Talk:Thriller (album)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Nomination

Hey ppl I have nominated the article for GA states!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Unfortunately the nomination process is backlogged so will take some time to come around for us. This article has improved significately as of late. Realist2 (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

References (This issue is now SORTED and these points have been resolved)

As I once owned this great album, I thought I should mention this:

• "to an enormous audience". Needs to be more precise (and reference). (SORTED)
• "forming a lengthy partnership with Jackson and helping other black artists." Needs to be referenced. (SORTED)
• "It reportedly scared viewers (especially children)". reportedly is dangerous, without a reference. (SORTED)

That's just a quick look-over. :)--andreasegde (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers I have resolved these issues. Realist2 (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

High profile samples/covers

Apparently I was the third different person in the past few days to try and add LL Cool J's "Hey Lover" to the sample section, only to have the same user remove it. It was a platinum single, it won the Best Rap Solo Grammy in 1997, and it was a collaboration with Boyz II Men at their peak. The song is, at the very least, more important than Prodigy's "The Way it Is." 03:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can give us sources for this then sure, but as far as i can see its just a track from the album, when i scan for "Hey Lover" it redirects to the album page and the album page says barely anything about the song. If you can source for use some of the amazing things its done then it can go in. Realist2 (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The RIAA's database has "Hey Lover" as going platinum in January of '96. NYTimes.com's listing of the Grammy winners in '97 has it winning "Rap Solo." 12:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.79.161 (talk)

hum it could go on but leave the discusion here a few days for others to decide. The reason i made the list was not only to show high profile samples but also the diversity. Thats why Prodigy are there. The whole section is about the influence of thriller and how it crossed genres. I dont understand what hey lover brings to the list when we have already covered that genre with Kanye West , rhianna and SWV. We will not have a trivia list. It will remain a shoret list of broad differences. Hey lover adds nothing that isnt already there in my opinion but let others have a say. Realist2 (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, what is the genre that Rihanna, SWV, and Kanye's songs share (I'd say they're dance, R&B, and robo/chipmunk-soul respectively)? Secondly, "Hey Lover" is a signature song of one the world's most successful musicians; I actually liked Rihanna's album, but I doubt her "Don't Stop the Music" will go down as a classic ("Good Life," maybe). If anything, the mentions of Charlotte Church/Amy Winehouse and Alicia Keys performances are far more "trivia"l. 69.244.79.161 (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Its good to mention both samples and performances,Realist2 (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've brought back the LL/BIIM sample because I feel it's as "memorable" a sample as the songs that sampled the more famous of the songs on Thriller. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 15:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure ok you guys win. Realist2 (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

David Pro (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I really think that the article has many things to be a GA, as it has many references and no cleanup tags. David Pro (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

So thats a good thing right? Does it pass? Realist2 (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry i keep reading your sentance and it doesnt make sense to me.Realist2 (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the on hold tag from GAN, so in effect this renominated. Hopefully the next review will be of a higher quality. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What a joke, seems like yet another anti michael jackson conspiracy here at wiki. Realist2 (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sales

Should the sales of Thriller be increased to 'between 46 and 105 million' as opposed to 'between 45 and 104 million' as Thriller 25 has currently sold over 1 million copies? - Kaneite —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaneite (talk • contribs) 18:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question, as far as i can see, and ive researched it, some countries are calling it a brand new album, such as France and Poland were it has been certified. In America however it will increase the sales of Thriller, thus soon the 27 x Platinum in America will go up. Realist2 (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I say it should be between 46 and 106 millions because Thriller 25 has sold about 2 million albums already. --Zoldello (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

1.47 mill to be exact, it gets rather complictated when you start adding thriller 25 to thriller. From what i can see thats only going to happen in America, it wont affect world sales but Thrillers platinum statues in the US will go up very soon. It was certified 27 x platinum in 2005.

• We know that in 2006 it sold 60,000 copies in america
• in 2007 it sold 130,000 in america
• in 2008 (from the sales of T25 allown) it has sold 420,000 copies.

Total sales of Thriller in america since its last certification are 610,000 copies. So shipments might be as high as 900,000 copies. It only needs to ship another 100,000 copies to be awarded a new platinum statues. Additionally we dont know the sales of Thriller for the first 6 weeks of this year before T25 came out, i would have sold some although not many as people would have just waited for T25. Realist2 (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Color Barrier?

