Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rebbie Jackson/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 SandyGeorgia 03:11, 16 January 2010 [1].

---

Rebbie Jackson

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 20:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Rebbie Jackson/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Rebbie Jackson/archive2

I am nominating this for featured article because I have worked on it for a few months and believe that it meets the FA criteria. Thanks, Pyrrhus16 20:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Technical checks No dabs, no deadlinks, no alt text since no images Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support as per last nom. Sources are fine. It's a nicely researched, nicely written article. I think people may have been a tad harsh last time. If anything the prose is much improved. RB88 (T) 15:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. :) Pyrrhus16 19:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Mm40 (talk) on ref formatting/external links, I'll review prose later

• "At the age of 34" can just be "At age 34" (just saw this randomly)

• Done.

• All the Jet, Vibe, and Billboard references should use {{cite journal}}

• Done.

• Ref 25 (Yours Faithfully album booklet) can use {{cite album-notes}}

• Done.

• Ref 30 (Ultratop chart) should have "Ultratop" (with the link) in the work parameter

• Done.

• Under References, either all of or none of the publishers should be linked

• Unlinked all.

• Under External links, I think it should be "at the Internet Movie Database"

• Done.

• Does Jackson have an official site? If so, it should be included under External links. Mm40 (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• No, she doesn't have an official site. Thank you for your comments. Pyrrhus16 00:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Image Review — No images. Done. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a, 1b and 1c. It's pretty good! My concern is that you seem to have done some of your research from sources that tend to focus on the drama aspects of the Jackson family when this should really be mostly about Rebbie Jackson the musician. The result is sort of a tabloid vibe in some parts. You get away from it when you discuss her music which is good. There are many more good sources available than what you have represented here. Have you searched library databases such as Academic Search Premier, International Index to Music Periodicals, Access World News, etc? Thing brings a larger concern—your biography essentially ends in 1998 with the release of Yours Faithfully, as if nothing happened in her life after that. — Laser brain — continues after insertion below

I did some source research for this the first time and this time again and found zilch. Compared to the rest of them, she's basically a hermit. I think depth-wise in terms of sources it's fine. (Although, some people may want more fleshing out with those sources which are available.) That's fine, but last time it seemed to encourage those who wanted more and those wanted less in equal measure. That's why I thought it was a bit unfair. People somehow want sources to appear from thin air and sometimes that's impossible for certain articles. RB88 (T) 01:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree that this can sometimes devolve into a give-and-take that seemingly doesn't appease anyone. I noted, for instance, that some previous reviewer had them take out the whole section of her life after 1998. And I don't ask until I look myself, on the the sources. I came up with bunches of hits that were not used here, and I think it's worth scanning the magazines and newspapers for less tabloid-like facts. If it turns out the research has been done to the extent it needs to, I would still like to comb through this a bit to get the tone more in line with an encyclopedia. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there's 4 key questions here which I'll be answering then. 1. Does it contain "tabloid" sources? NO. 2. Are there other sources available? YES. 3. Is their material a duplicate of what's already used or used in a book synthesis. Pretty much YES. I only found one more source which I gave Pyrrhus yesterday and that only had marginal info and a couple of quotes. 4. Is the prose "tabloid-y"? I don't think so, but you're your own person, so are entitled to bringing up issues. But I think source wise it's fine. RB88 (T) 00:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked in the databases I mentioned? --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked at academic publications through the complete UK unis database and also the Proud Gallery's extensive database of news and archives including primary sources. (And Google News obviously, but that goes without saying). Overall, I think maybe more comprehensive that what has been mentioned as examples but I might be wrong. RB88 (T) 03:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

However, I found sources in Access World News with info about her involvement in Michael's death, her being declared a front runner for caring for Michael's children, etc. All this is missing from your article. Some other specific problems:

• In the last FAC of the article, a reviewer thought that the death section seemed to be trivia, so I removed it. I have now restored it along with details on her role towards Michael Jackson's children.

• • "The album, her last to date, had the singer collaborate with artist and producers" Oddly worded... how did the album have her do anything? Active voice is preferable but don't word it so the "album" is doing something.

• • Changed to "The production of the album, her last to date, had the singer collaborate..." Hopefully, this is better.

• • "It also featured contributions from her children, who were fathered by Nathaniel Brown." Again, a strange meandering way of telling us who the father of her children is. Then you stop short and use another sentence to tell us he is also her husband. Jarring. Why not just say her children, full stop, and then tell us who she's been married to. Readers will have no reason to assume they are anyone else's children.

• • Reworded sentences.

