Talk:Sarah Cahill (pianist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This is a biography of a living person.

There was a little difficulty with another person named Sarah Cahill (see my talk page) // Reechard 01:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sarah meets and exceeds the Wikipedia:Notability (people) requirements. // Reechard 14:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
BLP material is verifiable and is written with a NPOV. // Reechard 14:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Cleanup pass over all wiki and non-wiki refs, names, events, venues // Reechard 15:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The John Sanborn she is married to is NOT the late politician John C. Sanborn, so that link should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carny asada (talkcontribs) 20:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I plan to add citations and other references; hoping I can find some of these online. I'd like this to compare favorably to other biographies of living persons; Now that I've received an Editor Review I have a better idea of what's needed to attain a GA-Class on the Quality Scale.Reechard (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I've just put this at 'start'. This is just nominal of course. Let me know if I (or anyone else at the Composers Project) can help. Best. --Kleinzach 01:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy and NPOV pass complete; next, re-evaluate in light of sourced references, add omissions, new section for reference material (audio, video, scores); consider time line of commissioned pieces, add to discography esp. when reviewed by critic. Review background info esp. in light of Tribune article on Cahill's father. Reechard (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ten references added supporting notability, pianism, role in commissioning new works, projects involving topics of war and peace.Reechard (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


I've just had another look at this and I've noticed that 'Biography' precedes 'Background'. It's almost always done the other way. 'Early years' or whatever usually leads to career and then to list of works, refs etc. --Kleinzach 03:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kleinzach ! I was just leaving an audit trail here, and outlining a plan of attack. I'll move this around right now.Reechard (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. One other minor thing: we usually don't make red links unless we intend to write articles on the subjects, or there's a good probability that someone else will. --Kleinzach 09:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes that's much nicer :-) Reechard (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd also recommend avoiding phrases like "Generally acknowledged to be a superb pianist" as non-encyclopedic. Someone may put a fact tag on it. Sometimes we have a 'Critical appreciation' section - but that is normally for quotations by music critics or whatever. --Kleinzach 02:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

yes! I wasn't sure if the New Yorker's music critic saying that makes it "verifiable". I take your point. I take it this sort of claim, no matter how many sources, is not factual. I will remove it and re-consider when I add reviews of various recordings. On the other hand, does citing such "critical appreciation" create a burden to cite negative criticism? thinking aloud :-) Reechard (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It's fine to say Joe Bloggs in his review of . . . said "She is the greatest . . ." (with ref). Also there's no reason why crit. apprec. should be negative, the idea to illuminate what the person has done, though people are free to add any legit. cited quotes. --Kleinzach 04:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)