After reverting my earlier edits, I did some fact checking, and "Billie Jean" was most likely not the video to "break the color barrier" of MTV, assuming such a barrier existed. "Ebony and Ivory" (Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder) had a video that received heavy rotation and came out earlier that year (well before Thriller). And Kool & the Gang's "Celebration" most likely played at least a few times before late 1982. Gront (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources establish that billie jean ended racism on mtv. Realist2 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, but who are these sources? Can you cite to anything that was written prior to 2000? Anything written, say, in the 80s? Or that isn't based on the CBS executive? Gront (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont quite see why sources before 2000 make a difference. Realist2 (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as they're reliable, you can cite them. Please feel free to talk to me on my for any comments. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 18:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Realist2 (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Charts

There is a charts table for Thriller 25, but there isn't a charts section for the original 1982 album. Can this be created? RaNdOm26 (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There isnt much point, it went to #1 almost everywhere, the article is up for GA nomination at the moment so big chances like that are unwise, leave it a few weeks and see how things turn out. Realist2 (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I see this article is up for GA is why I'm bringing this up. The fact that there is no charts for the original, more successful album means it is not broad in its coverage. And that's part of the GA criteria. RaNdOm26 (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is VERY broad, we already have sales figures for the original, we could list some of the countries but a full on table is a bit too much imo. Realist2 (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I know this article is broad, but I still don't see why we can have a table similar to the table for Thriller 25. In my opinion, this shouldn't be too much. RaNdOm26 (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, i thing if these sources get sorted it will lower the bytes of the article, it might not be suck a saw spot then. Realist2 (talk) 07:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

On Hold

Okay fellas. This is my first GA review, so feel free to voice your opinion (because you know mine isn't worth sh**!) Obviously, I put this on hold, because there's a few chinks to work out. I'm reviewing by section, so I'll start with:

Lead

• Too many statistics. This is, I'd say, the biggest problem. The lead for this article reads like an almanac, with stat after stat. Put all of the chart details and sales data into a separate section(s).
  • DONE - I took out all the sales (aside from the title as the best selling album of all time) and shipped it elsewhere in the article.

• Additionally, the music videos (with Thriller being one of the most famous music videos of all time) and publicized events are not stated in the lead, failing criteria 3 and the guidelines in WP:LEAD.

• Not really in the lead, but Thriller should be disambiguated (at the top, it should say, "Did you mean ... ")

Don't worry, I'll do it. :) Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 00:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I like that you took out the sales, but now you have too many details in the lead. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the actual article, and really shouldn't have too much actual facts. It should basically explain the whole article in a few paragraphs, with a couple of facts. I'll change it, and you'll see what I mean. You're doing a great job, though. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 00:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I like what you,ve done with it, does anything else need adding to the lead? Realist2 (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No, looks good to me. Good job! Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 18:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Recording and Release

This section is more about the awards and reception than recording and release. If possible, get details about how it was actually released. Perhaps make a separate section for "reception".

• • KO, a lot of it i shuffled around elsewhere where it fit perfectly. All thats left of this section now is half a paragraph and its not that important anyway. Could just delete it?
    • Hmmm, I don't know. (I'm assuming "KO" means OK. :)) I added another paragraph about the singles, but still, it isn't much for a whole section. Let's keep it for now, and decide what to do with it later. You're doing a great job, I'm going to go over it again and see if things fit. It's turning out good so far. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 17:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes ko means ok, dont know why i did that, got your message on my talk page, sure leave it for now. Try bulking it up as i go along. Realist2 (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Extra info on "Recording and release" section

• The album had a production budject of $750,000
• 300 songs were recorded
• When the 9 songs came together Jackson was unhappy with the result so every song was remixed at a rate of 2 per week
• Quincy Jones told Jackson that "Thriller" would not sell as well as "off the wall" because the market was weak. As a result Jackson threatened to pull the album release.
• When the first single "The Girl Is Mine" came out many thought the album would be a disapponitment and some felt he was trying to court the white audience.

This is from a book we have already used for this article so sourcing isnt a problem .

