Talk:Bix Beiderbecke/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Philcha (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Start of review

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). While I intend this review to develop this way in time, my initial read-through suggests other issues need attention first - see "General comments" below.

Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what. When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with  Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it  Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and strike it out --

BTW I've occasionally had edit conflicts in review pages, and to reduce this risk I'd be grateful if you'd let me know when you're most active, so I can avoid these times. --Philcha (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Currently the lead has content that is not in the main text, which is contrary to WP:LEAD - one sign of this is the number of citations in the lead. Please check careful through the lead and copy to the appropriate main text sections any point that are currently only in the lead, plus any citations that accompany these. Then remove the citations from the lead - so re-check that you've copied the citatons to the main text! --Philcha (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to review the Bix article. I've reread Wiki's guidelines on writing leads, and I don't see where it prohibits mention in the lead of content that is not in the main text. In this case, the lead mentions bebop and cool jazz, and that point is not mentioned again, an oversight I'm happy to correct. Lester Young is not taken up again in the main text, but once the point about him is made, there's not much more to say. Because, as I read it, the Wiki style guide doesn't prohibit such a point to be made in the lead, I'm inclined to let it stand. Perhaps, though, I'm reading that style guide incorrectly. And maybe there is more to say about musicians influenced by Bix later in the article. Anyway, if there is specific content you are concerned about, please let me know. Re: citations: The style manual also does not say they are a bad thing in a lead; in fact, it suggests that citations are necessary except where they would be obviously redundant. I think 2 and 3 fall into that category. But the guide also says that the lead should stand on its own as a helpful primer. Toward that end, citations 4 through 8 are intended to point the interested reader toward more information. 1, 9, and 10 are necessary because they point the reader to the source of information, but they aren't redundant. Am I on the right track with this? Margo&Gladys (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Lead#Relative emphasis - "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although specific facts, such as birthdates, titles, or scientific designations will often appear in the lead only, as may certain quotations." The 2nd part of that sentence lists a few small exceptions, but the major point is the first part of the sentence. The first example that I noticed was "His turns on "Singin' the Blues" (1927) and "I'm Coming, Virginia" (1927), in particular, demonstrated an unusual purity of tone and a gift for improvisation". The comment about "Singin' the Blues" is fairly close to the longer comments in section "Style". But "delivered two of his best known solos a few days later on "I'm Coming, Virginia" and "Way Down Yonder in New Orleans"" was the only text passage of this song (its in section "Goldkette"), and does not support ""I'm Coming, Virginia" (1927), in particular, demonstrated an unusual purity of tone and a gift for improvisation." --Philcha (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you giving me a specific example. I think this would be easily fixed. We could say, instead of "in particular," "among others." Or we could just delete reference to "I'm Coming, Virginia" altogether. Margo&Gladys (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• The article currently has a lot of content that would be better placed in other articles - for each members of bands for which Bix Beiderbecke played, and other bands that influenced Beiderbecke and/or had rivalries with Beiderbecke or his bands. My impression is that there is a lot of such content, too much to re-locate while doing this review - Beiderbecke is an important subject, and you've compilated of material. So before you start, I recommend that you save the surrect of the artcile in a sub-page of your User page, so you has improved the other artciles after this review. --Philcha (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, but I don't understand this comment. There isn't any huge amount of information in the Bix article about his fellow band members that would be better off in articles of their own. People are mentioned, sure, but not gone on about at length. And where there are Wiki links for these folks, I've provided them. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Margo&Gladys (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Some examples:

