Talk:Art Tatum/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aza24 (talk · contribs) 02:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Claiming this review. I love Tatum (my userpage links one of his pieces!), so this should surely be an enjoyable review. Thanks for your work here, expect comments in the next 2–3 days. Aza24 (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I've been busier than expected, I hope to get to this on the weekend at the latest. Aza24 (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I'll be around. EddieHugh (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Prose and coverage

Lead

• More of an optional suggestion, but short sentences as the first paragraph are less than ideal afaik. For example, the google search preview is a little awkward in the current state and hovering over the link Art Tatum gives a preview that appears a little empty, as a result of displaying a single sentence. Something to think about, I almost wonder if the final paragraph could just be moved to after "greatest in his field."

I'll try it there and we can see how it looks after any other changes have been made. EddieHugh (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think for me, personally, it works better now—but I will leave this up to you, if you want to change it back. The other part of my reasoning was that the article may not be so long as to warrant a four paragraph lead.

I agree – it helps to draw out more of what he was known for. EddieHugh (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• I thought that Tatum was rather famous for his partial blindness, could this be worked into the lead perhaps?

I'm reluctant to do this. Tatum wasn't famous for being blind. He was famous for being a pianist. He also happened to be blind. I view highlighting such things as implying that someone was successful in a chosen pursuit despite not having something that most others take for granted. It's a bit patronising and can be a form of discrimination. EddieHugh (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Understood, and agreed. Just thought I'd mention it. Aza24 (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Tatum's visual impairment should be recognized from the start because he was unable to read music or see the keyboard like other piano players, which made his "musicality" even more remarkable. In addition, the article is not about Tatum's musicality; it's about Art Tatum. Also, check out articles about other visually impaired musicians such as Andrea Bocelli, whose impairment is identified from the beginning. 98.244.137.86 (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)kolef98.244.137.86 (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Some link ideas: Alcohol and health to "damage his health"; Jazz trio; Jazz piano to "his field"; virtuoso

I'm at the severe end of the MOS:OL enforcers. Linking jazz piano is redundant when jazz is already linked; same for jazz trio; virtuoso is a common word; alcohol and health... maybe, but the connection is unlikely to be news to readers. EddieHugh (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about your linking philosophy; I'll keep that in mind for my further comments. I would still say that Jazz trio would be worth linking; most readers will not know that a jazz trio consists of a very specific group of instruments, they'll just assume it could be any three.

• Surely "Pianist" (or "Jazz pianist") would be more to the point in the infobox (rather than "Musician" I mean)

This is normal in Infobox musical artist. There's Instrument for... instrument, genre for genre; 'jazz pianist' would therefore be repetition. EddieHugh (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Good point, I'm not familiar with this type of infobox

• If "stride" is important enough to put in the infobox, I wonder if it can be included in the lead
  • With this in mind, I'm wishing there was a sentence about his influences in the lead, perhaps you could have something like "Drawing from the influence of both the stride style of Fats Waller and James P. Johnson and the harmonies of Debussy and Ravel, Tatum developed a highly-individualistic style. (?)

I'll look at something like that and update here later. EddieHugh (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the sources (and the body here), putting Debussy and Ravel in the lead is probably undue. Positioning a separate influences sentence is also difficult, so, not wanting to attempt a rewrite of the lead, I added "far beyond his initial stride influences" to the final sentence of para 1. I think it establishes a contrast with the final part of the sentence, which also covers the classical influence without listing names. EddieHugh (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Early life

• Karl's future is mentioned, anything brief about Arline available?

I don't see anything apart from that she became Arline Taylor, so nothing worth mentioning. EddieHugh (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• "he could only see things that were close to him, and perhaps could distinguish colors" right?

Not really: the operations were to improve his sight, whereas 'only' would imply that they made it worse. Reworded to clarify. EddieHugh (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• You start sentences with "He" quite a bit, which I don't think is a big issue, but I would advise against doing it twice in a row (e.g. "He was there for... He had formal..."

True – an artefact of how I usually assemble article content. Changed that one and I'll look at others. EddieHugh (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I've reworded a few more now. EddieHugh (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Later life and career

• to play last, after all the others had finished. works, but still sounds a little redundant to my ears, what do you think?