Extra info on "recording and release" section (ROUND 2)

• Q Jones did not want billie jean on the album believing it wasnt strong enough. Jackson vetoed it.
• The relationship between jones and jackson deteriorated during the recording of thriller.
• At its peak it was shifting 500,000 copies a week.
• Thriller was the first album to be #1 in US and UK at the same time.

Music Videos

Not much wrong here, I'd just say that maybe you should actual get a snippet of the CBS President's statement or whatever, and put it in a block quotation. I think that'll enhance the article more than what is given. But it can probably remain like that for a GA.

• • I am reading the book it came from, it was a closed door statement rather than a public one, exact worrding isnt available. --Realist2 (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's it. Every other section is good. Now let's run through the list.

1. Well written?: pretty good, some grammar mistakes that I'll fix. The lead needs work.

2. Factually accurate?: done and done just need sources formatted.

3. Broad in coverage?: Again, the lead needs to be more thorough. The body is thorough.

4. Neutral point of view?: Good.

5. Article stability? Peacetime. :)

6. Images?: It COULD help to get a screenshot of the music video, but that isn't necessary. DONE

All in all, whatever's wrong with Thriller (album) can be fixed in less than a week if we work together. Great job!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Please feel free to talk to me on my for any comments. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 22:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• I provided a screen shot, it was already on the MJ page. Realist2 (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • And I added a fair use rationale, as a separate one is required for each article in which the image is used. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Wow, cheers, its nice to see people helping out, this is such an important article for wikipedia. I never new that rule, ill have to remember that for the future. :-) Realist2 (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It might help if you striked each thing in my review when you've resolved it so we know that it's done. (To strike, add <s> to the beginning of the text you want to be striked, and add </s> at the end). Great job, guys! I'm a bit busy now w/ other things, and I probably won't be on until tomorrow. Until then! Cheers! Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 23:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK will do. Realist2 (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations

I made another heading so as not to clutter up the On Hold section. What's wrong with the citations? They look fine to me. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 23:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

They all need formatting like what i was shown on my talk page earlier. Realist2 (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well half are done. Realist2 (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of these refs are singles charts. If they change every week they shouldn't be put in. I will work on the stable webpages I find.--andreasegde (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Think I'm done. I haven't touched the myspace pages or youtube pages, because these are not thought of as being stable, because they can be changed by users. (Doh! So can Wikipedia...)--andreasegde (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked the references, they all look good to me. Nice job, Andreasegde. Thanks for helping. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 19:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding youtube, i could remove some of those youtube links however one of them is just a link to his official youtube page. The source is only being used to show the page actually exists, i thought youtube cound only not be used if the publisher etc was unknown and there were copright concerns. Youtube and the people at sony who set it up WANT people to see it. I didnt think their was an outright ban on using youtube. Thoughts my wise wiki people ?Realist2 (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Realist2, but the thing is that this isn't Michael Jackson's article, it's Thriller's. Unless there's a reason that pertains to the THRILLER ALBUM, there's no point for putting his Youtube page on THIS article. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 18:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say the youtube page is more about thriller than MJ but maybe thats interpretation. Realist2 (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine, put it on. I don't really agree with Andreasegde (sorry, chap). It seems fine as an external link, just don't use it as a reference. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 19:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, im ok with that, its a good compromise, im sure there isnt a copyright issue with this. Realist2 (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok its 4.20am where i am as of this edit. 100 sourced are formatted with another 52 to go. Should only take another 24 hours if we can get some help. Realist2 (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok since then i formatted the other 52 sources all by myself. OK its done, i think its time for the review. Realist2 (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Pass

I reviewed it, and I give it the thumbs up!

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of April 7, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes, the prose is good. Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Everything is referenced (Good job, Realist2, in particular with referencing) Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Goes through every point the reader would need to know. Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Screenshot from video, album covers, Pass

Great article, would love to see it featured one day. (Maybe soon) Great job, everyone! If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.

I passed the article, obviously. Great job, everyone! Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 21:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC) }}— Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 21:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

YES Thriller is GA !!! I think FA is in order next. Thankyou Realist2 (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article

Oh wow, you already have it up for FAC. You're quite welcome, by the way. I knew it would pass after you were done, and it did. :) Anyway, I'll be here if anyone who decides to work on this needs me. I won't do much if no one asks. But, I warn you, FA is some serious sh**. Especially the references (which I think still need a LOT of work for an FA). :) Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 00:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh serious im going for gold ;-) Realist2 (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have it peer reviewed, so others will give their feedback on it. Hope that will help. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 01:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've closed and archived the peer review correctly so that GimmeBot will include it in articlehistory. Per the instructions at both WP:FAC and WP:PR, the article shouldn't be listed at both places. Yes, it should have had a peer review first, it needed it, but it didn't get taht, so unless it is withdrawn from FAC by the nominator, it can't be listed at PR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The peer review will be closed ive informed the above user to do it, im chomping through the advise at the FAC so i can miss the peer review step, i can go for hours at a time. Realist2 (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx bookkeeper for starting a new peer review. Realist2 (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

no problem. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned

I have cleaned a lot of the article.--212.241.67.98 (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

copyedit questions

• "...enabling him to break down racial barriers by appearing on MTV and Rolling Stone." Was he really the first black person to appear on MTV or Rolling Stone? I can see MTV, but Rolling Stone?
  • Ill clarify it as one of the first to be on the safe side, before Thriller they wouldn't let him despite the successs of off the wall
  • It already says one of so its completely accurate

• "All three questioned the meaning behind some of Jackson's most paranoid and controversial lyrics on the recording." All three what? Critics for Slant? Critics mentioned in the article? And which lyrics? Wanna Be Startin Somethin?, Billie Jean? Some other song?
  • Done

• "Short films like "Thriller" largely remained unique to Jackson..." Maybe in the 80s, but that style of music video has been copied numerous times since then. Jackson perhaps began it he is hardly unique.
  • Disagree, name me music videos my other artists that last longer than 8 minutes. Jackson has many, i cant thing of anything my anyone else.

• "Central to Jackson's success the album was the rock music channel MTV, which had previously broadcast Jackson's videos in the early 1980s. Before then, Jackson had struggled to get MTV airing because he was African American." This statement appears to contradict itself.
  • Sorted

Serendi^podous 08:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole "first black artist" thing...

You know, I think black artists were played on MTV before Michael came along but they weren't played on heavy rotation, also Michael was a R&B/pop artist so it was harder for black artists who weren't singing "rock music" to get on. Rick James often complained why there were no funk/R&B artists on the channel. But Michael having the "Billie Jean" video airing when it did changed things because it was probably the first video by an R&B/dance artist to have heavy rotation. But I have to say when it's worded that Michael was the first black (or R&B) artist to gain heavy rotation on the channel, I think that's absolutely correct! Just wanted to say that... BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 23:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, exact wordings could be twigged but its generally very accurate. Realist2 (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Charts

In my opinion, I don't think that a chart for EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY should be used. For instance, look at the Charts for Be Here Now. There's only US and Canada used, which is sufficient for the context of the article. IMO, if this is an FA, it should have only a few countries in the charts, with the rest mentioned (e.g. "The album was high ranking in many other countries as well") in the article. I really think that the chart is distracting and is not helpful to the article. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 16:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully if we can get T25 its own article this wont be a problem here. Realist2 (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Doing some editing

Just coming through and doing some editing to remove the NPOV from the article. I think we all want to see this pass PR sooner than later next time it goes up.--DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 16:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Na its not goona go to FA, just leave it. Thriller 25 cant have its own page, then we leave it. Realist2 (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I think this article needs to get to FA. It is the most popular album of a generation. I will continue to work to get this to FA.--DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 17:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool but before that we need to decide what to do with Thriller 25. Realist2 (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

{{clear}}

I noticed that the {{clear}} template was removed from this page, and I'd like to give the reason why I placed it before the charts section: In both the browsers I tried (Mozilla Firefox and Safari), the album infobox collided with the chart tables and this template removed the problem. If it created a different issue in Internet Explorer or another browser, perhaps it would be useful to find a different solution. --24.218.182.169 (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Because we are unsure what is happening with Thriller 25 at the moment, we can add the tag when all is resolved. Realist2 (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. --24.218.182.169 (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if that seemed a little harsh, but things have gone a little tits up so so speak with thriller 25, when its resolved we may not even need a tag. Realist2 (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't sound harsh at all, just trying to get an understanding. Thanks for the explanation :). --24.218.182.169 (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh i just realised who you are, .....Realist2 (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)