• "the second number was marred by the alcohol consumed by the musicians, who included Tommy Dorsey on trombone and Beiderbecke's best friend, Don Murray, on clarinet". Does this implies that Tommy Dorsey and Don Murray contributed to the alcoholic mistaken in the 2d number? Tommy Dorsey and Don Murray contributed to Beiderbecke's life or work at last, except as members as the same band for a while? If these 2 musicians NOT contributed in at least of one of these aspects, they are irrevelant - just name dropping. --Philcha (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the examples. Re: "consumed by the musicians, who included ..." I think that sentence is pretty clear in that "musicians" is plural, so yes, they all consumed alcohol and all were in part responsible, according to the source, for making it an imperfect recording. But again, I'm confused: "Tommy Dorsey and Don Murray contributed to Beiderbecke's life or work at last, except as members as the same band for a while?" With all respect, I don't know what this means. Then you write, "If these 2 musicians contributed in at leasy of one of these aspects" -- in other words, if they contributed to Bix's life or work? -- "they are irrevelant -- just name dropping." Again, I'm confused. What is name-dropping about mentioning musicians Bix recorded with, especially when a Wiki link can take readers to an article that can tell them that, for instance, Tommy Dorsey was a significant figure in the history of jazz? I hope you don't think I'm being defensive here. I appreciate the feedback, but I can't respond to it unless I fully understand what you're saying. Margo&Gladys (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a huge typo - show have been "If these 2 musicians NOT contributed in at least of one of these aspects". --Philcha (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• In "(Henderson featured Coleman Hawkins and Rex Stewart. In addition to Trumbauer, Beiderbecke, Goldkette boasted trombonists Bill Rank and Spiegle Willcox along with the slap bass pioneer Steve Brown)", your own parentheses hid the game away - it's a superfluous aside. --Philcha (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• On the other side, the Pee Wee Russell quote ""He more or less made you play whether you wanted to or not," Russell said. "If you had any talent at all he made you play better"" shows how uses other musician can provide real enhacements. --Philcha (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right that a parenthetical comment can easily be cut, and I have no problem with doing that. But I'm not sure what the problem is with trying to provide readers the names (and in many cases, link to Wiki articles) of musicians who recorded with Bix. I feel like that's a good thing. But if the article is just too name-heavy for the uninitiated reader, then I'm happy to edit that stuff out. Margo&Gladys (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see Tommy Dorsey and Don Murray were just in the same band, and their names would be better removed. Part of the problem is that if you include all the names, that dilutes the effect of the names that really matter, e.g. Frankie Trumbauer was Beiderbecke's closely friend, Paul Whiteman supplied musical information that Beiderbecke was short of. --Philcha (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll remove them, but I heartily disagree with you. It's simply not mere "name-dropping" to note that Bix made one of his most famous recordings with Tommy Dorsey, who went on to become one of the most important figures of the Swing Era. Trumbauer was, indeed, "Beiderbecke's closely friend," but so was Don Murray. And yes, "Paul Whiteman supplied musical information that Beiderbecke was short of" -- well, actually that's arguable, but I don't think a reader of this article would confuse Dorsey's importance in the Bix story with Whiteman's. Re: Fletcher Henderson, again, I can cut the parenthetical, but here's why I think it's important: when the Jean Goldkette Orchestra played opposite Fletcher Henderson and "won" the Battle of the Bands, Henderson was not a group of unknown hacks. It featured jazz legend Coleman Hawkins and renowned cornetist Rex Stewart. One doesn't need to hit the reader over the head with this, because there are Wiki links to fill them in. Those links help provide what I think is very useful context to that moment in Bix's career. You write above that the Russell quote "show how uses other musician can provide real enhacements" -- I'm not completely sure what you mean, but I want to say that certainly this is a helpful quote. But I don't think that it should preclude mention of other musicians in other contexts for other purposes. Thanks again for the feedback. Margo&Gladys (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Coverage

There seems to be enough. --Philcha (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Structure

• As the top level, I see only one issue. At a ignoramus about jazz, I think I might find it simpler to learn about Beiderbecke's style before his legacy, which still seems to be unsettled. One of the points about his style is how he played both hot jazz and the more eclectic numbers liked by audiences. To jazz "purists" this was "derided", but to Beiderbecke this mixture seems to been both a education and a means to define his own style. For ignoramuses, it might help to clarify the elements in Beiderbecke's mixture. What do you think? --Philcha (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• (comment) There will also be comments about points inside specific sections, which I'd comment at the relevant sections. --Philcha (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Early life