• • "Her siblings are..." It seems weird to provide the birth dates of the dead siblings but not for all of them. Why not just "(d. 1957)" and "(d. 2009)" or whatever the convention is?

• • Done.

• • The Marriage section is too People-magazine-ish. It focuses on the conflict, which is certainly what was in the papers and magazines, but it shouldn't be the overall tone of the section.

• • I've tweaked a few parts that I thought might be most problematic.

• • "The songs from the album were recorded at Tito's Ponderosa Studios" Would saying "The album was recorded at..." change the meaning? Don't use words you don't need.

• • Done.

--Andy Walsh (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Pyrrhus16 22:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Defintely not ready, seems as if it just inches by the criteria for GA. Candyo32 (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Could you please list the criteria you feel are not met? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Additional comments - I still feel that attention is needed to the prose. It does not flow well. Major problems in research and comprehensiveness continue to emerge. Some specifics:
  • There are several instances where the writing dances around continuously saying "Jackson <verb>" or "Rebbie <verb>" by using phrases like "The teenager thought", "The young woman ... wanted", and "the female singer's album included". It feels forced, like we're trying to avoid repetition or ambiguity by using synonyms instead of introducing actual variety into the prose. I recommend getting someone new to go through the whole thing, after comprehensiveness and quality of research are addressed.

• • I've reworded most of these. Pyrrhus16 19:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Many awkward turns of phrase and instances of wordiness such as:
    • "Division was created in the Jackson family" Why are we twisting sentences like this into passive voice? Wouldn't this be better: "18-year-old Rebbie's announcement that she wanted to marry her childhood love Nathaniel Brown in 1968 created a division in the Jackson family."

• • • Done. Pyrrhus16 19:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • "Jackson expressed her feeling for the man" What feeling? Something not covered by wanting to marry him?

• • • Was meant to be "feelings". Fixed. Pyrrhus16 19:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • "Having the last word on the matter, Joseph refused to walk his daughter down the aisle." Does the first clause really tell us anything that the second doesn't? Does Taraborrelli state that he was trying to have the last word?

• • • Taraborrelli states, "Rebbie could get married. However, he would have the final word: he would not give her away". Pyrrhus16 19:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • "Due to ratings success" Owing to?

• • • Are asking for the line to be changed to "Owing to ratings success", or are you asking why the show was a ratings success? Pyrrhus16 19:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • "With the album, Jackson became the last of her siblings to release hit material and embark on a career in music." The first idea is ambiguous; it could be interpreted that no Jackson released "hit material" (which is ambiguous in and of itself) after Centipede. Certainly that's not true? I'm sure you mean that of all the Jacksons that ever released "hit material", Rebbie was the last in line... but the reader doesn't necessarily know that. The second idea, "embark on a career in music" is just confusing, since you've been writing about her musical career back with "Jackson began her singing career in 1974". Oof.

• • • I've reworded this sentence. Pyrrhus16 19:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • "was not released as a single, despite receiving substantial airplay." When would airplay cause something to be released as a single?

• • • I've reworded this sentence. Pyrrhus16 19:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• • I'm still not convinced that this has been carefully researched and is comprehensive. I did another search today in Access World News and found stories about a reality TV show that Rebbie was offered and in which Michael's kids will star. It seems there is a whole chapter of her life missing, really. There are sources about her performing in a huge tribute concert in 2009 (JOSH MCAULIFFE. (2009, April 9). Jacksons’ big sister to perform at Apollo-Motown tribute. Times-Tribune, The (Scranton, PA) Retrieved January, 13 2010 from NewsBank on-line database (Access World News)), etc. etc. If I find a hit within a couple minutes of searching that contains information we're not representing here, I'm not at all comfortable.
    • From my research, the reality show rejection news is from the end of 2009, so maybe a bit harsh to expect it to be included. I personally would say it's trivial in the grand scheme of things and ask for its removal if it was in there. I also couldn't find any news whatsoever at AWN. What search criteria did you run? RB88 (T) 03:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
      • How is it "harsh" to state my opinion? This is the second time here I've seen you call out reviewers as "harsh". I'm sorry but if you're putting your article up for FA status, you are inviting close scrutiny and criticism. At any rate, I'm searching "Rebbie Jackson" in quotes; what are you searching? --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Sorry, if you felt antagonised. I was also just stating my opinion. The recent timeframe may have been a reason why its missing, because research might have ended before the end of 2009. In any case, I don't think it warrants any comments about lacking comprehensiveness. And I was searching exactly using that criteria and did not find anything. RB88 (T) 04:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I don't feel antagonized. I'm just saying I don't think I've said anything harsh. You commented about the reality show but what about the tribute concert? We really don't want to say anything about her life in the 2000's other than how it relates to Michael's death? That's ten years neglected! --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
            • That does seem reasonable. Maybe it should have been phrased that way to begin with. Let's see what the editor has to say. RB88 (T) 05:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • I can find no sources on her performing at the concert. The above source that you mentioned states that she was expected to perform. Adding that to the article, without knowing if she did, would be inconclusive. Artists have often cancelled scheduled appearances at the last minute. In regard to the reality show, it seems trivial to mention it because she was not involved with it. Pyrrhus16 19:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Where is the critical commentary about Centipede and the other albums? It is out there in droves and it's non-existent here... for example, about Centipede:
    • "With Centipede (Columbia 12-inch), Rebbie Jackson benefits from the songwriting smarts of the most famous of her five famous brothers. Now, if she would only develop a singing style different from that of a famous ex-Supreme." (Rich Harry, October 13, 1984, The Morning Call)
    • "[A] very creditable showing" (Jonathan Takiff, October 18, 1984, Philadelphia Daily News)
    • "Michael Jackson produces his older sister, and - surprise! - the result is something more than mere sibling hype. Rebbie's singing is cool and sensuous, and Michael has surrounded her with a sharply percussive rhythm track that uses the synthesizer as an ethereal mood-enhancer. The melody is rather tiresome when repeated for five minutes, and the lyric makes absolutely no sense at all - it's almost aggressively dumb - but the chorus is a killer." (Ken Tucker, September 16, 1984, The Philadelphia Inquirer

--Andy Walsh (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Album critical commentary should be reserved to the album pages (regardless if those pages are created or not) and not in the biography. A single line (i.e. favourable, non, or mixed) is all that is needed. Same for singles critical comms in album pages. RB88 (T) 03:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I afraid I don't agree with you in this case. It would be one thing if the album articles were fleshed out and contained the information, but they don't. They're just stubs. It's not acceptable for the information to just be "nowhere". When and if someone beefs up the album articles, they have a head start. We can't afford to ignore a whole cross-section of sources and leave readers in the dark about these topics in her life. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We're not here to discuss or appraise the album articles. We're here to dissect Rebbie Jackson. Adding detailed critical commentary of albums, especially quotes, in a musical bio is excessive detail and should not be done. That detail should be and must be reserved for the respective Critical section in each album. If they don't have them, then 1. It shouldn't mean her bio has to have them and 2. It shouldn't mean her bio has to fail the comprehensiveness test because of it. RB88 (T) 04:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think one can dissect Rebbie Jackson without talking about how her albums were received. We are presenting her as a musician, and saying she is notable for being a musician. We certainly can't stand just on the fact that she's a Jackson. What else is there? She's a Jackson and she makes music. It's certainly worth mentioning that Michael's involvement with Centipede, for example, was pretty much the best thing that could be said about it according to some reviewers. Additionally, I meant my comments to be representative and an indication that sources are missing. The things I posted here were found just on the first page of results in Access World News. That almost always means more is lacking. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Important details about the studio sessions can be added, like Michael helping her. On the other hand, specific album critical commentary does not have a place in her bio. A "favourable, non, or mixed" reception with a handful of refs at the end of the sentence is all that's required. If more detail is added, it will fail WP:SUMMARY and I will be the one to oppose. RB88 (T) 05:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RB88, and have added that the album received mixed reviews from journalists. I don't feel it's necessary to list every comment ever printed about the album in her biography article. This is not even done for album articles. Pyrrhus16 19:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment on Pyrrhus16's recent edits: Thanks for your fixes so far! You've patched up my examples, but I'd still recommend waiting until after the comprehensiveness/research issue is resolved and getting a copyedit from someone new to the text. By doing so, you get a fresh perspective on not only the writing style (which I still find lacking, ex. "MTV later concluded that the album struggled.") but also on issues you may be too close to the text to see. For example, the headings: Why begin them all with year ranges when their content does not reflect those ranges? The "1986–1997: Reaction and R U Tuff Enuff" heading only covers events through 1988 and then you end with a vague statement that "she performed around the world during this hiatus." What does that mean? Are you saying she claimed a hiatus that wasn't really a hiatus? What happened between 1988 and 1998? Next, we have a heading ostensibly covering 1998–2008, but the writing really is only about one year. Again, what happened in those 10 years? You can't claim that nothing of note happened because you can't find sources. I'm not guessing that there are sources available—I know they are available because I looked. You'll have to move past Googling and hit the public library, or ask a reference librarian for help using the databases. I can be swayed about my 1a objection after a thorough copyedit, but I can't in good conscience ignore the large temporal gaps in coverage. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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