The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:05, 23 August 2008 [1].

Janet Jackson[edit]

Nominator. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult)

previous FAC (22:25, 9 April 2008)

• Nominator. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Comment - References have been reviewed and updated by Doibot. --Meldshal42? 22:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I have contributed to the article recently, as part of its peer review. Before that my edits to this article were infrequent and minor.

I feel that it meets all criteria to a high standard. It is well written, interesting and engaging, and is fully sourced with reliable sources cited. There is variety in the sources so that it represents information drawn from a wide circle which helps reduce the likelihood of any viewpoints being given undue weight. It is neutral and offers a range of critical commentary. In addition to discussing her life and career evenly throughout as a chronology, the article also discusses her place in musical and cultural history and her overall influence and impact. This, I believe, gives it a greater depth than many articles relating to performers. I think it also compares favorably to other featured articles about entertainers, and surpasses many of them, in its depth and coverage. Rossrs (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments:

• Logical quotation - "Scream,"; expressed "sentiments of nonsupport from the label."
• Non-breaking space - feelings...During; Billboard 200

Please check such examples. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe this is done. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I still see a lot from the section Nutty Professor II down. Please do not use double quotation marks inside a quotation; use the single quotation marks instead. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I double checked and fixed any misquotes I saw. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Where is the closing quotation mark here: ...that "Janet was only eight years old when [her father] told her not to call him "Dad" anymore. As her manager, he would henceforth be addressed as "Joseph". Wesley already fixed it. --Efe (talk) 09:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The article was already in pretty good shape when I finally got around to answering Bookkeeper's requests for assistance (sorry about that). It has since improved even further and should now adhere to all FA criteria. It's very well-done--well-referenced and well-written, comprehensive without getting bogged down by unnecessary detail, is hopefully all the general reader needs to become familiar with the subject--and I'm certain Bookkeeper will do all that is possible to address any remaining concerns that may arise. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Small comment - I think the caption for the Superbowl pic should be something more general--"Jackson's wardrobe malfunction at the Superbowl" or the like... indopug (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sake of encyclopedic tone I'd prefer the caption remains as is. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with bookkeeper, let's not under estimate the class of our audience. — Realist² 22:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments on images and music clips - The fair use rationales look sufficient to me. There are four fair use music clips but I do not know enough about Janet Jackson's music to judge whether they are all necessary; they look fine to me, but others with more knowledge should really weigh in on this point.

• Image:Janet Jackson & Justin Timberlake's wardrobe malfunction.jpg - The picture we have is not the same as the picture at the source. Awadewit (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It took me a while to figure out what soundclips to use. All 4 demonstrate a unique aspect of her music: Nasty, Rhythm Nation and All for You demonstrate the evolution of her sound, from new jack swing to a more mainstream R&B/Pop style with varying elements of other genres; Nasty is also an example of how she uses her music as an autobiography. Black Cat is a requirement as it is the only song she has sole writing credit and its also the only unadulterated rock music production of her career. I've also updated the image with the source that is listed.
    • This sounds reasonable to me, but, again, I think people with more knowledge should weigh in on this issue. It should be considered by someone who listens to something other than classical! :) Awadewit (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Realist²

• I think the superbowl thing suffers with slight undue weight. Most people outside the US shake their head in confusion at all the fuss, it panders to US viewpoint as a major incident, instead of an international, no big deal, viewpoint. Almost as much time is dedicated to it as the child sexual abuse accusation of 1993 against MJ over at Michael Jackson. Those allegations were significantly a much bigger deal than some tit falling out of a bra. Just saying it how it is. It needs a trim. — Realist² 22:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering how large the section was originally, I think its fine. I would oppose trimming. It as concise as possible. Its two paragraphs, which is less than half the size of the amount of text covering each of her albums. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has two paragraphs your right, but its also mentioned in all the three paragraphs after that. Every paragraph of that section mentions the incident, it's just a little over barring to us readers outside the US. — Realist² 23:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was the nature of the time period. Considering half of every review of Damita Jo discussed the superbowl, ignoring that fact is not responsible editing. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know that feeling too, regarding MJ, I really wish they would review the album instead of jabbering on about the artist. At least she isn't called a "fucking freak" in reviews (direct quote from NME review of Invincible). — Realist² 23:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think the incident is covered in appropriate depth. I don't know how extensively it was covered throughout the whole world, but I'm in Australia, and the incident was given an undue amount of publicity here. It's discussed concisely and specifically in the first 2 paragraphs of the section. It is also mentioned in the 3 paragraphs after that in the context of reviews that came out shortly after. It's the fault of the reviewers that they didn't have the imagination or the professionalism to review the album solely on its own merits, so it was those reviewers that placed undue weight on the incident, and the article merely reflects that. If it was trimmed from the 3 later paragraphs, it might create an incorrect impression that the albums were reviewed only on their own merits, and that the controversy immediately died. Rossrs (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support:Read through article, corrected some errors, looks good on my end. Overall a very neutral article too. Just as good as Michael Jackson. — Realist² 00:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You misunderstood my comment, I didn't ask to include unencyclopedic prose. What I meant was that I thought the caption would be better off as an introductory sentence, as opposed to "Jackson covers her breast after Timberlake removed the right breastplate of her bustier.", which doesn't set a context to the unfamiliar reader. I think just adding "at the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show in February 2004" should do the trick. indopug (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That I can live with. Done. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes: WP:DASH, emdashes are unspaced, and the article uses a mix of unspaced hyphens, endashes and unspaced emdashes (according to Tony1, incorrect hyphens in direct quotes should be changed to whichever dash you're using, unspaced emdash or spaced endash). Inconsistency in numbers, some samples: certified five times platinum, certified 2 times platinum, and later certified the album three-times platinum. Hyphen or not? Spelled out or digits? More samples of incorrect use of WP:DASHes and WP:HYPHENs: were married - a fact they managed to hide not only from the international press but from Jackson's own father."[43] Elizondo filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Jackson, estimated between $10-25 ... date and number ranges are separated by endashes, and the hyphen after were married should be a dash (there are several other similar examples). Please review the citations; page number (p. or not?) is not used consistently and there are many instances of date linking and formatting inconsistency, sample: ^ Janet: Janet Jackson: Review: Rolling Stone, Rolling Stone, 1993-06-24, Retrieved on July 2, 2008 and Browne, David (1993-05-21), janet. Music Review, Entertainment Weekly, Retrieved on July 2, 2008 and janet., Recording Industry Association of America, 1994-04-12, Retrieved on June 7, 2008. What is this source ? It would need a date, for example, and a publisher. Interview with Janet Jackson, Larry King Live. Citation template cleanup needed, sample: Murray, Sonia (2008-02-06), classic_janet_with_a_modern_tw.html Atlanta Music Scene: "Classic Janet --- With A Modern Twist", The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, <http://www.accessatlanta.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/accessatlanta/MusicScene/entries/2008/02/06/ classic_janet_with_a_modern_tw.html>. Retrieved on April 23, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe i corrected the dash/hypen issues, but I'm not sure. As for the dates I'm not sure why dates and pages (p.) are formating differently, I'm using template:citation for the entire article. I may need help correcting this. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the incorrect changes.

See WP:MOSDATE; solo years are not linked. See WP:DASH and WP:HYPHEN

hyphen: - used to join words

endash: – used to join date, number and page ranges

emdash: — used for punctuation, always unspaced on Wiki.

You changed all of the correct hyphens in words to endashes, and linked solo years: [2] I restored them to the correct version before your changes. [3]

Emdashes are not spaced on Wiki; I've corrected those now.[4] That is:

Jackson's second world tour — the janet. Tour — garnered critical acclaim as Michael Snyder

becomes:

Jackson's second world tour—the janet. Tour—garnered critical acclaim as Michael Snyder

The choices for punctuation on Wiki are spaced endashes ( – ) or unspaced emdashes (—); the article had spaced emdashes ( — ). I haven't yet had a chance to look at the page numbers; this has taken me more than an hour. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Sandy. I'm sorry for the confusion. As far as I can tell for page numbers: I think the publisher value in template:citation creates p. for page and pp. for pages, while the newspaper value does not create p. or pp. but leaves the number by itself. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the p. thing is inconsistent with citation. Buggy, but you don't have to fix it if you don't want to. You do have to fix the endashes on page ranges, and when there is more than one page, you have to use "pages" instead of "page". I left some samples. When you're working on citations, you can go by section and put a temporary <references /> at the bottom of the section to check you work by section in preview as you go. I don't think I got everything, so you might go back now and check the citations by section, using that method. (Sorry it took me so long; my cable company went down tonight and I had to go to dialup. Ugh! Way past my bedtime now :-))) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.