True. Cut "last,". EddieHugh (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• "two sides", "more side" etc., assuming this is slang for something, could a link or rephrase clarify here? I don't think the average reader will be familiar with the term; maybe a Wiktionary link could help in this case (if a WP article doesn't exist)? Hopefully this wouldn't be too at odds with your linking approach :)

Common terminology to refer to releases of that time; probably more appropriate than "single". I've added a link. EddieHugh (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• "king of jazz piano players"—seems a little unencyclopedic (and a bit WP:PEACOCK); is there a more nuanced way to say this? E.g. "most-respected" "most-prominent" "leading jazz piano player of his time" or something?

It is used in the source, but fair point. How's "pre-eminent"? EddieHugh (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Good solution, I would think Aza24 (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• "lived as well as their incomes permitted"—seems vague, I get the sentiment (I think?), but an adjective (extravagant?

"Lavishly" to me feels a notch down from "extravagantly", and thus more accurate, so I added that. EddieHugh (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• "by his biographer" may as well say who we're talking about in the text; this phrasing sounds to me like this is his only biographer

There is only one if we mean books that are not self-published, but added for clarity. EddieHugh (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• "A fellow pianist" assuming we don't know who this is? Just thought I'd check

Mel Clement. Non-notable (meaning no Wikipedia article). I tend not to add such details, but put it in if you prefer. EddieHugh (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Unsure about this, but perhaps worth noting his trio combo was atypical?

I think that trios were unusual at that time, with or without drums. I think that the association with piano, bass, drums came later. EddieHugh (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Following a health warning"–did something specific happen, or the doctor warn him? Seems a bit vague

The source is a bit vague, too. Reworded to "Following a deterioration in his health", which is still non-specific, but easier to understand. EddieHugh (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Tatum was not linked to drug use." – well, alcohol is a drug, perhaps rephrase?

Changed to "Tatum was not linked to the use of illegal drugs". EddieHugh (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Style of technique

• "that Tatum often did not modify his playing when in a band."—this may not seem like a "bad" thing to the average reader. Perhaps it can be clarified; I assume you're saying he still played like he was the only one on stage, or did not adjust his playing to suite a collaborative environment?
  • okay now I'm reading the next line "A general criticism of him in a group setting..." and it seems to be the same criticism as the above, but they're presented as different?

Yes, they were the same thing, so now combined, with some punctuation changes to avoid a long sentence. EddieHugh (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Other

• I don't really have much else to say about the rest of the prose, really fantastically written! I glanced through his Grove biography (which is a little pathetic...), and wonder if his 1944 concert at the MET would be worth mentioning? Seems significant for a Jazz pianist of the time.

Thanks. The lack of good summaries of the life of such a major figure was one motivation for my improving this one. The MET fits in, although the content of the detail implies that it wasn't such a big thing. EddieHugh (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS

• The year ranges alone are less than helpful as section headers. I wonder if a small amount of context can be added e.g. "1927–1937: Developing musician" (I'm not really sure how to sum up the first section) but the section heading names of Berlioz and Monteverdi come to mind.

I have done what you suggest in other articles, especially where there have been clear physical location changes. Art Farmer is an example. For Tatum, most of his adult life was similar: spend a few months in one place; play a variety of venues; record a bit; move on. As a reader, I dislike section headings that pick out one aspect from the contents: that's an inaccurate summary and not helpful. We could split the content further to chunk it by events, but there'd be some short sections. Doing it with years is like punctuation for the reader. EddieHugh (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Recognition outside music"—not sure if this is the right name here, especially since the 2nd one is not "outside of music"

Are (computational) musicologists in music? Changed to "Other forms of recognition", but please change it if you can think of something better. EddieHugh (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say so, musicology is musicology. Maybe "Memorials"? No title seems ideal, but I don't think it's an outstanding issue. Aza24 (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources

• No issues here Aza24 (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Passing

I've found all of my issues appropriately addressed; I am confident this article meets the GA criteria. Congratulations on a fantastic job—I see that you mostly do GAs but I would encourage you to bring this to PR and than FAC... you never know :) Passing now. Aza24 (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing. There are some (recording) details that I'd want to check and probably incorporate before attempting FAC, although Elmo Hope would be a more likely first attempt. EddieHugh (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your incredible work - I have idolised Tatum since I was a child, and this page is an incredible tribute. Many thanks. No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)