Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bubbles (chimpanzee)/archive2

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 not promoted by Laser brain 22:41, 4 February 2010 [1].

Bubbles (chimpanzee)[edit]

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 18:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have worked on this rather unusual article for several months and feel that it meets the FA criteria. Thank you, Pyrrhus16 18:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- ~~Please fix the dab link to Encino.~~
- All external links appear functional.
- Alt text is present and seems good, except for one point which I fixed.
Ucucha 18:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The dab link was fixed before I came here; there must be a delay with the tool. Thank you for your tweak to the alt text. :) Pyrrhus16 18:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, must be toolserver lag or something. Ucucha 18:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For a better fair use claim, I think we should use a promotional photo or album photo (if one exists) of the chimp rather than a news agency photo. Would something like one of these[2][3][4] work? I don't know for sure that these are promotional (but the poses look like it) so more research would be needed. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, have you tried emailing the center for great apes to see if they'd release one of their many photos of bubbles under a free license? Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first photograph that you link to is from Kenny Rogers' book, Your Friends and Mine. The photo is discussed in the article, which might give it a more solid claim of fair use than the one already there. I'm no expert with images though, so I'm not quite sure. In regard to the center, I sent them two emails asking if they would release an image of Bubbles, but they never responded. Pyrrhus16 19:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 1a and 1c. It's not well-written, and it clearly suffers from too much attention from a single editor who is close to the prose. It desperately needs an independent copyedit. Some of the basic theme statements of the article are problematic: "The pair enjoyed a close relationship". What is the meaning? Clearly Jackson enjoyed it, but are we surmising what the chimp enjoyed, and what makes a "close relationship" to a chimp? The lead still sets a mocking/critical tone.I reviewed the last FAC and I'm not at all convinced that SlimVirgin's concerns have been addressed. The article glosses over items for which sources haven't been found; rather, the article should be withdrawn until the sources are found through rigorous library research. The early history of the chimp is unacceptably scarce. Changing the language about the suicide to "alleged suicide" doesn't change the lack of good sources. We need to go beyond newspapers in this case. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the "enjoyed a close relationship" parts. What sentences in the lead do you find to be mocking? I feel that there is no mocking/critical tone; it just states the facts in a neutral manner. The information might seem a bit unusual or strange, but I don't feel that can be helped. It is what happened. In regard to the last FAC, I believe SlimVirgin wanted sources on animal suicide. I'm just after adding a footnote on animal suicide, and it uses recent scientific scholars as sources. I've puffed up the early life section for you, but there is very limited information about Bubbles before he was with Jackson. There was no real need to document what the chimpanzee got up to, as he was just another animal. Now that I have made these changes, is there any specific information that you still feel is missing from the article? Pyrrhus16 14:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you've glossed over pieces of information because you've stuck to only what's available on Google. You'll have to hit the library and start with a thorough search, probably in Newsbank/Access World News, to find out everything that's been filed away on this topic but not indexed in web search engines. You'll typically find a treasure-trove of information published in magazines and newspapers around the times of the major events. Regarding the mocking tone: Owing to the sources you've used, the lead is made up almost entirely of the items pointed out by the media as bizarre. Go through the lead with a highlighter and identify the key terms: "attachment", "mocked", "bizarre eccentric", "obsessed", "Wacko Jacko", etc. So to summarize, I advise you withdraw this and endeavor to complete two phases of work: library research via scholarly databases, and then copyediting (not just light dusting) with an independent editor. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search of a news database as suggested and was able to add a few more bits. Do you know of any good copy-editors that I could perhaps draft in? Pyrrhus16 16:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what database you are using? I am finding lots of information in Access World News that you haven't represented, much of it in reference to Bubbles' mental and physical condition. This would help the balance between information about Bubbles himself and Jackson's behavior, which is receiving too much attention in the article. After this phase is complete, you could ping editors listed at WP:PRV that express interest in your topic area. These things cannot be accomplished within the time frame of this nomination; please withdraw it and come back when thorough research and copyediting is complete. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used newsbank.com for the search. And yes, I may as well withdraw the article for now, until it gets a good copy-edit, etc. Pyrrhus16 22:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Basically, on the grounds of prose and,but mostly on focus. Okay, so I have a history with this article. It was, I think, the first I ever reviewed in the FAC category, and I didn't approach it as critically as I might have (or certainly as I've done since). That said, I still enjoyed reading it, although it isn't ready for prime time yet. First, it's still more about Jackson than Bubbles, and since the world is less interested in Bubbles and more in Jackson, it's probably hard to keep the focus on him. Who watches the side show when the center ring is so mesmerizing? Second, although the prose isn't bad, Jackson is the subject of many/most sentences, not Bubbles, and it's Jackson this and Jackson that. And not just the prose: the section entitled the Center for Great Apes and the Death of Jackson also exemplifies this approach. What does the death of MJ have to do with the center? Bubbles' Life at the Center and a subcategory of his alleged suicide. Why is the note so long? How about incorporating that into text? Is there scientific evidence of suicidal tendencies in the great apes? How does Bubbles fit into this? How do we know that apes remember humans? They react to them? So do my dogs! (and they aren't the brightest bulbs on the canine family tree.) I think, instead of focusing on this chimp as an associate of MJ as much, perhaps fit it into the larger issue of chimps as family pets. Britney and her designer dog, and Michael and his chimp. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bubbles isn't known for anything other than being Jackson's pet, so it is only natural that Jackson is mentioned as frequently as he is. The article should be thought of as a subarticle to the main Michael Jackson biography. It would be different if I were writing about Janet or Randy, but this is about a chimpanzee whose notable actions were made in the prescence of his owner the majority of the time. It's not as if he was allowed to go out and do his own thing. In regard to your other comments, I have altered and switched some of the section headings, trimmed and summarised the long note, and added a note on the possibility of chimpanzees attempting suicide. I'm awaiting a book by Jane Goodall to try and find an answer to the question of how we know that apes remember humans. I disagree that we should focus the article more towards the issue of chimps as pets, as there is already an article on that (pet monkey). Pyrrhus16 16:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there are still ways to focus the text so that Bubbles is the subject, rather than Jackson. For example, the paragraph that starts with this sentence

Jackson enjoyed his relationship with the chimpanzee, though many media sources mocked their association.

Bubbles became a focal point of media mockery, which helped to shape a widely held view of Jackson's eccentricities. Journalist Steve Huey wrote that the public's perception of Jackson was that of a "bizarre eccentric, obsessed with recapturing his childhood."[8] Jackson clearly enjoyed his relationship with the chimp, and "the weirdness began to reach mythic proportions", scribed Robert Thompson, a professor of popular culture at Syracuse University.[9] Their relationship, and the entertainer's other eccentricities, contributed to the media nickname "Wacko Jacko", a nickname Jackson would eventually come to despise.[7]

Media frenzy focused on Bubbles, rather than on Jackson's music. News organizations began to report on the many falsehoods that circulated about Jackson and his chimp, including an allegation that Bubbles was not a single ape, but one of several,[10][11] and even that Bubbles had died. Commenting on this, Jackson's press agent Lee Solters quipped to the media that "when Bubbles heard about his demise he went bananas". Solters added, "Like Mark Twain, his death is grossly exaggerated and he's alive and doing well."[12][13] Another story, reported in The National Enquirer, claimed that Prince, Jackson's longtime rival, had driven Bubbles crazy using extra sensory perception. "What kind of sicko would mess with a monkey?", Jackson was reported to have asked. "This is the final straw. Poor, poor Bubbles." Jackson found the story hilarious, and his staff reported they had never seen the singer laugh so much.[14]

do you see what I mean about changing the subject? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what your saying now. I'll implement some of these alterations and then get the article polished off with a copy-edit. Thanks. :) Pyrrhus16 22:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: From what I've seen in other FA nominations, I think that the articles references/citations should have publishers in their cite web text. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 20:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that they are a requirement, but I'll get cracking with the rest, seeing as you very helpfully did some of them. Thanks :) Pyrrhus16 16:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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