Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Michael Jackson's health and appearance/1

Michael Jackson's health and appearance[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Keep. GA issues have been addressed. The classification issue may require further debate, but for the moment it stays under health and medicine. Geometry guy 21:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is trivia / patient history and not natural science. Therefore it should not be listed as a natural science good article.
Also issues with language "He must also have hydroxychloroquin injected directly into his scalp regularly." He choices to have this done if this is the case. It is like he has too.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article itself appears to be well-cited throughout. Is there a question about WP:RS of any individual among the sources used? Cirt (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the issues you mention have anything to do with whether or not this meets the GA criteria. You seem upset about project/category tagging, something that could be dealt with on the article talk page. You also seem to be screaming WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — R ² 01:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I need to take a closer look at the article, but my initial impression is that it meets GA criteria. Can someone please provide specific examples of how the article fails GA standards? Thanks. Majoreditor (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone could provide me with specific examples I will happily work through them. The article passed it's GA review with flying colors and the article hasn't changed much since then, with the exception of a slight expansion. This seems to have been started because Jmh649 did not agree with this being within the scope of a certain wikiproject. — R ² 02:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main point is that this has nothing to do with natural science this is biographical information. I have some concerns with the prose as mentioned above. From the perspective of science this page is nothing more than trivia. I guess we can close this and move the discussion to the talk page.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor prose issues could be dealt with on the talk page. You are trying to crack a nut with a nail gun. Let's turn this down a few notches shall we? — R ² 14:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article does meet the GA criteria. It seems Jmh649's main problem is the categorization of the article at WP:GA. The article shouldn't have been brough over here for that. You should have used the talk page and waited for a response, or asked at WT:GA. Pyrrhus16 09:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on categorization. At present the article isn't actually listed at WP:GA, but should be, per the most recent review. The question being asked is, where? The possibilities I see are "Performers, groups, composers and other music people", "Actors, models, performers and celebrities", "Cultural phenomena, movements and subcultures", and "Health and medicine". The last of these is the implicit choice made on the article talk page, and may be the most encyclopedic choice. Note that not everything listed at WP:GA#Health and medicine is scientific; some are sociological. No classification scheme is perfect, especially not one as rough as this. Geometry guy 21:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sources. Concerning the article itself, given the controversial nature of the topic, I'm somewhat concerned that the article relies heavily on a single source (an unauthorized biography) and cites material from this source unqualified, as if they were uncontested facts. This could be a WP:GA issue. Even if it isn't, it may well be a WP:BLP issue. The use of multiple reliable sources would seem essential to ensure WP:NPOV on a controversial topic about a living person. Geometry guy 21:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, a few points about the J. Randy Taraborrelli biography. Jackson has not released an "authorized" biography since 1988, so as a source, it's of limited use. Taraborrelli is one of, possibly the only, mainstream journalist that Jackson trusted enough to allow interviews in the 70's, 80's and 90's. No other notable journalist has been allowed into the fold of the Jackson family to such a degree. Taraborrelli released his first edition of the book in 1991, Jackson never sued the journalist and continued to allow interviews with him afterward. I can't see any BLP concerns, all of the issues discussed (be it vitiligo, drug addiction, rehab, his childhood), these are all things Jackson has spoken openly about. The book is used in the main biography, which is a featured article. Further, due to the demands of "summary style" this is an essential sub article on Jackson. — R² 12:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Many thanks for your thorough and careful explanation. That the biographer is apparently trusted by Jackson certainly eases BLP concerns. There may still be a danger that the article presents the facts according to Jackson and Taraborrelli, without qualification, when some of these facts may be disputed. Can you respond to this concern as well? Geometry guy 20:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only thing usually disputed is the vitiligo, but Taraborrelli uses court documents as his source for that. We also have the picture which rebukes any conspiracy that he doesn't have the illness, the article does mention that tabloids speculate whether he bleaches his skin, but that's what tabloids do, speculate. — R ² 15:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again. One more question: Joseph Jackson is also a living person I believe; this article alleges that he physically and emotionally abused his children and provides details in the case of Michael. Is there independent third party evidence here? Geometry guy 20:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well at least one of the brothers backs up Jackson's claims (as seen in this article). The brother gives a detailed account of what he allegedly witnessed, Joseph beating/physically abusing Michael. Some of the other children claim they were abused too, some say there was sexual abuse...When it comes to domestic abuse it's always going to be one persons word against another I guess. Only the people inside the family know what happened. Nothing ever went to court. It would probably be best to throw in the words "allegedly" here and there. Thoughts? — R ² 20:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Allegedly" works well for tabloids and political satire, but is unencyclopedic ("allegedly" according to whom?). The best encyclopedic defense, in my view, is attribution/qualification. The sentence on Marlon's quote could be reworded so that it is attributed to him without being endorsed as fact by the article. The article does a good job of quoting Michael's interview. It could similarly attribute the analysis of the situation to Taraborrelli using wording of the form "According to biographer J. Randy Taraborrelli...". Geometry guy 21:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can certainly do that throughout. — R ² 21:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've attributed some of the potentially controversial claims, if you feel anything else needs attributing specifically please let me know. I didn't want to go over board because it would damage the flow of the prose quite significantly. Furthermore, after reading so much about Jackson, nothing about him really "shocks" me anymore, so my concept of "controversial" when dealing with this specific individual might be a little warped. I just don't find any of it surprising anymore. — R ² 00:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a sensible choice and I hope you will keep the flow of the prose in mind. I don't have any further issues to raise. Geometry guy 20:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the original reviewer back in August (see review here), I too originally questioned the notability of the topic, and admittedly, laughed a little. But the article is well-sourced, well-written, and informative. I think a lot of fans (and non-fans?) of Michael Jackson are quite interested in the subject, so I think the article is warranted. Presently, it also seems to meet the GA criteria, though if some of the spelling/grammar has degraded a tad over the past couple of months, feel free to fix it up as appropriate. Dr. Cash (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As reviewer, do you have a view on the categorization of the article at WP:GA? Geometry guy 20:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I lean toward classifying this as Health and Medicine since the article's primary topic is Michael Jackson's health and medical treatments. Majoreditor (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]