till after the 2007 tournament? Buc 14:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No WikiProject Cricket wants it to be FA in time for 2007 tournament--Thugchildz

  But the article will have to be notably changed during and after the tournament. So even if it's a FA now it may not be after the 2007 tournament. Buc 09:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really, 2007 Cricket World Cup would change a lot, but this is just general phenomena and past history, not sport details. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it wouldn't. Everything would just be updated. It deserves FA now. Every article changes but they don't wait arround for it to not change when nominating it and plus that's whay FA review is for. It wouldn't change much anyway because all the things are up to date and so there would just be little things updated or added. At the moment it deserves FA, we can't wait around to see if it will FA in the future or not; no article can. And it would still be a FA most likely. that's just a rubbish--Thugchildz

• The editors must be wondering why so many people have commented, yet so few have supported the article. In my opinion, this is because the article's language is not up to the mark to become an FA. I request the editors to find someone with good English to copyedit the article. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 03:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not wondering......(I'm not the author of the page), but yeah, the reviewers aren't impressed and they know the FAC isn't "winning" at this stage, so they don't really have any reason to drop by for a while. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the biggest obstacle in the article is the mediocre standard of prose. As one of the major contributers to the article, I'll be too "attached" to it if I try copediting. So can you suggest anyone (probably two or three people) willing to copyedit the article? Gizza^{Chat ©} 04:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Nichalp would be an ideal person to copyedit the article. Not only is he good at copyediting, he also understands the topic well in depth. So he will also be able to provide inputs on comprehensiveness. Thugchildz has asked for his help, let's see what comes of it. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 13:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I have finally got around to doing a full end-to-end copyedit. Another pass from a second editor may be a good idea, but this it very good. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'd support this article per the nomination listed. I think that it is a great treatment of an important topic.--Eva ^bd 19:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Very close to support now. They thing bugging me is that maybe the "Awards" section could put into a table. Buc 11:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  that could be done but would be too many tables...also the section explaining why they got the award might get messy--Thugchildz

  Well I've added it in. Looks fine to me. Buc 09:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Another issues with the wording. Thugchildz says that saying "tornament" all the time is "boring". I wouldn't have thought how boring an article is would matter, it's designed to infom not entertain. I would also say sticking to the same wording in more encyclopedic but I'm not really bothered. Anyone eles got a preference either way? Buc 21:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No it has to be both informative and interesting at the same time. A well written article is never boring.--Thugchildz

• Question Last night I made a new infobox for the page which was later reverted and somewhat incorporated into the original by Thugzchild. The difference between the two different versions can be seen here and here. I've removed some of the entries from the infobox which are very ambiguous and technically incorrect (there have been more than 97 participants). Given that there have been numerous ways of tournament formatting I simple changed the infobox to read "multiple (see article)". Which version should be used? --mdmanser 00:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well first off, I don't see why there's need to be two different infoboxes that basically does the same thing. Right now the orinal version doesn't have anything ambigous and technically incorrect. There cant be more than 97 because if your not a ICC member you can't qualify for the tournment. The format of the tournament goes by the current format, "multiple" imo is ambiguous. Also some of the better things were incorporated into the orinal one because the original one is used by other articles as well so why does there need to be two infoboxes when the orinal one can do the same thing?--Thugchildz

• Support Everything looks good now. Buc 11:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I would like the history to be more comprehensive and informative, but it has been cut down before. I have left some comments on the article's talk page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The history part is informative I think. 1st it had more details and then some editors said it had excesive trivia and so it was cut down some. It still is has everything without geting into too much details, which should be in the main article- history of the world cup and the specific world cup articles anyway imo--Thugchildz