• The first 2 paras look odd, because the issue of who was called "Bix" jumped into the middle of a normal "Early life" section. One effect has made into an aside what looks like a defining moment - Beiderbecke's of his phonograph machine and several records, from his brother. So I suggest it might be clearer if:
  • The phonograph machine and records become a separated para about the origin of his love for jazz - para 3.
  • The para described the member of the family, without the "Bix" issue, but including the parents' lives, is 1st.
  • The name "Bix" is para 2. --Philcha (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Need to defined "hot jazz". May help to note the other name "Dixieland", which I knew before this article - and WP seems to think ""Dixieland" is the more common name, see Hot jazz. --Philcha (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• When did Louis Armstrong meet Beiderbecke at Davenport.
• "Historians disagree over whether that's true" has no citation. And who disagree? --Philcha (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• No idea what illness(es) frequently kept Beiderbecke out of school? --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• "He attended Davenport High School briefly" looks odd - there did he attended previously, and why did he move to Davenport High School? I meant know whether it is importal, but as present it looks puzzling. --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Neal Buckley's Novelty Orchestra has a long name but seems noted only for this incidince. Can we abbreviate this to e.g. "His and his friend were hired as members of a group for a gig in December 1920, but the boys were disqualified because they had no union cards and Beiderbecke failed a sight read test." --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• The arrested can be more more consise. E.g. "On April 22, 1921 Beiderbecke was arrested for indecent behavior against a five-year old girl. ..." or worse if the source supported this. --Philcha (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not clear what "Presumably, they felt that a boarding school would provide their son with both the necessary faculty attention and discipline to improve his academic performance" means - please rephrase. --Philcha (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• "However, the change of scenery did not improve his grades, ..." could be more consise, e.g. "However, his grades did not improve ...". --Philcha (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• "In pursuit of the former, Beiderbecke began taking the train into Chicago to catch the hot jazz bands at clubs and speakeasies, ..." is fluff and the rest could be more consise - e.g. "Beiderbecke began catch the hot jazz bands at Chicago's clubs and speakeasies, ..." --Philcha (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• In "(The headmaster went so far as to inform Mr. and Mrs. Beiderbecke, about Bix, "that certain parents have objected strenuously to their sons' association with him.)"
  • The parentheses are dishonest - either you take responsibility their content and for the space they take in section.
  • If the item is retained, the headmaster's florid prose needs to be replaced with something consise. --Philcha (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Philcha, I'll say again that I appreciate you taking the Bix Beiderbecke article on for review, and I appreciate the time you've put in providing feedback. But at this point, I'm not inclined to make further changes -- not out of any stubborn unwillingness to accept criticism. I am a professional writer and editor, and I give and take such advice for a living. However, I've found your comments to be, at best, difficult to understand. They are so riddled with typos, misspellings, and garbled text as to be, in places, incoherent. They also don't speak well to your credibility as a reviewer.

It's fine to say that you want the article to be more concise. I happen to disagree with you in general, but that in itself should be no reason for an impasse. What's frustrating is that you don't provide any real justification for what you would cut or what you would rephrase. You say that a certain sentence isn't clear ("Presumably, they felt ...") without indicating what on earth is unclear about it. You say something is "fluff" without saying what you mean by that.

Finally, and most objectionably, you write that "The parentheses are dishonest -- either you take responsibility their content and for the space they take in section." I don't know what you mean here. Either I take responsibility or ... what? And what does it mean that I am not taking responsibility for the parenthetical content? It seems like a perfectly clear sentence with a perfectly valid citation. And here you write that if I keep the "item," I must lose the quote because it is "florid." That you think these words are flowery suggests that you and I are not even remotely on the same page.

To show good faith, I deleted another parenthetical statement you objected to despite disagreeing strongly with your reasoning. But here you use words like "dishonest" and "take responsibility," and it's hard for me not to get a bit out of joint. I'll try not to take it personally, but I don't appreciate it. Neither do I need Tony's tips on how to improve my writing; you'll see from the entry and from these comments, that it's perfectly clear, if not as concise as you would prefer. However, if you or any other editor would like to tweak the Beiderbecke article on your own, you'll get no interference or edit war from me. I'm happy to step away. Margo&Gladys (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Note on prose

Your first topic at WP is a long, difficult one - your history shows you began in Aug 2009. In a short topic you can relaxed a bit more, as I did at James White (author). But in a long article, you have to work as being consise - at Evolutionary history of life I did most of the content in a month, and then 2 months at make it more consise; although I start in a more consise than I usual use, as I know it would be a big article (and still wrote one section that I then cut as it was too detailed). Being consise is not about sadomasochism - the point is that long articles are more tiring for readers. I suggest you try the exercises at User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. Then work through all of Bix Beiderbecke, making it more consise - then to User:Tony1/How to improve your writing again, then make Bix Beiderbecke more consise again, for 3 to 4 iterations. I can wait. If you get stuck, or when you have really done, post me. --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Links validity check

