Wikipedia:Peer review/Bubbles (chimpanzee)/archive1

Bubbles (chimpanzee)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC in the future, but need to fix any problems it may have first.

Thanks, Pyrrhus16 17:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article - while it is clear a lot of work has gone into it, I think some more work is needed before it is ready for FAC. With that in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

I would use a different crop of the lead image, taken from here. The original picture shows Bubbles, Jackson and a boy. I can see cropping out the boy, but would leave Jackson in. Bubbles is notable solely for his relation with Jackson and they are wearing matching or similar outfits in the image, which is discussed in the article.
There are free images of Michael Jackson and the Neverland Ranch in their articles that might be useful additions here
The external link has some information not in the article (like where he was born) and seems to contradict the article in other places (it says he was sold as an infant to a Hollywood trainer for Jackson, not resuced by him - this might be two different interpretations of the same event).
I would check the links in the refs - the Yahoo news ref is a dead link, for example. Look at any current FAC for tools to check both ref links and for dabs
Watch for wording that is too close to the original - the article has The story was untrue but was an idea that some newspapers found too delightful not to report.[22] and the New York Times source has ...it was "not true" that Mr. Jackson's pet chimpanzee, Bubbles, would be ring bearer, an idea that some newspapers found too delightful not to report. I would probably attribute this to the New York Times, so "the story was untrue but according to the New York Times it was "an idea that some newspapers found too delightful not to report".
When you have the same ref for two sentences in a row, as long there are not direct quotations in both sentences, the ref can generally just go at the end of the second sentence.
Problem sentences from the lead: Despite the pair enjoying a close relationship, many media sources mocked the friendship. The friendship led the public to think of Jackson as a bizarre eccentric, obsessed with recapturing his childhood, and he was subsequently dubbed "Wacko Jacko". First off, I doubt most people would call a relationship with a chimp a "friendship" (more sort of a pet-owner relation). Perhaps something like "many media sources mocked what Jackson called their friendship" or "many media sources mocked their relationship" would be better (not sure what the sources say). The second sentence repeats firendship and seems to imply that all of Jackson's perceived problems stemmed from Bubbles, but I think it would be more accurate to say it was one of several odd things that led to the Wacko Jacko epithet.
I would check if some of the sources are reliable - for example the $2 million legacy to Bubbles is sources to a Chinese source which seems a bit odd.
There are some places where things are out of chronologfical order - I wonder if the narrative would flow better if things were in order. For example in the "Early life and adoption" section (even there the section name is out of order - it starts with adoption then describes early life) we go from 1985 to 1990 to late 1980s. Or in "Exile from Neverland and suicide attempt" we go from 2003 to 2004 and then back to late 2003. The worst one is in "Death of Michael Jackson and current residence" where the whole second paragraph comes chronologically before the first (Bubbles was in the shelter in FLorida which is his current home for 6 years bfore Jackson died, but the section starts with Jackson's death, then backtracks to the shlter.
English units like 160 pound need metric equivalents - {{convert}} works well here.
Avoid using words like currently - instead use things like "as of 2009" or "since 2003" or whatever.
I would try and get someone to copyedit this polish the prose. At the least don't edit for several days, then print it out and read it out loud slowly with a red pen in hand to mark things.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I will implement your advice in the next few days. :) Pyrrhus16 19:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help - One last thing I noticed and forgot to mention until now: a chimpanzee can be called a chimp or an ape, but it is not a monkey. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. It seems we may not be able to add Jackson to the lead image; I was told here that we have to use the least amount of non-free content. I've added a free photo of Jackson to the 'early life' section. Pyrrhus16 09:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media review The only potential issue I see is with the non-free image of Bubbles. If there are free images available, we have to use them, no matter how poor they are. Awadewit (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. If a free picture does becomes available, we will have to replace it. Pyrrhus16 12:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]