Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thriller (album)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 00:54, 10 September 2008 [1].

Thriller (album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Realist2 (talk)
previous FAC (20:43, 3 July 2008)


I'm nominating this article for FA, I'm the main contributor. — Realist2 12:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes the following sources reliable?
  • I'll admit to being utterly puzzled by current ref 39 (Uncut presents NME originals ...). I'm not sure WHAT is being referenced here. Needs to be clarified.
    • Sure, this is a magazine by NME about 80's music. I bought the online version specifically for this article (as suggested by WesleyDodds). It doesn't contain an ISBN therefore since it's online. I will look to see if there's any more attribution details on it to add to the reference. I might be able to wikilink to the article. — Realist2 13:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is the article NME Originals, obviously I used the 80's version. Hopefully that helps you understand it a little better than I can explain it. Will still look for more details on attributions though. — Realist2 13:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you'd just use {{cite journal}} to make it work correctly. I think. Try that and we'll see. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, I've never used that template before, I must confess. I'm not sure what I should reference. Should I reference the specific review by Melody Maker or do I source the NME magazine from where the review is found (or at least from where I found it). The NME magazine is basically a collection of reliable album reviews by different organizations. I have a feeling I need to give details on the review attribution's and the NME magazine from which I found it, thus I am royally confused how to use that template. Sorry for being a little retarded on this. — Realist2 14:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • No worries at all. I have to run errands, but when I get back I'll walk you through it on the article talk page, how's that? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK, the album review itself was by Melody Maker, Paolo Hewitt, December 4, 1982, page 22.
              • I found the review in...
              • Uncut presents NME Originals 80's. Steve Sutherland. (2005). p68
              • That's the info I have, hope it helps, and would very much appreciate help with that template, yes, thank you. — Realist2 14:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Okay author=Maker, Melody, coauthor=Paolo Hewitt, title=(title of the article, is it Thriller Review?), journal=MNE Originals 80's, editor=Steve Sutherland (may have to add (editor) after that in the field to make it clear), year=2005, pages=68. Plop those into the template and see what you get! And no, you're not a problem at all. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Hmm, that wasn't much good, maybe it's better if we write it without templates? :-( — Realist2 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • {{cite journal | author=Maker, Melody |authorlink=Melody Maker |title=Thriller Review |journal= Uncut Presents NME Originals 80's |year=2005 |pages=68}} gives Maker, Melody (2005). "Thriller Review". Uncut Presents NME Originals 80's: 68.. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it's the theme of the day, please spell out abbreviations in the footnotes. Examples include, but are not limited to, RIAA.
    • DONE, some are still abbreviated but according to their related article they are always abbreviated. Hope that's better. Don't think I missed any that needed changing. — Realist2 14:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look good. The links checked out with the link checker tool. I was unable to evaluate the non-English sources. (Which, however, were nicely noted as non-English in the footnotes, thanks!) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images and media files

Awadewit (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC) These should be easy issues to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Take a look at [2].  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  02:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what that means and I don't claim to be psychic either lol, could you clarify what is wrong and I'll do my best to fix it? — Realist2 02:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It means there are several links to disambiguation pages. Per {{disambig}} these should be fixed so they point to the right page. —Giggy 11:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I've gone ahead and fixed one. The other is in the template at the bottom, so ignore it. —Giggy 11:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I know I promised to ce this, but sadly I have minimal access to a computer these days. The way I see it \, this article still has some way to go before it can be FA:

  • Highly publicized events: this section is largely unnecessary (and the heading a little unclear and ambiguous). You can transfer the content to the other sections maintaining an an approximately chronological order. Further, some of the stuff could be down as they are only tangential to Thriller : "Written primarily by Jackson, with help from Lionel Richie . . . Jackson was perceived as a humanitarian"
  • "In a Melody Maker publication Paolo Hewitt gave Thriller possibly its worst review." -- how do you know that there weren't other reviewers who rated it even worse?
  • "Off the Wall combines the genres . . . "Workin' Day and Night" and "Get on the Floor"." -- its hard to see why this stuff is in the Thriller article instead of Off the Wall. I'm confused why Thriller's music is mostly discussed in comparison with its predecessor.
  • "When Rod Temperton wrote the song "Thriller" . . . did not have the "edginess" of other album tracks." - why in this and not the "Thriller" article?
    • If your talking about - When Rod Temperton wrote the song "Thriller", he originally wanted to call it "Starlight" or "Midnight Man" but settled on it because he felt the name had merchandising potential.[16] - then I would argue this Merchandising potential extends to the album title not just the song title. — Realist2 13:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eventually, they found Eddie Van Halen of the rock band Van Halen; Van Halen did not inform his band mates about the collaboration until the album was released" How can a band tell its band members anything? :P
  • "Taraborrelli describes "Human Nature" as the most moody and introspective song on the record, with the lyrics, "Looking out, across the morning, the City's heart begins to beat, reaching out, I touch her shoulder, I'm dreaming of the street"." -- seems like an incomplete sentence to me. A description should follow since you have "with the lyrics" in there.
  • Autodate links are out of fashion . . . are they really required here (there are so many)?

