Jump to content

User talk:S0091

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Karagil (talk | contribs) at 13:53, 1 September 2023 (→Alexandre Raymond (1872-1941): Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Draft:The_Portraits_(music_duo)

Hi there S0091

I've just returned to this article to try and resolve it after an extremely busy year in which I simply haven't found the time to focus on it properly. Now, I'd love to try and sort it out, with your help.

Last year I took a great deal of time reading and understanding Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians.

Three of the key points are these:

"1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." 

   I have included in the article references to articles in the major national newspapers Irish Independent (https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/music/single-honouring-those-who-have-died-from-covid-19-aims-to-reach-number-one-39880151.html), The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/nov/11/john-lewis-christmas-advert-electric-dreams-arrangement-accused-copying) and Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/12/john-lewis-accused-stealing-music-idea-folk-band-werent-edgy/) amongst others.

"2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." 

   This has been shown, with reference to the UK's officially recognised national music chart compiled by the Official Charts Company, as listed by Wikipedia, as published on 25 December 2020.

"12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network." 

  The musicians in question were the subject of a key segment in December 2020 of ITV's flagship television programme "This Morning" in the lead up to Christmas that year, as well as a similar piece on Jeremy Vine's self-titled Channel 5 programme. These are two of the main national television networks. They were also featured on BBC Radio 2 (the UK's most listened to radio station) in 2017 in a programme that had a segment focussing on their song 'Nobody Can Ever Murder Love'. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08n102f

In the light of the above, I wonder if I could respectfully request that you review your decision to reject the article on notability grounds?

Please let me know if you need any further information from me.