  I've done so. Hopefully we will have a problem of choice. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - the infobox is now admirable, containing a good mix of "top level" info, without digressing into minutiae. The History section is about right too, considering that it links to a main article that deals with the subject exclusively and at length. What else needs to be done before this is passed for FA? --Dweller 09:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ha, Dweller just to let you know, you supported the article earlier on! Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think the article is near-FA quality, but not there yet. Here are some of the sentences I found that can do with some editing. I am not doing it myself as others may disagree. (Note: quotes italised)
  • The two teams competed regularly for The Ashes, with South Africa being admitted to Test status in 1889. Part of sentence before and after the comma talk about completely different things. Either bring in flow, or break-up into two sentences.
  • The event was not a success, due to lack of public interest and poor weather. "Not a success": There must be better ways to phrase that.
  • In the subsequent years, international Test cricket has been generally been organised as bilateral series: a multilateral Test tournament was not organised again until the quadrangular Asian Test Championship in 1999. I don't see why a colon is used.
  • Starting in 1962 as a four-team knockout competition (known as the Midlands Knock-Out Cup), and Gillette Cup in 1963, one-day cricket grew in popularity, leading to the formation of the national Sunday League in 1969. The Midlands Cup info is an important part of the sentence (not just an additional info), and thus should be outside braces. Also, I think it would be wise to break this sentence as this is very long.
  • The first One-day International event was played on the fifth day of a rain-aborted Test match between England and Australia at Melbourne in 1971, to fill the time available and as compensation for the frustrated crowd. If cricket matches lasting one day were played since 1960s, then how was the first ODI played in 1971. If the operating word is "official", it should be categorically mentioned.

comment interfere one-day cricket means- limited overs cricket it can be both odi or twenty20. odi is different.--Thugchildz

Actually, it's about the difference between matches at international and non international level. The first one day international was in 1971. Twenty20 is a much more recent innovation. --Dweller 12:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • One notable omission was South Africa, who were banned from international cricket due to apartheid. I think South Africa is singular, and the sentence should have "which was".
  • The 1979 World Cup saw the introduction of the ICC Trophy competition to select non-Test playing teams for the World Cup, with Sri Lanka and Canada qualifying. The sentence seems to end abruptly.
  • India, an outsider quoted at 66 to 1 before the competition began, were crowned champions after upsetting the West Indies by 43 runs in the final. A casual reader wouldn't have a clue what this sentence meant. Who is an outsider, and what is meant by quoted?

comment interfere anyone can understand what it meant by outsiders if they can understand english ok--Thugchildz

A better word to use is "underdog." Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The 1987 tournament was held in India and Pakistan, the first time the competition has been held outside England. Grammar can be improved.
  • Pakistan overcame a dismal start to emerge as winners, defeating England by 22 runs in the final. Unclear: Dismal start in tournament, or in the final?
  • In the semi-final, Sri Lanka, headed towards a crushing victory over India at Eden Gardens (Calcutta) after their hosts lost eight wickets while scoring 120 runs in pursuit of 254, were awarded victory by default after riots broke out in protest against the Indian performance. Extremely difficult to read. Needs to be simplified. Also, if the location of Eden Garden is mentioned here, why isn't location of Lord's mentioned a few paragraphs above. There should be consistency in prose.
  • In 1999 the event returned to England, with some matches also being held in Scotland, Ireland and the Netherlands. Unnecessary anthropomorphism.
  • In the final, Australia dismissed Pakistan for 132 and then reaching the target in less than 20 overs, with eight wickets in hand. Grammer is serious off-track.
  • Kenya's victories, including wins against Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe, and a forfeit by the New Zealand team, which refused to play in Kenya due to security reasons, enabled Kenya to reach the semi finals, where they lost to India. Without sufficient background of significance, this sentence seems completely avoidable. In other words, of the four semi-finalists, why is Kenya singled out for mention. The significance finds mention many sections below under "Performance of teams".
  • In the final, Australia made 359 runs for the loss of two wickets, the largest ever total in a final, to defeat India by 125 runs. Should mention "World Cup final" for clarity. Also, usage of word "final" throughout the article needs to be thought-out because the next paragraph has a sentence like The Test-playing nations and ODI-playing nations qualify automatically for the the World Cup finals.

comment interfere if without sufficient background a person can understand what it meant by winning the world cup, while the finals mean the main tournament. --Thugchildz

• • Currently, six teams are selected for the Cricket World Cup. Should rather start with "For the 200x world cup" to clarify if currently mean 2003 or 2007 world cup.

comment interferecurrently means the current system so no need for it.--Thugchildz

• • The teams were split into two pools, with the top three teams in each pool advancing to the "Super 6" stage, with all six teams playing each other once. Avoid two "with"s.
  • As they advanced, they would also carry their points forward from previous matches against the teams advancing alongside them, giving the teams an incentive to perform well in the group stages. Language can be improved.
  • Teams will earn points for wins and half-points for ties. How many points for win? If one, use "a point" (singular usage).

comment interfere points mean more than 1 and it chances from tournament to trounament how manny points are earn so it simply says it earns points- which works for all of them.--Thugchildz