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved) link checker

Check for disambiguation and other dubious wikilinks

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)

• shortcut for en.wikipedia.org with redirected and disambig page options selected - not working 11:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Dispenser's checker checks redirs of the article being reviewed

Use of images

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)

Lead

(last, when any issues in the main text have been resolved)

---

Review by Geometry guy

Sadly, Philcha is unwell, and I have volunteered to take over this review until he recovers. Philcha raises many good points above, which I hope will be considered and addressed, but I am going to focus on the most important points as I see them. The GA criteria are not supposed to be too demanding, but they are uncompromising on some points of policy.

The first is that GAs should be verifiable, sourced to appropriately reliable sources, and contain no original research. The quality of the sources used for this article looks very high indeed. I may have time to go to the library and make some checks, but this is not a primary concern. The first point I have noted about the article is a tendency to end paragraphs with uncited editorials. Wikipedia does not have an opinion. If the sources are all wrong, too bad, we report what they say. If sources need interpretation, Wikipedia editors cannot provide such interpretation, unless they can cite a source which does so. Even then, there may be issues of undue weight.

With this in mind, please revisit these unsourced commentaries at the ends of paragraphs, and either provide citations, reword, or remove:

• (Early life) Historians disagree over whether that's true. (According to whom?)
• Beiderbecke fans and scholars continue to argue over this incident's relevance and importance.
• Largely free from the demands of parents and academia, Beiderbecke set out to pursue his career as a professional musician. (This is an example which could be reworded more factually rather than removed)
• (Wolverines) In some respects, Beiderbecke's playing was sui generis, but it's clear that he listened to and studied the music around him: from Armstrong and Joe "King" Oliver to the Original Dixieland Jazz Band and the New Orleans Rhythm Kings to Claude Debussy and Maurice Ravel. (Clear to whom?)
• Still, "Davenport Blues" has lived a long life, recorded by musicians from Bunny Berigan to Ry Cooder to Geoff Muldaur. (Editorializes)
• (Whiteman) And it was precisely these characteristics that have alienated many Beiderbecke partisans over the years. (Blatant editorial opinion.)
• By contrast, Louis Armstrong did not have any number one records in the 1920s, a time when his audience was much smaller and less mainstream than Whiteman's. (Do reliable sources make this comparison with Armstrong?)
• (Style and influence) Armstrong was deeply influenced by the blues, while Beiderbecke was influenced as much by modernist composers like Debussy and Ravel as by his fellow jazzmen. (This may be easy to source.)
• It may also indicate that Beiderbecke's contemporaries were struggling to describe a sound that was new. Eddie Condon, Hoagy Carmichael, and Mezz Mezzrow, all of whom hyperbolically raved about his playing, also saw Beiderbecke play live or performed alongside him. (Whose speculation is this?)

Opinions on Wikipedia must be attributed to reliable sources, otherwise they are original research. I suggest you address the above concerns, in order to meet GA criterion 2a-c. Please also look out for examples within paragraphs where the sourcing is unclear, e.g.

• Presumably, they felt that a boarding school would provide their son with both the necessary faculty attention and discipline to improve his academic performance.
• Historians have disagreed over the identity of the doctor who pronounced Beiderbecke dead.

Geometry guy 23:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The appropriate citations have been added.Margo&Gladys (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Concerning images, File:Young_Bix_Beiderbecke.jpg is problematic, because it is not clear that it was published before 1923. Also the identity of the woman concerned has been a subject of debate. I suggest removing the image. Geometry guy 23:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Image removed. I have no idea about when it was published or what the permissions are for it (I didn't put it there); however, I can say that while the identity of the woman has in the past been debated, it is no longer (see Lion, p. 6 and Johnson, pp. 218-221).

Thanks for stepping in and performing the review. Your work is much appreciated. Margo&Gladys (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. At some point attention may be needed to the level of detail in the article, and whether spinout articles would be helpful. I don't see this as enough of an issue to obstruct GA status, and have listed the article. Congratulations on the excellent work. Geometry guy 12:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

- - - - - please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - -
If you want to start a new section of the Talk page while this review is still here, edit the whole page, i.e.use the "edit" link at the top of the page.