Best wishes and have a good day

Euann Euaanmill (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Euaanmill First, thank you for taking to time to read through the guidelines as so many don't. With that, here is my assessment. The Telegraph and Guardian articles are about the same thing, the lawsuit, published at essentially at the same time (within a day), so they count as a single source (and also strongly suggests it was press release). I will also note most of the information in those articles is coming from the band or those involved (he said/she said/they said) so are largely not independent sources and I will further note The Telegraph states the song "didn't chart particularly well" and Guardian describes the band as "little-known". None of them provide in-depth coverage about the band. All three of the sources you provided were in the article before so had been assessed at least by one other editor (some of the sources by at least two) previous to my rejection, as was the TV/radio spots.
When reviewers assess a draft, mostly what we are trying to do is determine, if accepted, the likelihood it will be nominated for deletion and further the likelihood it will survive the deletion discussion. Based on my experience and those who had declined previously (really only counting the two before my rejection) this would not. The notability guidelines are indicators, not guarantees. What the community is mostly looking for is in-depth reviews of a band/artist's work by reputable critics/sources. The reason things like charting is listed as an indicator is because usually if a song/album is at the top of the charts, in-depth reviews exist even if not cited. I hope this helps at least some. S0091 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again S0091
Thankyou so much for taking so much time over this and for your other message about conflicts of interest which I feel I’ve responded to and dealt with but I can elucidate on further if needed.
If I could return to the clarifications you give on the specifics of the article itself, I note and completely accept your comments on the Guardian (etc.) articles and the reference to the act being “little-known”.
In response to this, I refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#:~:text=On%20Wikipedia%2C%20notability%20is%20a,not%20have%20a%20separate%20article where an emphasis is placed on whether a subject is “worthy of notice” and it is expressly stated that notability “does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity”.
In fact, in an earlier draft of the article, I specifically made reference to the fact that the act in question hadn’t achieved widespread mainstream success, but these references were removed by an earlier Wikipedia reviewer as part of a fairly heavy edit.
“Worthy of notice” I do believe them to be: the act’s career has shown longevity, a steadfast relevance to the social issues of the day over a period of nearly twenty years and a unique list of achievements in harnessing the admittedly limited power of their success to make a significant noise when raising awareness of social issues directly relating to their songwriting. These include creating a song featuring 2000 voices of regular people around the country to recruit new signers to the stem cell donor registry in the UK, raising thousands for a school in Burma/Myanmar with an album of songs about the country and the particularly notable case of their cover version of ‘Together In Electric Dreams’ which has had a widespread appeal and influence, including, it has been reported, on the choice of a major UK store’s Christmas advert music as per the articles I quoted earlier.
The selection of articles from The Guardian, Telegraph and Irish Independent I sent you previously was made because of their prominence and relative recentness, but I can see how these might have given the impression that the act referred to was something of a one-trick pony from the point of view of historical media coverage. This certainly isn’t the case.
You say “What the community is mostly looking for is in-depth reviews of a band/artist's work by reputable critics/sources” and there are certainly a plethora of these out there, in the form of reviews of the duo’s albums over the last two decades. Let me draw your attention here to five such pieces of coverage of their work and a French article about their music. I can provide more if needed. I hope to have your further feedback, and once again, many thanks for your time on this.
A number of these are available online, and some not, so for ease, I have copied some pieces to my Dropbox for simpler access for the sake of this conversation.
Eurorock magazine, March 4th 2009, review of ‘Timescape’ album: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cp5zq0tcn5wta6v/Music%20Review%20-%20the%20portraits%20timescape%20jeff%20perkins%20blog%20critics%20eurorock%20column.pdf?dl=0
Folking.com, August 2015, review of ‘Lions and Butterflies’ album: https://folking.com/the-portraits-lions-and-butterflies-sensorypulse-records-spcd006/
Fatea magazine, 2015, review of ‘Lions and Butterflies’ album:
https://www.fatea-records.co.uk/magazine/2015/Portraits.html/
Folk London magazine, August 2013, review of ‘Counterbalance’ album: https://www.dropbox.com/s/rvceqz9hdq3mxg2/FROM%20FOLK%20LONDON%20feb%202013%20counterbalance%20album%20review.pdf?dl=0
Rock n Reel magazine, July/August 2017, review of ‘Global Heartbeat’ album: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vxmvg4o2xgwtgtv/r2%20rnr%20portraits%20global%20heartbeat%20review%20july%20aug%202017%20crop.jpg?dl=0
Sud Ouest, August 2015: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9atigh3pwyxgp1c/du%20jazz%20aux%20accents%20folk%20article%20in%20sud%20ouest%20re%20portraits%20jazz%20in%20aout%202015%20festival.JPG?dl=0
Best
Euann Euaanmill (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Euaanmill for the COI, if you are not affiliated with the band, please post a response to the notice on your talk page stating that so it is recorded there and that should wrap it up.
You are right in that fame, etc. does not mean notability (under Wikipedia's definition). Usually that applies to things like YouTubers, number of plays from streaming platform, etc. For example, a YouTuber can have millions of views/subscribers and still not meet notability but it does go other way as well.
While I am not going to access your dropbox for security and other reasons, I did check out the websites.
Out the above sources, many are blogs, no info really about them or their standards, or offer PR services thus suspect. HOWEVER, the two I find most promising are Rock n Reel (established publication, broad distribution) and Sud Ouest, which I am assuming is Sud Ouest (newspaper)? If those are in-depth reviews (not interviews or what the band states) then I agree those are likely helpful. While sources do not need to be online, you might try archive.org to see if there's an archived screenshot available.
Assuming those reviews are helpful, I have added a template to the draft which allows for resubmission. Once you have added the sources, summarized what the sources say in the draft and resubmitted, let me know and I will leave a note on the draft for the next reviewer letting them know why its being submitted yet again as I will not review it again (another set of eyes is always better). You can quote a sentence from each source, which is typical for reviews as long as you attribute it to the source and cite it (i.e. Rock N Reel gave a generally positive/negative review, stating the album/song was "blah blah...."). I also suggest posting note on the draft's talk page outlining the three best sources (and only three) and how they establish notability. Be concise. S0091 (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - many thanks once again for your in-depth help with this and your suggestions for the COI and additions of sources to the draft's talk page which I am currently doing. I do appreciate all your suggestions.
You've seen that I've been a little hasty over the last 24 hours and have submitted the draft for review before fully reading everything you've said above...very much my bad, apologies.
I've now edited the article further and left it in "submitted" mode, and hope the changes are fully visible to the next reviewer?
I have certainly focussed on the Sud-Ouest (yes, the French newspaper) and Rock and Reel magazine coverage. Although I have also kept the refs to FATEA magazine, which is, in my experience, a genuinely respected UK online music magazine with a folk focus, and likewise folking.com which I've found is fairly regularly cited on Wikipedia in other articles. I hope that is OK.
Thanks for your offer to leave a note on the draft before passing it on.
E Euaanmill (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Euaanmill oh yeah, that is fine and I see the sources, etc. are there so have added a note. The only issue is the RnR link to goes to the main site rather than to the review so update it if you can. Good luck! S0091 (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again - shall do Euaanmill (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Draft Review - Ghassan Ghaib

Hi S0091, I would like my draft article to be reviewed as I have fixed the references as you have suggested. I would be happy to work with you regarding this, so please let me know if anything is needed from my end. Thank you. AkkadianArtist (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AkkadianArtist you have resubmitted it so another reviewer will take a look. I suggest trimming the group exhibitions to only include the most notable. S0091 (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Randh Deo of argal

sir,i have onformation but that will go beyond histroy of raja randh deo because he is related to gautam rajput clan Rishabh.s2123 (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Luíza Fazio

Hello, @S0091 -- First of all, thank you for the speedy evaluation of the draft! In hopes to improve my contributions in the future, I'd like to better understand your reasoning behind the rejection -- I understand it was deemed "not sufficiently notable", but if you could give any further information about this verdict, it would be very helpful.
Secondly, I'd like to understand if it would still be possible to send a new version, with improved writing and sources, of this draft for evaluation in the future.
I am a recent editor and all clarifications are much appreciated -- thanks in advance!

Vmbr903 (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vmbr903 sources serve two purposes, verifiability and notability (read that). Many of the sources are interviews or her comments which are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability and/or have questionable reliability. For example, Lorena appears to a blog and Writersroom51 mainly provides consulting services. Others are brief mentions or do not mention her. The Vogue article was written by her so also not independent and should be used very carefully. In order to meet the alternative NARTIST it needs to be shown she played a major role in co-creating a significant well-known body of work. It appears, at least thus far, she has largely been a staff writer rather than the lead/main writer for the most significant works (i.e. she is not on the top billing). She certainly is accomplished but being accomplished does not always equate to notability by Wikipedia's definition.
I am happy to reconsider if you can provide a couple sources by reputable publications (think mainstream media) that have written in-depth about her and is not mostly based on what she says. S0091 (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft rejected: Babaji Bob Kindler

Dear Sir/Madam.

I want to thank you for the feedback on my Wikipedia Draft. Unfortunately, the draft was rejected, but I hope you don't mind me inquiring further about this decision.

I can see the draft was deemed as being not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

I'm wondering about this issue of notability. This draft does obviously not represent a monarch or hugely influential political figure - but nonetheless a man which has published over ten books. Some of his work is suggested for further reading, like is done on Sri Sarada Devi's Wikipedia page - and even on Wikiquote's Tantra page, where this man is cited few times.

Best wishes, Guðmundur. Gudkarl (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gudkarl please read through the previous decline message before my reject as that has links which explains Wikipedia's definitions of notability and what is considered a reliable source, etc. S0091 (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gabriela Bucher

Hi @S0091, thank you for taking a look at my article. You wrote that her "interviews or her comments are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability," and I wanted to clarify your concerns as I work to improve the article. I included comments she made in her role as Executive Director of Oxfam in order to highlight the direction she took the organization, and I am having trouble reconciling how to discuss her role leading an activist organization without highlighting her comments. Was your concern that overall the article contained to too much of that content relative to other information, or am I misunderstanding entirely?

Thank you again for your help and feedback! Eventhisacronym (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Eventhisacronym sources serve two purposes, verifiability and notability. You can use those sources to support what she said but what is needed for notability are sources that have written about her, her impact. reactions/criticisms about what she said, etc. The first Forbes source meets the criteria but at least one more is needed. On another note, looking at your talk page it appears I have reviewed most of your drafts but please know that is not intentional. S0091 (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that is helpful! I didn't think it was intentional, we must be online at similar times - but on that note, I did incorporate your feedback on Draft:Heyward_Donigan, including changing citations and adding more sources about her. If you wouldn't mind taking a look again and letting me know if you had any additional feedback, I'd really appreciate it! Eventhisacronym (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm....the trick is when assessing a source for notability is to completely disregard anything directly emanating from the subject or those affiliated with the subject. In this case, anything that is based on what Rite-Aid (or another company that employed Donigan) says, even if published by an otherwise reliable source. This is includes press releases/announcements. For example, WSJ piece "Rite Aid Names Heyward Donigan as CEO", the independent coverage about her are the first two sentences in paragraph two, "Ms. Donigan, 58 years old, was chief executive of Sapphire Digital..." and the last sentence, "Before her time at Sapphire Digital....", so that is trivial coverage, although fine to use to support those facts. However, I found this Fortune article that I think is great. Even after you ignore what she says she wants to do, it provides independent analysis, commentary by other experts about her strategy, etc. S0091 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a great find, thank you! Added in analysis from that Forbes article, let me know what you think. Eventhisacronym (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Wikileith (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Hello! Thanks for your message. I'm trying to learn how to edit major entries having previously helped out with a mass effort to add detail to several hundred Scottish lochs a few years ago. Now I've retired I wanted to see if I can help out with more than just making a donation![reply]

