Talk:1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations/GA2

GA Review

I am reviewing this article, but good grief, what a kerfuffle to start it...--andreasegde (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I am up to "Jackson speaks out". I am cleaning little things to save myself writing about them in the review (which takes longer than to actually fix them myself...)--andreasegde (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"his legal team and friends, such as Presley and Taylor, took control of his defense and finances". His finances? That needs a ref.--andreasegde (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, his legal team took over his finances, his mental health had deteriorated to such an extent that people were making business deals for him without telling him. — Realist² 16:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You should put that in.--andreasegde (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This whole paragraph: "His next studio album was HIStory; released in the summer of 1995. It was a double album..." confuses me, as it meanders a bit around not selling enough, selling a lot and decline.... --andreasegde (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think with that album, it all depends on what perspective you want to take as to whether or not it was a decline. I've tried to present all views and let the reader decide. I would only call it a decline in the US, but we all know that the US really isn't important to Jackson's sales figures. Worldwide it was a record breaker. I guess it isn't presenting an opinion, it's presenting all opinions, which probably means it's neutral :-) — Realist² 17:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what I mean; it's presenting all opinions. This is about the allegations, and IMO it's a little too much about record sales. Could you cut it back a bit? :)

I have gone through the article, and I will now look at links, refs (not much problem there I think) dates, and whatever else. This could be wrapped up and sent to the GA house of distinction in an hour or so. Whaddya think?--andreasegde (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure will trim it while still keeping it neutral, no prob. — Realist² 17:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Trimmed. — Realist² 18:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Right; I'm gonna pass this. Any last words before I do the deed?--andreasegde (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems ready to me :-) — Realist² 18:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Ladies and Gentlemen, going once, going twice, going...--andreasegde (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Gone. Congratulations.--andreasegde (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

eh?

"red to see if the description of his genitals provided by Jordan Chandler was accurate. Doctors concluded that there were some strong similarities but it was not a definitive mat" can someone please explain this? they were some weird defining features or something?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well Vitiligo, the disease Michael had, would cause his skin to be somewhat blotchy and strange looking. Most would never see this since he would wear makeup to cover it and blend the changing skin tone. I believe eventually the problem grew so bad that they couldn't really blend it and he turned the pale white we became familiar with. In any case, since the disease affects pigmentation and so does sunlight, I think it makes sense that his genitalia (an area that really doesn't receive much sunlight or makeup) might look distinct, but predictably so for someone who has Vitiligo. --TheByrus (talk) 07:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be my guess as well. Vitiligo results in very distinct patches, which would certainly be particularly obvious on a man whose natural skin color was quite dark. Over years, the patches grow and new ones appear, but if Jackson had any on his genitals at the time, they almost certainly would have proven fairly effective identifiers. 63.227.64.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC).