Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Health and appearance of Michael Jackson/1

Health and appearance of Michael Jackson

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

Result: Delisted (t · c) buidhe 18:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I have made a lot of edits here and a lot of people aren't happy with those edits. I request a review.Quaffel (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've been meaning to do an individual GAR but this community review will do as well. I have been one of the editors following the expansion of the page over the last few months. The article was promoted in 2008 looking like this. It is now 3.5x larger by wordcount with what I would argue is an unclear scope and unfocused coverage. Quaffel has been extremely thorough in sourcing any possibly relevant information, but I believe they are also not a native english speaker and so, though they've done the best they can, the prose isn't at GA level. We've had some issues where in trying to stay true to sources, Quaffel has written prose that either isn't grammatically correct or doesn't flow (see the current Sexuality section). The lack of defined scope and structure can be seen in paragraphs that don't work together well and have just been given their own section header as a makeshift solution (see the entire Mental health section). There's also a lot of crossover duplicated material with Death of Michael Jackson in the final content section. Quaffel has worked really hard to expand the article and carefully follow sources, but in doing so the article is no longer one that "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" with "clear, concise, and understandable" prose. I'm not a subject matter expert, but given the massive expansion over the years and changes in sourcing standards, this article would also need to undergo a pretty exhaustive fact/source check were it to go to GAN today. I think it quick-fails on WP:GACR 1 and 3. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't want to comment here but Alyo seems to have a problem with me. No, I'm not a native speaker. As you can see on my User Page I'm German. Alyo and I had a conflict when I rewrote the lead. It wasn't good and needed improvement. Alyo offered me a "corrected" version on the Talk Page stating things that I had never mentioned in my version. Then Alyo wrote and published a new lead claiming e.g. vitiligo would cause "blotches of color". No doubt Alyo doesn't know a lot about the subject. We had a heated discussion and finally he said: "I would highly recommend that you try to contribute to a project in your native language. Take care" Later we had a discussion that was also about crossover. Alyo stated that wouldn't have strong feelings about it and wanted me to discuss it with another user.I did and we found a solution. I thought everyone was happy with it.I started editing here a few years after the article GA status. I didn't edit it for several years. Whe I came back last year I restructured the article because I thought the old structure wasn't good. Some of the claims made in the article weren't supported by the source and I spent a lot of time time to correct them. Is that Wikipedia's standard for good articles? I also removed all sources from Taraborrelli's book which is nolonger considered a reliable source and tried to find new sourcesor made clear why the claim should be removed. I'm not saying it's a good article now but I did a lot of improvement.Quaffel (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, now we are talking about dublicated material. Alyo changed the word. I'm surprised Alyo understood me. Back to the dublicated material. I explained what I did and why I did that on the Talk Page. I just wrote about the physician's actions and that belongs to a health article. I think I also emphasized some things more than the other articles that deal more general with Jackson's health. I think that's a positive aspect.Quaffel (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Although I will at least say that I have no problem with you personally, everything else you describe here could be true and it still wouldn't answer any of the substance of my criticisms. Again, I really appreciate your hard work and I can see you're extremely passionate about the topic. But sourcing isn't the only requirement of a GA and I just don't know how else to say that some of your writing in english is....off. I'll leave it to others to judge. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Quaffel, it's clear from the talk page discussions that you're prone to leaping to weird conclusions. I think Alyo's assessment of the article is fair, clearly expressed and neutral. Popcornfud (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Please bold that part saying that I think sourcing is the only requirement of a GA. Which of the things I described here aren't true? What weird conclusion?Quaffel (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I think the level of discussion used by Alyo and Popcornfud is poor and they use personal attacks instead of arguments. Popcornfud didn't provide an own argument at all.Quaffel (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Close this discussio I don't think any other editor wants to join it. And don't forget to mention the victory in this great dicussion on yor Wall of Fame.Quaffel (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Quaffel has reverted to a version of the page from June 2021. I'm sorry that you feel so personally attacked in all this--it really isn't anything personal and I would prefer to just keep the content you added and then trim it down a little. That said, I don't think we can call this page stable at the moment, as this sort of mass revert has happened a couple times. Unless there's any objection, I think GA status should be removed for now. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I propose you'll try it with the structure of the version of the restored version. And make sure you do not make any mistake. No need to keep my content. You don't understand what I wrote (my English is so bad) and I doubt you have the books. You would have to check it all. That's a lot of work. I think it's best to start with the version of June 13 2021.Quaffel (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

And of course my weird conclusions. There's still some of my content left and still a lot to do but it's much easier now. Few things might be right an it will be easy to find better sources for it.Quaffel (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I think the best we can do is to delete the article. I won't start an AFD because some people might think it's just because I was attacked. But I'd like to state my POV.I have been editing this article a lot and I made mistakes. I found some myself and some were found by others. I think I can judge how hard it is to edit this article. Taraborrelli and other sources have been mistated and these mistakes haven't been corrected. I might be wrong but I believe that some people editing this article do not have direct access to the sources. Alyo said sourcing is not everything. No, it's not but it's basic. Some years ago I read the Wiki's instructions for beginners and it said sth. like "Don't use a source that you haven't read." But that apparantly happens. When I ask questions I rarely get a response. The projects that list this article haven't responded here. I can't help but think that Wikipedians don't know enough about the topic or they don't care. I'm not an expert for this myself. There are a lot of vitiligans out there and I don't think it's fair to spread missinformation here. None of the protections Wiki has to offer ever helped. THe article has been degenerating for many years and nobody looked after it appropriatly. I'm sure this will never change. Whatever consensus we may reach here it just can be poor. Wikipedia is not the right place for this article. Let's treat the vitiligans fair and pull the trigger.Quaffel (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Taraborrelli and other sources have been mistated and these mistakes haven't been corrected -- This is actually the reason why I think your version of the page, the one you've most recently reverted, should stay. I think you've done a better job of adding references to the article and making sure what is in the article matches what sources say. The other issues I have are only issues as they relate to the official Good Article requirements. Articles with GA-status have to be well-written and properly represent the overall scope of the topic. In that respect, this article falls short. But that doesn't mean that your work was bad or not valuable. Other editors can rewrite some of the odd language and restructure the article so it flows better later, in part because you've arguably done the harder job of comprehensively sourcing everything. Don't you notice that I don't revert the vast majority of your edits? The spirit of those edits is good, and on the whole you're doing necessary work, even if in the process there's been some weird phrases added. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This is not about my odd English, okay? You know What I find odd? That wikipedians think they are expert for everything once they have they have an account. Wikipedia makes its own rules on wording and I think some are stupid and not always used the way they are supposed to. To be honest I think this article has never been a good article. Wikipedia's one of the poorest sources for information about Michael Jackson. If you want to spend the rest of your life here to watch this article to make sure everything is okay do so. My "odd" English has been corrected several times and I never objected or complained. But I noted that the users who made stupid comments don't create a lot content themselves. Not difficult to find errors. Now they can try it themselves. Find a source, write a perfect sentence and put it in the perfect position. Good luck! But not here. This is a health topic and editors should know what they do. This is not a topic you should edit just because Wikipedia is your hobby or you don't know what else to do. It has been a "hobby" far too long.

You completely missed my point. It's unfortunate that this happens over and over, because you could be a great editor. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not miss your point. You are the one who keeps talking about my English. Let's drop this now. I know you reverted my edit but I don't think it will work. That's allQuaffel (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Eventually "singer" is another word that is not allowed to be used for Michael Jackson (the list includes singer-songwriter and entertainer) because somebody thinks it's clunky. Certainly it won't be clunky to use commas throughout the article. Wikipedia's stylistic means are pretty limited. Make sure the other articles about Jackson or any other person doing that job doesn't use the word.Quaffel (talk)

Please make sure that concerns about my English won't be used es an excuse to remove (unwanted?) content about sexuality as it happened here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Health_and_appearance_of_Michael_Jackson&diff=prev&oldid=1073386883

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Health_and_appearance_of_Michael_Jackson&diff=prev&oldid=1071082471 Sexuality is a health matter and theinvestigation was also related to the disorder. Of course, they eren't looking for spots on his feet and vitiligo effects all parts of the body.Quaffel (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

English is not my primary language either. I do hope that I am not belittled because of it. My problem with this page is that there’s a lot of unnecessary detail in parts, like the part discussing Jackson’s vitiligo. All that needs to be know is that he had it. I also have a problem with the entire section labeled “Child Sex abuse Allegations.” For one of the section is going to exist it should be re-labeled something that is more fitting for a “health an appearance” article, or added to an already existing section. The content of the section does it even really serve a purpose so it’ll be quite frank the entire section can be deleted and the article will benefit from a better flow. And to be quite frank I’ll find this entire article to be dehumanizing. Why does one’s health and appearance become an entire article? TruthGuardians (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Why does one’s health and appearance become an entire article? For better or worse, Jackson's appearance was a constantly discussed part of his life and it's worth having an article about given the media coverage. However your criticism about unnecessary detail is valid--as I noted above, the article originally looked like this and was much more narrowly defined. Once this GAR is over I plan on going through the article and trimming it down. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Delist I have to agree with the first comment by Alyo. The expansion, while warranted on some levels, has not maintained the Good Article quality. In particular the prose has degraded and it is straying to much from the focus of the topic. I think there is a middle ground between the two versions, but it will take a lot of work. Aircorn (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Delist The prose has definitely degraded. Fails the GA criteria of clarity, conciseness, and words to watch. The article does have a place on Wikipedia, but it should not have GA status at this current time. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Delist Let's end this. I request to restore the version of June 13, 2021 before I started editing. The last good version is a good point to start with. Or rewrite the article completly. If you can do it better, please do so. I don't want Wikipedia to use my poor version. That would make me think Wikipediams just let do others the dirty work, fix some typos and finally marry well. That's not what Wikipedians do, right?Quaffel (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Quaffel on the contrary, I think the article will eventually be much better because of your edits. You added a lot of good sources and content, and I don't think we need to revert all your additions at all. Wikipedia is a work in progress and it's normal for other people to improve on what you add. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)