Talk:Stranger in Moscow/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hello, I will be reviewing this article. Check back soon for a full review! Good luck! CarpetCrawler (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
On hold
[edit]The article looks good! However, I have a few concerns:
- "In the book, The Many Faces of Michael Jackson, author Lee Pinkerton, like many other reviews, noted that HIStory's album tracks like "Stranger in Moscow", were Jackson's response to recent events in his personal life.[1]" Do you mean "reviewers" instead of reviews?
- "accepting confidential, leaked material from the police investigation in return for money paid,[4]" Leaked and confidential have pretty much the exact same general meaning. I'm not saying you have to change it, but I'm just pointing out that it sounds iffy when both are used together in this sentence, especially with a comma inbetween. Maybe the comma is what makes the sentence sound confusing?
- "On 'Stranger in Moscow' he remembers the synth-pop '80s while constructing wracked claims of danger and loneliness that rival any Seattle rocker's p??in".[18]" What is "p??in"? Pain?
- I have no idea, (English isn't actually my first language BTW), I just copied what the source says. I have wondered about that myself...— Realist2 00:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Reference #19 gives a "Your search has expired" message. I guess you could de-link the reference, and no foul will be called.
When my concerns are met, I will definitely pass this article. But for now, I will place it on hold. You have seven days to address my concerns. If you have any questions, or are finished addressing the above points, please send me a message on my talkpage. Thanks, and good luck! CarpetCrawler (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, issues resolved, bar that whole "p??in" thing which we hope seem to be scratching our heads over. — Realist2 00:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm... that is an odd typo by the article. Oh well, accidents happen! Alright, leaving it sounds like a good idea, since it's pretty much an exact quote. Or you could even take out that small part, and leave the rest of the quote. Either way, I will now pass this article. Wonderful job! CarpetCrawler (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers! — Realist2 20:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm... that is an odd typo by the article. Oh well, accidents happen! Alright, leaving it sounds like a good idea, since it's pretty much an exact quote. Or you could even take out that small part, and leave the rest of the quote. Either way, I will now pass this article. Wonderful job! CarpetCrawler (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)