• • The current trophy was created for the 1999 championships, and was the first permanent prize in the tournament's history; prior to this, different trophies were made for each World Cup. Why use semi-colon where a full-stop would do.
  • Television rights, mainly for the 2011 and 2015 World Cup, were sold for over US$1.1 billion, and sponsorship rights were sold for a further US$500 million. The sentence will be highly misleading if "mainly" is not explained. What else did it constitute?

comment interfere how is it misleading?--Thugchildz

• • Previously, only Man of the Match awards were given in individual matches, although it was considered a particularly good achievement to be Man of the Match in the final, as this generally indicated the player who played the biggest part in winning the World Cup final. Too long sentence.
• In addition to these, the article has additional issues. The first paragraph of "selection of hosts" section is a repeat of things that are already covered in other sections. Why is "Performance of teams" a sub-section of "Summary". The word "Summary" is mis-leading. If you mean the sub-section is a summary of the performance of teams, it is a no-brainer, as articles are meant for summaries. Also, use of geocities.com pages is strictly forbidden as reference. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 11:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Selection of host explains how things works/worked and explains them. Sumarry isn't misleading as it summarizes the past results of the world cups and performace of the teams.--Thugchildz

• I've made some amends to the section headers, including compiling one section with all of the Statistical summaries in it and tightening up some of the titling used to more accurately reflect what's in the section. I hope there's consensus it's an improvement. Otherwise, happy for someone to revert. --Dweller 09:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support like many underrated sports tournament pages it is informative, neat, and well-constructed. Gets my vote anytime. к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 20:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Book sources need ISBN numbers. Buc 09:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  There's only on book being used as source and it as the ISBN numder under the reference section as follows: Browning, Mark (1999). A complete history of World Cup Cricket. Kangaroo Press. ISBN 0-7318-0833-9.

  Thanks. This really helps I think. Book references are more reliable. Buc 09:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, you aren't supposed to put the full book reference in every time when you refer to different parts of the book, you're supposed to have the books separate as a reference, and have the short noteform for each occurrence on each page. Could you undo it please? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Erm, what happens now? I made some changes on the 14th, but all seems done now. What's the process by which this is either approved or more reasons for denying are given? --Dweller 16:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC) I now see that more enhancements are continuing. Do the FA rules mean the article can't be considered until these have died away and the article is "stable"? --Dweller 16:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been wondering that. The only thing can suggest is asking Raul. I was surprise this wasn't included in the judgements made yesterday. I asked Raul about it but so far no response. Buc 19:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, stable is generally meant in terms of the content wars and edit wars, not prose smoothing and minor tweaking. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I suspect Raul654 is just letting this run to see if the remaining object (from Indon, I think) and other comments can be dealt with. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is messy and it's difficult to work out what's outstanding. Is the outstanding query from Indon about the 2006/7 and 2007 issue? If so, there's a difference between the two (hence the two articles existing). The latter deals with cricket played in a specific calendar year. The other deals with events during the Northern hemisphere winter - it's a traditional and useful naming system utilised by cricket books and journals. --Dweller 13:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the main negative comment now seems to be from Arnzy, but a few comments from others. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for the late reply, got stuck with real life domain. I stroke my objection as it is non relevant now after so much discussions and revisions. So my vote is abstain in this nomination. — Indon (reply) — 13:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Image:Image-WCL.jpg is larger than my wallpaper, and Image:Cricket World Cup 2007.png and Image:Icc-cwc2007 mascot.jpg are also to big to be used under fair use. Shrink them and tag them with {{fair use reduced}}. All three also lack detailed fair use rationales. ShadowHalo 02:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If I'm not mistaken they(pictures mentioned above) are all logos from the icc and is for the world cup. The size doesn't need to be reduced. And logo's doesn't need detailed fair use rationales.--Thugchildz

  The only case I can think of when it may be acceptable to use a higher resolution image is when we have explicit permission to use the high resolution version. Logos are no exception to Wikipedia:Fair use. ShadowHalo 04:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe ShadowHalo has now uploaded low-res versions - can this objection be struck out now? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No, they still need fair use rationales. ShadowHalo 13:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support everything sourced now. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Meets all the criteria. I enjoyed reading this article and congratulate the editors involved. —Moondyne 06:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As one of the major contributers initially. The article now satisfies everything on the criteria once the Fair Use images were dealt with. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]