I just read this article for the first time yesterday and I agree that the language in this article is not encyclopedic in tone. It made me laugh out loud in several places, and it's probably not supposed to. Even if the sources use this kind of language, it is not considered the best writing practices and can be vastly improved. For example,

 Why would Nelson's legitimate children be singled out in a box? Why in the section titled "Children", would the ones sired out of wedlock not be included, as in the one he had with Georgeanne Crewe? Why actually have an entire section on his children? Why not just a paragraph? Or actually, they are mentioned in other places, so why the entire section to emphasize them? 
 Why is Kris Nelson described as "making love" with Ron Reagan, but Nelson is described as "cavorting" with two LA Rams cheerleaders in the same paragraph? These euphemisms need to be replaced by the simplest term: "having sex".
 "She was hell-bent on taking everything she possibly could and leaving Rick ruined." Good gracious, this needs a quote from a biographer or something: According to biographer John Q. Gossipmonger...
 I agree that too much is written about Nelson's volatile relationships. I don't see how it has any bearing on his career or notability in performing.
 Why is it necessary to know that Blair was a cocaine-user, shoplifter, and Nelson's family disapproved of their relationship? What bearing does this have on how readers should understand why he was notable? I'm not saying the details about his various affairs should be hidden, but the article makes it seem as if, perhaps like Hugh Hefner, Ricky Nelson was *as notable* for his affairs as he was the job that made him famous. Overlooking the article, the same amount of emphasis is placed on his music career as it is placed on his personal life. Actually, somewhat less. I get the impression a relative of Nelson's has had a hand in writing this article. Perhaps a progeny who was directly involved in some of the court cases among the Nelsons and Harmons. If, in fact, the best reliable sources assert that Nelson's affairs actually were as important as his performing career, a quote about that statement should come from a very good source. 

I wrote Roy Orbison's article, and I understand the issue above about sources writing about the "juicy" parts of the subject's life. One of the biographies I used was rather determined to place undue and frankly odd emphasis on the writer's view that Orbison was a hapless underachiever who tripped into fame by accident, and the book is designed to paint him as a mediocre guy in extraordinary circumstances. Orbison's life was nowhere near as vibrantly sexual as Ricky Nelson's (an impression that is really backed up in this article), so the biographer slipped in shocking tidbits about other artists, for some reason explaining that only parts of Patsy Cline were found after her airplane accident. So what to do as a Wikipedia editor? Weed out that wtf? in the biography and stick only to the facts.