Talk:Thriller (album)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Final Things Before FA Review

OK, I just archived this page, to sum up, we must do the following before the next FA review.

• Copy edit.
• Sort out "Themes" section.
  • I will get around to the "Themes" over the next fortnight, i will be working on this outside of wikipedia with another editer shortly. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "Themes" section done. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Lady In My Life?

Is the final track in Thriller "The Lady In My Life" notable enough for it's own article? Besides it being featured on the greatest selling album of all time and an often covered hit one could argue it had a major influence on the songs Nite And Day (recorded by Al B. Sure) and Funny How Time Flies (When You're Having Fun). Eatspie (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It used to have its own page but it was deleted as it wasnt noteworthy enough. Questions like this regarding article creation are quite important. They should really be directed at the michael jackson wikiproject. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the information, and you're correct I should have posted my questions at the Michael Jackson Wikiproject however "The Lady In My Life" redirects here so I figured this would be the best place to ask. It's a shame it's not notable enough for its own article, it's really a great yet underrated song. K.H (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah thats why you came here, no sorry it was deleted a while back. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, a lot of articles on The Beatles always does articles on all the songs of their albums regardless if it was released or not. There's articles of songs by Marvin Gaye and even Prince where there's articles on non-released singles. I actually didn't dig the removal of that song's article but oh well. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 00:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It must have been stuby as well, if it was a well written article with substance they wouldnt have deleted it. But since it wasnt a single and was probably only a few lines long it was removed. Ive been tempted to start an article for the Dangerous track since its one of his most famous in live performances. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"To be honest, a lot of articles on The Beatles always does articles on all the songs of their albums regardless if it was released or not." I smell a WikiConspiracy! K.H (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah there is a conspiracy against Jackson article but theres nothing we can do about it. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Article Length

44k. Seems a bit lengthy per WP:Article Size. Also needs more facts, above those recently added. Sentences like "Jackson's success was unusual for a black artist in the 1980s" could also use some editing... sure, his success was unusual, and it was unusual for ANY artist in any genre and of any race. But was there any reason the same sentence mentions a replica doll? What does that have to do with the album? Gront (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont think you understand, we are trying to get the article to featured statues, you really have to go into detail on issues, such as the impact Thriller had on society and Jackson himself. 44K isnt to long, article size talk about pros and doesnt include the space taken up by sources. The article is sourced A LOT! Thats part of the reason its 44K. However you dont count that per WP:Article Size. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama is 135K by your way of counting things. It has the Featured star. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, but what exactly are you trying to write an article about? If it is about the album, where are the details like when did album sales reached their peak ("During its peak, it sold 500,000 copies a week." ) Where? When? Ref? And if the article is about the album, why are details like dolls and pepsi commercials included, activities that involved the performer but not the songs on the album? Most of the "influence and legacy" isn't about the album, it's about MJ, and should be in his page not this one. Did the album set his hair on fire? No. So why is it on this page? Compare this page to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band not to Barack Obama Gront (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You've got a lot of ideas. Maybe you could help us out. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 02:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Your talking about the "Highly publisided events" section im guessing, thats a critical component of the article and answers many of the questions as to just how the article sold so many records. The sections are sourced but wikipolicy says you can use one source (in this case a book), for a while section. You dont need to keep re writting the same source over and over. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary reviews

On a couple of occasions the article leaves an impression that Stephen Erlewine's review for the All Music Guide, here, was written at the time of Thriller's original release. E.g. the section on the album's critical reception begins by saying that "Thriller's reviews were almost entirely positive. Stephen Thomas Erlewine of Allmusic gave the album a full five stars, stating that the record had something that would interest everyone." Although it is not explicit, this implies that Erlewine wrote his review in 1982. The AMG's reviews are not reprints of contemporary articles from the past, unlike for example Rolling Stone's internet archive; instead, they date mostly from the late 1990s. It should be a simple matter to say e.g. "writing in 1996, Stephen etc said that", but this leads to a problem whereby only one of the three reviews mentioned in the critical reception section was actually written at the time of the album's release. What kind of critical reception did the album have, when it came out? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This review by Robert Christgau gave it an A at the time of its release. Thus this review and the Rolling Stone review would be enough for "reviews at time of release". We can use the newer reviews to show that it still remains an acclaimed piece 20+ years later. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Um... The review linked to starts "The best-selling album of the millennium was..." and is pretty clearly written after the year 2000. Gront (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i havent included it. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 18:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was the review you just linked to in the comment before mine is not a "time of release" review: not contemporary. Gront (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, I havent included it in the article. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 04:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not good

It sold 3 million copies worldwide in the same period if time. Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 21:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. :-) — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 21:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Article mentioned in The Guardian

The Guardian has obviously been looking at Wikipedia for it's 50 MJ facts!

"34. Thriller has sold in excess of 12 copies. In fact, Wikipedia reckons it's sold between 47–108m copies worldwide, which proves that you can't trust Wikipedia when it comes to counting."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/aug/29/michael.jackson.50.pop.facts Pyrrhus16 (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If author Peter Robinson bothered to exert the minimal amount of effort it takes to scroll to the bottom of the page and check the primary sources, he'd understand they are the ones doing the counting, not wikipedia. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol I read that, (I've been reading all the Birthday pieces, 60% of it is a load of shit). I really didn't get what they were trying to say by that comment anyway. — Realist² 00:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)