I think a copy-edit from the likes of music editors such as Ceoil or WesleyDodds should bring this article really close. I'll comment more later in the week.

indopug (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the lead is awkward. The first paragraph basically does a "super-summary" of what a lead normally includes, and then it sort of goes back and summarises the article again in the next few paragraphs. Take a look at some other album FAs and try and format it based on those... —Giggy 11:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I basically over viewed the article, taking the main points of each heading. If it's just the first paragraph that is annoying I can cut it? — Realist2 15:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm reading your assessment of the first paragraph of the lead and I have to disagree that it's a "super-summary" of the article. The lead first paragraph reads...
Thriller is the sixth studio album by American pop musician Michael Jackson, released on November 30, 1982 by Epic Records. Recording sessions took place between April and November of 1982 at Westlake Recording Studios in Los Angeles, California. Assisted by producer Quincy Jones, Jackson wrote four of the album's nine tracks, a production budget was set at $750,000. Thriller was Jackson's first studio album since the critically and commercially successful 1979 record Off the Wall. Reviewers believed that Thriller shared similar genres to Off the Wall, featuring funk, disco, soul, soft rock, jazz and pop ballads. Thriller was darker than his previous release, covering themes such as paranoia and the supernatural.
This paragraph only covers the details up to the end of the "Themes and Genre" section. At the very most the first paragraph is a summary of everything before the album was actually released and in that context I see nothing wrong with the first paragraph or the similar style I have chosen for the descending paragraphs of the intro.
I don't see the problem but I'm not really bothered about the lead, feel free to do with it what you like. :-) I just don't know what your looking for. — Realist2 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I played around with the lead a bit and I think it's looking better. I'll come back for a close look at prose at some point. It's really close to FA, I think. —Giggy 01:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suits me, cheers. :-) — Realist2 01:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a section at random to look at the prose...

  • "was written a few years before 1982 and has a similar sound to the material of Off The Wall" - "a few years prior to 1982", "material on Off The Wall" - see if these rewords make it sound better.
  • ""The Girl Is Mine" tells of two friends' fight over a woman, arguing over who loves her more" - that's almost obvious just from the song title. You could go into more detail on what Jackson was talking about with that particular song (if there was more to it).
    • That was really all there was to it, like the article says, when that was released as the first single some people had concerns about the album. It's a very simple song by Jackson's standard. You would think two legends like MJ and McCartney would have been a little more creative. The title really does sum up the song. — Realist2 13:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was described as, "the closest Jackson has come to crooning a sexy, soulful ballad after his Motown years", according to Taraborrelli" - change "according to" to "by" and remove the commas
  • "This is evident on the songs "Billie Jean" and "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'"" - use his full name for the Allmusic ref
  • Midway through paragraph two of Themes and genres you talk about "Beat It"... then the title track... then "Beat It" again. It gets confusing; put the two "Beat It"s together for a start.

—Giggy 11:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay. They should probably be alphabetized (by last name) and the first instance of each instrument should be linked. See what I did in Off the Wall (album)#Personnel.

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I see no problems now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Prose is of a high quality, other issues are resolved. Well done. —Giggy 03:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm still working my way through the article and it looks pretty good so far. I am worried about the lack information on the recording process, especially given the critical attention given to the sound of the album. I understand Jackson has given few interviews about it, but what about Quincy Jones? He's not interview-shy, and he wrote an autobiography that should probably be checked out. What about the other people who worked on the album? WesleyDodds (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the major players (bar Jackson obviously) talked at detail about it on the audio for the 2001 reissue (which I've already used), I think everything that's noteworthy is there, further information would become disinteresting, if it even exists. Quincy Jones mutters some crap about it being all about god all the time, really it's a load of B.S. — Realist2 01:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better Looks much better than when it originally got here. But, why is the contemporary sales/charting info of the album split across two different sections? (Release and Commercial reception) Boring MoS doubt: why is the "thriller" song sometimes written as Thriller? I think just "Thriller" throughout would be better, because it cons\fuses with the album itself ("The choreography in Thriller has become a part of global pop culture") indopug (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Thriller music video (which has it's own page), it's a short film, thus is in italics. The album and video are italics the song it in brackets "...". We have 3 articles dedicated to Thriller lol. — Realist2 15:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE - I moved a lot of the release info info the reception section. I then realised the release section would be quite small as a stand alone, so made it a release and reception section. I moved all the info on the re-releases to the legacy section. — Realist2 16:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • its very odd to see "It ranked number 20 on Rolling Stone magazine's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time list in 2003" right after "Thriller was not universally praised."
  • Since so much text has been moved around, you should check whether everything is linked the first time or not.
  • I moved stuff in the R&R section around and now I guess I'm happy with the overall content of the album. A couple of runs from uninvolved copy-editors (to make the prose exemplary and the MoS perfect) should see this one through. Good work! indopug (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose— for now. I would love to see an expansion of the music section, with more information on the instrumentation and styles of the song, as opposed to mere mentions of the their lyrical content. What are some of the musical achievements of this album? Did Jackson help to popularize any new sounds? etc. Also, unless copyright concerns hinders it, I'd love it if more sound samples were included. This would help to address my previous points. Orane (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support. I agree with Journalist that the music section could be expanded; its mostly a collection of quotes at the moment. Also, Walter Yetnikoff's "Howling at the Moon" gives great insight into Jacksons hunger for world wide fame at the time, his obsession with perfection during the albums's production, and his relationship with Jones (Not actioble as such, just a tip). Ceoil sláinte 22:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I don't own anything by Walter, I think the background section already establishes Jackson's determination for perfection and power and his displeasure with the result of his prior record as somehow substandard. The article also mentions how he almost pulled the album when Quincy jones told him it would be a flop. I think the article already establishes him as a perfectionist, maybe without saying the words specifically. I've left a document on Journalist's talk page which you (Ceoil) are obviously open to read and pick out anything useful that I should include. — Realist2 22:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It mentions it but there is no colour. Its documented, yeah, but there is no real sence of the personal dynamics at play at the time. Anyway, was just a suggestion. Ceoil sláinte 00:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate to have to do this to the article, because I think that it's very good. But I'm afraid that I'm still not quite satisfied. Sound samples are o.k, but they are meaningless if the body of the article does not adequately address their significance. I just need more in depth info. There are so many things that the section could still improve on. Did Jackson use any samples, for example? I was reading the article for "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'" and it talked about the African chant, which was taken from Manu Dibango etc. What about his voice/vocal arrangements? A few other featured articles on albums exemplify what I'm talking about: Be Here Now (album), Loveless (album).
  • I'll make a promise. If the music section is rewritten without the over reliance on quotes (you could extrapolate, while quoting where necessary), then I'll support, even if my suggestions aren't all addressed. I realize that this album is still pop/rock, which means that musical elements such as significant riffs, crescendos, and other nuances aren't exactly the strong point. I won't fault you if you can't find any information on it. Orane (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a little thing. I've checked the booklets for Thriller (2001 edition), HIStory (double disk), The Ultimate collection (Box set) and none of them credit any sample for the Thriller album. Unless the official album booklets give the credit, I feel uneasy about claiming there were samples. Does anyone have the original 1982 release? Maybe there are credits in there? — Realist2 15:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some info on his vocals. I don't understand how I can remove the quotes and still keep the article NPOV. In-fact at a prior review of this article I received an oppose because the claims were not attributed to a writer in the text. Since every positive comment ever made about Jackson it attacked as POV, almost everything said about him needs a name next to it otherwise it's tagged as POV. Are there any statements you/anyone thinks I can cite without having to quote it and still remaining NPOV? I think I'm gunno need some help with this one. When it comes to Jackson, I'm so used to having to quote things to maintain NPOV, I almost don't know how to write any other way lol. — Realist2 16:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not happy. The music section is largely a collection of direct quotes of how various journalists described the album. You need to search for unrefuatable facts, ie "influenced by funk", "played in the key of G", "uses such and such effect", whatever, and state facts without mentioning the specific journalist's name (the ref is enough if its obvious or fact). eg: Christopher Connelly of Rolling Stone magazine argues that with Thriller, Jackson would begin his long association with the subliminal theme of paranoia and darker imagery.[21] This is evident on the songs "Billie Jean" and "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'", Stephen Erlewine of Allmusic observed.[20] is a simple fact attribituded four times. That said, I think this is an easily fixed problem, and the recent additions are generally strong. And I found Yetnikoffs book in a dusty corner this afternoon. Ceoil sláinte 20:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Thriller was certified 27x platinum in 2005"; eh, what does '27x platinum' mean? But thats a small easily fixed thing, and I'm combing through the prose for final ce issues but fairly happy now given the extensive editing since my last comment. I'm pleased to lend "support" on this basis; its very interesting article, fairly treated and covers all sides, well and engagingly written. Thanks for all your hard work, more please. Ceoil sláinte 00:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It means that it has shipped at least 27,000,000 copies in the US. I'll c;clarify that. — Realist2 00:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:23, 8 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Thriller_(album)&oldid=1140259589"