Talk:Ben (Michael Jackson album)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Wow, there's really a lot of work being put into these Michael Jackson articles. I have gone over the prose a few times and see no issues there. All of the references look reputable and check out properly—no issues with original research, low quality sources, dead links, etc. All of the major aspects regarding development, content, critical reception, chart performance and sales are given sufficient coverage. Everything is presented in a neutral fashion; there is no issue with stability; the images are all presented properly with the right licensing. Only three professional reviews might be a little thin for it to pass FA, even though this is a much older, earlier album from MJ, but there's definitely enough presented here to meet the lower criteria of GA. My only suggestion would be to add the musician credits if they can easily be found. Reviewer: Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)