This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article is in need of a semi or complete overhaul to fit the WP:MOS, specifically the use of refbegin and the dividers/html coding. -- Jennica✿ / talk 08:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
An editor didn't like my changes, so I offered to go over some of them, starting with the infobox.
It's always interesting to me that an article can be weak, and yet the writer found enough time and learned enough of the rules to tack on a "use my dates" template. More than a little territorial, if you ask me. That time could've been better spent on the content of the article or reading documentation.
Your comma makes the reader stop and inhale. Who are the Orchids? Should "The" be capitalized? Is "shunned" POV? Did something terrible happen on tour that he compelled him to "shun" it? There's dramatic nothing in the article to warrant that hyperbole. Why not say he "stopped" touring? He "thereafter subsisted". Or you could say "he made a living" or "he worked". That's how we talk in America. Even in Norwalk. Why "subsisted" when writing for a general audience. On the internet, people want information quickly and succinctly. Why "thereafter" instead of "after"? Are points scored if more syllables are used? If you've already used the past tense (he shunned touring), then you don't need to add "thereafter", as you wouldn't say "he shunned touring and after shunning touring, he". The past tense puts us in the past. We don't need "after" or "thereafter" for emphasis. Did he teach and perform near Norwalk or in Norwalk or both? That takes me back to what "based in Norwalk" means.
Nothing POV here. Now you tell me which is easier and faster to read. Which one is in plain, direct English that appeals to more readers.
OK, you don't think this is puffery, I guess because you have sources. I don't know why you put your sources under References when you could simply use "reflist". I've seen a small number of people do this. I guess it has something to do with wanting to reduce clutter, which would make sense, but if you use colored syntax when you write code then clutter is much less a problem. Also, I like to see the first occurrence of the source in the text itself, not in the References section. It's logical, it's easier for everyone to follow. Again, I'm thinking of other readers who will look at or work on the text. I used the "Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books" at "reftag.appspot.com" to shorten the Google URL and give some consistency to citations.
You write "published acclaim" — OK — by "industry professionals — meaning what or who? Mottola? isn't he singular? — "fans" — plural? who are not impartial and can't be used as sources — "virtuoso jazz musicians" — plural again, like who? Does being a virtuous jazz musician automatically bestow authority and impartiality and good judgment about other musicians? Takes one to know one? Not always. More important, you write that there are many people praising Chamberland but you list only person, Mottola. Mottola is a good guitarist, but I'm not sure he's a virtuoso. I doubt he is considered one of the top fifty jazz guitarists. He's known more for being an executive, the head of Sony. An important job. But does the head of Sony have an interest in calling a guitarist one the greatest of all time? And if he is one of the greatest of all time, why is Mottola the only one saying that? How did Mottola know Chamberland? Could he be considered an impartial source? As impartial as Scott Yanow? You have another source. Mark Herrman's web site. Who's he? You link to something he wrote on his web site called "Missing Linc: An Open Letter to My Great Mentor". Was that published anywhere else but his web site? Do you think he's an impartial source? Even after writing "My Great Mentor"? I didn't delete it. You think I was overcritical, but I was being generous. I didn't even leave a template by that citation or comment about it in the edit summary. But it probably doesn't belong there as a source, does it? Also, the citation says "1913" when I think you meant "2013".
If we don't show a little humility and backbone when we're wrong, then we can't learn, progress, and improve. Some people are afraid of change. But editing is all about change. You are probably correct that I should not have been so blunt. My expectations for myself are high, and I make the mistake of assuming others have the same standards.
–
Vmavanti (
talk) 20:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article is in need of a semi or complete overhaul to fit the WP:MOS, specifically the use of refbegin and the dividers/html coding. -- Jennica✿ / talk 08:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
An editor didn't like my changes, so I offered to go over some of them, starting with the infobox.
It's always interesting to me that an article can be weak, and yet the writer found enough time and learned enough of the rules to tack on a "use my dates" template. More than a little territorial, if you ask me. That time could've been better spent on the content of the article or reading documentation.
Your comma makes the reader stop and inhale. Who are the Orchids? Should "The" be capitalized? Is "shunned" POV? Did something terrible happen on tour that he compelled him to "shun" it? There's dramatic nothing in the article to warrant that hyperbole. Why not say he "stopped" touring? He "thereafter subsisted". Or you could say "he made a living" or "he worked". That's how we talk in America. Even in Norwalk. Why "subsisted" when writing for a general audience. On the internet, people want information quickly and succinctly. Why "thereafter" instead of "after"? Are points scored if more syllables are used? If you've already used the past tense (he shunned touring), then you don't need to add "thereafter", as you wouldn't say "he shunned touring and after shunning touring, he". The past tense puts us in the past. We don't need "after" or "thereafter" for emphasis. Did he teach and perform near Norwalk or in Norwalk or both? That takes me back to what "based in Norwalk" means.
Nothing POV here. Now you tell me which is easier and faster to read. Which one is in plain, direct English that appeals to more readers.
OK, you don't think this is puffery, I guess because you have sources. I don't know why you put your sources under References when you could simply use "reflist". I've seen a small number of people do this. I guess it has something to do with wanting to reduce clutter, which would make sense, but if you use colored syntax when you write code then clutter is much less a problem. Also, I like to see the first occurrence of the source in the text itself, not in the References section. It's logical, it's easier for everyone to follow. Again, I'm thinking of other readers who will look at or work on the text. I used the "Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books" at "reftag.appspot.com" to shorten the Google URL and give some consistency to citations.
You write "published acclaim" — OK — by "industry professionals — meaning what or who? Mottola? isn't he singular? — "fans" — plural? who are not impartial and can't be used as sources — "virtuoso jazz musicians" — plural again, like who? Does being a virtuous jazz musician automatically bestow authority and impartiality and good judgment about other musicians? Takes one to know one? Not always. More important, you write that there are many people praising Chamberland but you list only person, Mottola. Mottola is a good guitarist, but I'm not sure he's a virtuoso. I doubt he is considered one of the top fifty jazz guitarists. He's known more for being an executive, the head of Sony. An important job. But does the head of Sony have an interest in calling a guitarist one the greatest of all time? And if he is one of the greatest of all time, why is Mottola the only one saying that? How did Mottola know Chamberland? Could he be considered an impartial source? As impartial as Scott Yanow? You have another source. Mark Herrman's web site. Who's he? You link to something he wrote on his web site called "Missing Linc: An Open Letter to My Great Mentor". Was that published anywhere else but his web site? Do you think he's an impartial source? Even after writing "My Great Mentor"? I didn't delete it. You think I was overcritical, but I was being generous. I didn't even leave a template by that citation or comment about it in the edit summary. But it probably doesn't belong there as a source, does it? Also, the citation says "1913" when I think you meant "2013".
If we don't show a little humility and backbone when we're wrong, then we can't learn, progress, and improve. Some people are afraid of change. But editing is all about change. You are probably correct that I should not have been so blunt. My expectations for myself are high, and I make the mistake of assuming others have the same standards.
–
Vmavanti (
talk) 20:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)