I followed the WikiHow pages to see if I could figure out how to change this entry for practice. I have a friend who knows the subject and and they suggested that I might use her entry as a starting point. Having worked in libraries for most of my life - and having a friend who is very active in the community I thought it might be beneficial to both myself and the community.

But I confess I'm not too sure what I'm doing yet so don't know the status of this page now that it's been reviewed. Would you have time to enlighten me? Grateful for any help you might be able to offer.

Hi @Wikileith: I see you successfully moved the page to a different title. I don't think is correct as we don't use "former" but that's ok. Someone else will likely fix it. I also see you have added content but you did not add any sources which is a violation of the Verifiability policy. See this guide for how to add sources. If you have any other questions or need help, I suggest asking at the Teahouse as you will likely get quicker responses. S0091 (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft!

Hello. I was wondering if you could look at my draft. It is called Draft:Noriyuki Konishi. If it is bad, can it be fixed? Or how do I fix it? Dracques (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re-review

Hello! I was hoping you could take another look at my draft to know how to progress positively with it. Thanks! Adamvibes123 (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Rudhraksh J with Rudhraksh Jaiswal page

i want to merge the two articles under the title Rudhraksh Jaiswal since the given information in both the articles falls under the same individal's information. please help me merge the two. Wasabisushi2913 (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wasabisushi2913 I responded at the draft's talk page. S0091 (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Declined submission of Rise of Cultures article

Hi!

I've seen your rejection of the draft for an English Rise of Cultures article Draft:Rise of Cultures#cite note-3

On one hand, I get your points. On the other, it's the translation of an existing German article. So, either the German moderators have not done a good job or you are being to critical. I am leaning towards the latter given that English articles for comparable games such as Imperia Online or Travian are also lacking the citations you are asking for, at least as far as the description of the story and the gameplay is concerned.

In short, your feedback may reflect Wikipedia guidelines, but it contradicts established practice. And, let's be honest, it's established practice because it's so difficult to find external citations for games that have not received a massive amount of coverage. And limiting Wikipedia to those wouldn't do the medium of video games justice.

As for your specific criticism of some of the citation sources I had used: Again, those may be formally correct, but they do not reflect practice, in this case gaming industry practice. The browser version of Rise of Cultures, for instance, was announced only through a YouTube video. It's not uncommon these days that official announcements are made only through social media channels. I have looked for other sources, but couldn't find any. By a similar logic, mobile games are typically going into unannounced soft launches first. The only - and very reliable source - of information about a game's actual first publication (the official PR announcement is done later, sometimes even months or years later) is the app stores. From that perspective, it simply doesn't make sense to consider app stores inappropriate sources of information. 

Bebenzahn (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bebenzahn, its actually none of the above. Each Wikipedia language is their own project with the own policies and guideline so something acceptable on one may not be acceptable on another. The English Wikipedia tends to be the most strict. As for other articles, see other stuff exists. Policies and guidelines have changed overtime so something acceptable years ago may not be acceptable today and some actilces get by when they shouldn't. I can say both articles at least violate the verifiability policy. Per policy, unsourced content may be removed at any time. As for finding sources, you may find WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources helpful. Generally speaking, video games meet the notability criteria with multiple in-depth reviews by reputable sources. S0091 (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
I have overhauled the draft and resubmitted it.

Thanks for your help and suggestions

I see you worked on Draft:Paul_Prestopino and left a note on the Talk page. Much appreciated. Harborsparrow (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Harborsparrow sure! Sorry for messing up your citation style. S0091 (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with

User:SBD091? I've got suspicions about their contributions and am wondering if they're low key impersonating you. Folly Mox (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Folly Mox no, not familiar and I think impersonation is a stretch. Soo91, yep or maybe even S0092 or something like that but I don't think SDB091 is quite enough unless they were doing things to mimic me like copying my User page, etc. However, taking a quick look at their contribs, certainly agree with your other suspicions. Appreciate you checking! S0091 (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol invitation

Hello, S0091.
  • The new pages patrol team is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles and redirects needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
  • I believe that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
  • Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
  • If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anani Mohamed Draft

Hi S0091–can you please assist with the deletion of Anani Mohamed? I have followed the citing procedures and also have used the same sources as other players on the Guyana National Football Team to support details about the player. Globalsoccerhero (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Raymond (1872-1941)

Good morning,

First of all, thank you for giving your time to Alexandre Raymond's wikipedia.

I will look for the missing references concerning it and I will, over the days, insert them in the wikipedia.

1 - That said, the book by researcher Afifa Bätur "Bir Mimar Bi Yorum: Alexandre Raymond" - which is presented at the very bottom of Wikipedia - is a solid reference in itself.

https://www.nadirkitap.com/bir-mimar-bir-yorum-alexandre-raymond-sergi-katalogu-an-architect-an-interpretation-alexandre-raymond-yayina-hazirlayan-sennur-senturk-raymond-alexandre- kitap24552088.html

2 - Alexandre Raymond was editor of a technical journal in Constantinople in 1910-11-12. This journal can be found in the BNF

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k8937528?rk=21459;2

3 - Finally... the large and new library of Istanbul carefully keeps books and originals by Alexandre Raymond that have been available for consultation on the net for a short time:

https://katalog.ibb.gov.tr/yordam/?dil=3&p=1&q=alexandre+raymond&alan=tum_txt

I would not understand that these three references are not sufficient to justify the acceptance of Alexandre Raymond in the wikipedia.

The French Wikipedia has been accepted: why shouldn't the English Wikipedia be?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Raymond

Good for you! Karagil Karagil (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Karagil each language Wikipedia is its own project and has their own policies and guidelines so something acceptable on one may not be acceptable on another. The English Wikipedia tends to be the most strict. Please also note I am not the reviewer who declined the draft but I did leave comments with guidance about the type of sources needed. It appears from the above these are still primary sources. You need secondary independent sources that have written in-depth about him or about his work. S0091 (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning,
Once again thank you for paying your attention to Alexandre Raymond's Wikipedia. As external references, I will add 2 links. But above all, I add extracts from the book that Afifa Batur, architectural historian, wrote on Alexandre Raymond (Bir Mimar, Bir Yorum: Alexandre Raymond - 1999). There was never any question of Alexandre Raymond because he suffered precisely from a lack of knowledge of his art during his lifetime. His hundreds of drawings on Islamic Art and on Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (Istanbul), which recently became a mosque again, are emerging.
You tell me that it is not you who has the power to prevent the appearance of the English Wikipedia, so who decides? Can't I speak directly to the decision-makers? Can you pass on my message to them?
THANKS
Karagil September 1, 2023 Karagil (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voiceless uvular nasal

Hi, I was looking through the linguistics drafts and saw you'd rejected Draft:Voiceless uvular nasal on the basis that the subject already had an article at voiced uvular nasal, but they're not the same consonant, as one is voiced and one is voiceless which is a huge distinction. -- NotCharizard 🗨 11:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Notcharizard thanks for catching my mistake. I should have selected "merge to" which is next to "exists" in the AfC pick list and really should have also added WP:V as a reason because most of the draft is unsourced. If you look at the history and the templates at both the draft and article, another editor suggested merge and to re-title as Uvular nasal. The editor who created the draft has not edited since they created it back in June though. However, if you are interested feel free to improve it and merge it or either resubmit it or move it to mainspace if you believe a stand-alone article is warranted (i.e. be WP:BOLD). You might also consider becoming an AfC reviewer yourself. See WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants for the criteria. S0091 (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft, Kate Clark (flautist)

Hi S0091,

I am updating Draft:Kate Clark (flautist), and have added more sources to address your comment that "still some of this is unsourced." I have focused on sources that seemed verifiable and that mentioned something more than just her name. I also removed some bits of information that I could not source separately from what Clark has said herself in interviews and in her bios. I do have a question about how to source something like her connection with the Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra, a very prestigious orchestra in the early music field, led by the leading harpsichordist and Bach scholar Ton Koopman. I have not yet found any reviews specifically mentioning the quality of Clark's performance in a particular concert, but there are countless advertisements for past and upcoming concerts. I note that under "Criteria for musicians and ensembles," point 1 says that sources that merely mention concerts do not count. What should I do in that instance, since the mere fact that she plays with such an orchestra with such a leader has a lot of weight?


I have also added a link to show that Clark has won first prize at a major international music competition, which fulfills point 9 under "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" on the "Wikipedia: Notability(music)" page.


It also occurs to me that perhaps the field of early music is lesser known--some of the things on the notability criteria chart will likely never happen to anyone in early music. I wondered if there is something I need to do to show that the prize Clark has won and ensembles she plays with are quite prestigious and respected in the field?


I would appreciate any feedback you have! Traversotwin (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Traversotwin I think another fitting criteria for her is WP:NMUSICOTHER, specifically #3. I also looked for a better source to support her performances with the Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra but came up with the same as you. However, I think is fine to add a source even if it is just a mention to support she performed for verifiability. You can also use her Royal Conservatory of The Hague bio to fill in some pieces. See also her AllMusic entry which may help fill in some of the pieces about recordings.
I found a couple sources on ProQuest which I added, one from The Independent regarding Les Musiciens du Louvre: "Kate Clark's flute solo was quite exquisite; clean, incisive, and virtuosic but never to a meretricious degree."
I also found one from the The Jerusalem Post about a performance from the Authentica Plus series at the Jerusalem Music Center, Mishkenot Sha'ananim on February 1, 1996 where she performed with Ofer Frenkel and Yocheved Schwarz (footnote #2): "The subtle art of ornamentation and refined musical taste were demonstrated by Clark's faithful-to-style renditions. Improvised embellishments were placed just where one felt they belonged, in just the right, never overdone dosage. Her agility in lightly hovering over the instrument's finger-holes in the fast movements, particularly in a highly virtuoso finuetto of a sonata by Leclair, brought the piece's gracefulness to life in all its delicateness. ....Clark's instructive talk about the intricacies and the salient features of the period's ornamental style provided an appropriate introduction of this fascinating evening." I wasn't sure where to put it so I just plopped it in but you can use it to expand the draft. S0091 (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Traversotwin see also footnote 33 I just added which has a lengthy review of Madame d'amours by the Early Music (journal). I think you can access one page but the second page states: "While this disc shows what can be done with vocal sources on purely instrumental forces, it is also a tour de force of instrumental ensemble playing - meticulously prepared, carefully thought out and an exuberant celebration of the flute consort at its best. This recording will have appeal beyond the early wind specialist and scholarly community." S0091 (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @S0091,
Wow, thank you so much for all of these ideas and extra tidbits from your own research! You found some real gems of reviews! I have rearranged some sentences in order to better accommodate the quotes you found, and I added a lot more recordings based on her AllMusic entry.
I was hesitant to include too many things from her biography from the Royal Conservatory of The Hague, as I thought that might not count as "sourced" from Wiki's perspective, since bios are most often written by the musicians themselves. So I just included the things that I could reference. I must admit that this feels like a bit of a gray zone for me.
I really appreciate your taking the time and effort to help me. I am already feeling better about resubmitting soon (just want to dig around for any more reviews). Traversotwin (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Traversotwin see WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF for some guidance on using primary sources. In this case, I think it is fine to use the bio for her date of birth and education if no other sources exist or for other dates (ex. she started teaching at Royal Conservatory of The Hague in 1996). Yes, I agree the draft is shaping up nicely. :) S0091 (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

I'm as surprised as you are! Theroadislong (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong a lot of giggling and a bright smile on my face! I have to say the whole thing is one of greatest exchanges I have seen between editors on Wikipedia. And I agree with AstrowszechwiatWKG, you are the best! :) S0091 (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S0091&oldid=1173289448"