Talk:Sony Music Publishing/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Renata3 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I am quick-failing this. It has a lot of potential, but the writing is far cry from NPOV and encyclopedic tone. There are too many one-sided opinions (people loosing jobs, McCarney being "cheap"). The article reads to much like a tabloidish newspaper article. This excerpt is a pure novel (even with dialogues!):

Jackson stayed at the home of McCartney and his wife Linda during the recording sessions, becoming friendly with both. One evening whilst at the dining table, McCartney brought out a booklet displaying all the songs he owned the publishing rights to.[7] "This is the way to make big money", the musician told Jackson. "Every time someone records one of these songs, I get paid. Every time someone plays these songs on the radio, or in live performances, I get paid". Fascinated, Jackson told McCartney that he would buy The Beatles' songs one day. "Great. Good joke", McCartney laughed.[7]
Shortly afterward, Jackson's attorney, John Branca, revealed that the Northern Songs catalogue was up for sale. Unable to contain his enthusiasm, Jackson skipped around the room. When warned of the competition he would face in buying such popular songs, Jackson remained vehement in his decision to purchase them. "I don't care. I want those songs. Get me those songs, Branca", the singer demanded.

I hope somebody can comb-out that kind of opinions, dialogues, and details, leaving just the encyclopedic facts. Right now the article is mainly about Jackson-McCartney relationship, when it should really focus more on the company itself. My guess is that the effect of using tabloidish sources exploiting Jackson's life and image. They need thorough vetting before they become acceptable on Wikipedia. Therefore, I fail this, but I do hope this will inspire to re-write and improve the article (the data is already there!). Renata (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply