Talk:Billie Jean/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Great job. I'm sure these suggestions won't take you long at all to address...
Recording:
- The quote in the first paragraph here is way too long. I think the whole thing about the Rolls-Royce and would be better served taken out of the quote and written into the prose of the article. Can you give that a try?
Music video:
- The second paragraph starts off with "Upon MTV refusing to play 'Billie Jean'..." but there is no mention in the first paragraph about MTV refusing to play it, and so this second paragraph start off kind of shockingly. Can you segue into a bit better, like perhaps with a more specifically stated reason as to why MTV didn't run the video?
- Also, why exactly did the CBS president intervene? What did he have to do with the song/video?
- Gave more of a description of how he and Jackson were connected. Pyrrhus16 15:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Pepsi commercials:
- "In return, Michael and his brother were to star in two commercials for the company." Which brother?
- Sorry, it should have read "brothers", as in all of them, which I've now fixed. — R2 12:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Legacy:
- ..."no one wanted to listen to the song unless they could watch Jackson performing it simultaneously." This seems a little POV, or at the very least is a very strange statement that I just can't possibly see as being true. Can you reword it to something like "many preferred watching Jackson perform the song rather than simply listening to it" or something like that?
--Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
A good article is:
- Well-written: Prose is good, MOS is good.
- Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are good, no original research.
- Broad in its coverage: Covers main aspects, no unneeded detail.
- Neutral: Yes.
- Stable: Yes.
- Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.