Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of unreleased Michael Jackson material/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:50, 12 December 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 17:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. I welcome any comments and suggestions. Pyrrhus16 17:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments; I'm new to the voting process, so I may be incorrect, but I have some comments:
- The colour of the yellow, pink and purple used in the table is very harsh, and the purple especially is difficult to distinguish from the black text, making it difficult to read.
- Changed the purple to orange. I'll wait for further opinions on whether others share the view that the colours are harsh; as I had thought they were ok. :)
- Maybe the table should also list who holds the patents, unless of course this is unavailable or unable to be referenced, after all, they are mentioned in the lead, then (almost) never again.
- There is no detail on whom owns the patents, though it is usually the songwriter(s).
- Were any reasons given as to why some of the songs were not listed on their original albums?
- Information is given where possible, because reasons have not been given to the majority of the songs.
- Which songs were the ones brought up in the court case, or were they already previously released songs and thus not on the list?
- The unreleased songs mentioned in the court case are highlighted in blue with an accompanying asterisk (*).
--Lightlowemon (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments. :) Pyrrhus16 18:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your welcome, I thought you had listed the court case ones, but after a couple of read throughs I couldn't find where it was, *wipes egg off face*. I stand by my statements on the colours, but the orange is much better. Thanks for answering the other questions too, if you don't mind, I think I'll wait for some other comments before a final decision. But I'm happy right now.--Lightlowemon (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, all comments by other editors addressed, and I have no other qualms. --Lightlowemon (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your welcome, I thought you had listed the court case ones, but after a couple of read throughs I couldn't find where it was, *wipes egg off face*. I stand by my statements on the colours, but the orange is much better. Thanks for answering the other questions too, if you don't mind, I think I'll wait for some other comments before a final decision. But I'm happy right now.--Lightlowemon (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
* I don't like the third paragraph in the lead. It's very vague and seems more a token attempt to list his discography. I think there is scope for talking about his albums, but I don't like the way it's been done.
Hope those help! WFCforLife (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WFCforLife:
At this point I would consider myself neutral. Of my two remaining comments, one is a small thing that I'm not really too bothered about, and have left it on the off chance that someone else has an opinion. But the clarification about Jackson 5 songs is what is keeping me from supporting. IMO they should either be removed, or the lead should explicitly state that released Jackson 5 material is included, with an explanation as to why they are considered unreleased for the purposes of this list. Covers are a slightly different kettle of fish, but with Jackson 5 strictly speaking Jackson has released the material. WFCforLife (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support. WFCforLife (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments: I am not familiar with the subject (apart from having heard of Michael Jackson), so please ignore if my comments don't make sense.
|
Support. bamse (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Thanks. Pyrrhus16 18:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments –
- Not a big deal, but could the out of order references in the second paragraph ([4][1]) be changed to numerical order?
- Done.
- Should internet be capitalized in the fourth paragraph? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is in the Internet article, so I guess it should be. I never knew that... Thanks for your comments. Pyrrhus16 13:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Complete sentences in the notes need to have periods at the end, example: "Jackson worked on the song with Temperton and Quincy Jones during the Thriller recording sessions" Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added periods to the ones I think are sentences. Hopefully, I got them all... Pyrrhus16 23:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.