Talk:Desireé Bassett

Workshop

This article was created in my workshop: User:Jack_Sebastian/Desiree_Bassett. Relevant points from the discussion page are recreated here. A more detailed listing of the workshop page discussion can be found there. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Most of these were extrapolated from Bassett's website:

{{{2}}}

Caveat

It would appear that an article for this artist has been attempted before (1), by MF14. After adding about 20 edits in a user sub-page, the page was uploaded to Mainspace, where it was tagged at 21:43 on December 4, 2009 by Hersfold, citing CSD:A7 ("Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject").
I think that came about because - judging from the user sub-page, most of the content was culled from a single article and there were a dearth of inline citations. I think that by properly referencing and expanding the article, it would stand a better chance of surviving. Once done, I think I'll involve Hersfold in the evaluation process before uploading to Mainspace. I don't want my redux of the article speedily deleted. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Per Jack's requeset to me on my talk page, I am revising the article to be more neutral. Markvs88 (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK added to noms

As can be seen here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Dab page

• Added to Desiree
• Added to Bassett

need some redirect assistance

I haven't a lot of experience in creating redirects, and really don't want to mess things up. Could someone tell me how to add in an alternative spelling to the subject's name? Her proper name is spelled Desireé, with the accent over the 'e'. It might not matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If her proper name is spelled with the accent above the "E," the article’s title should probably reflect this. In this case, it’s not a redirect you want, but a page move (in other words, to move this article to Desireé Bassett). By moving this page to reflect the accent, a redirect will be automatically created in its place, so anyone not typing the accent will still be able to find this article.

If you agree and know how to perform a page move, go ahead and move the page yourself. Or, if you like, reply to me here or on my talk page and I’ll be happy to move the page for you. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Revisions

I've undone some of the revisions by another editor, as they messed up a number of references, removing some of them altogether. Other problems with these edits exist: the chronology was rather messed up (in the 'Future of Rock and Roll' section)a and specific quotes were removed from the article. many of the changes were good, and I've retained those; the ones that were less improving have been undone. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

After the same user tagged it with three less than applicable tags, I've decided to work on it a bit more, under a work template. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just calling it like I see it Jack. You asked for help editing it, and I did so. Then everything got added back in, as originally written (FOUR words changed between your last edit on the 12th and your edit putting the "at work tag" up. I look forward to seeing your next revision, as it stands those tags are/were *very* applicable. Markvs88 (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i did ask for the help, Markvs, but that didn't suggest that we purge citations and mess up the chronology of the subject. I've made some changes, adding citation where it was suggested, removed red-wikification (for articles that aren't likely to be created), etc. Tagging it as a story, advertisement or non-notable because your edits weren't accepted in their entirety seems a little like sour grapes. We can work together and find the middle ground of where you have specific problems. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a matter of sour grapes at all Jack. The page is in dire need of cleanup, there's a lot of non-encyclopedic information in there. If I messed up chronology or references, I apologise. However, given how much extraneous/minutae was in there (and the fact that I don't know much about the topic), IMO you'd have been better off working with the edited version and adding things back in/re-citing the problem areas rather than just reverting. Markvs88 (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I was also worried about removing/messing up citations; reverting and working from a comparison copy to edit seemed prudent. Let's work together, discussing changes, and we'll find the middle ground to make the article better. Large scale changes means there is that much more territory to cover when issues arise. Let's work section by section, okay? If you are up for that, I'll remove the work tag and stop revising on my own, working with you instead. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter to me how you do it, but this article (while well referenced) needs content revision. Good luck and I look forward to seeing your next version. You don't really need to work with me, as you already have my opinion -- just do a history compare of my last content edit to the version you're working on to see it. Just remember that not everything than can be cited needs to be included (would item X be on the Joe Satriani page? is a good test...) I'm happy to remove tags as the article improves, but for now IMO they really must stay. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

And I've removed the advert tag (its pretty uncivil to suggest that I'm writing an ad for the subject). As well, I am not sure which section you are tagging as "unimportant"; perhaps you could move the tag to the appropriate section. The story bit, you are going to hav eto explain a bit further, as I don;t know how you are evaluating a chronology of someone's life as a story. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You already know what text I edited out, that's exactly what makes it read like an ad. Why? Because the text persuades, and it builds up the topic. It is *not* neutral. Be offended if you want, but it's anything but uncivil. I am not evaluating a chronolgy of someone's life story. I'm evaluating an encyclopedia acticle. This one does not read like one. I'll leave it off for now and give you some time to revise, but if someone else tags it I'd suggest you let it stay. Markvs88 (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Article improvement

Some edits of mine were reverted by Marksv88, and I wanted to address them:

• "The future of rock and roll" - its cited that the subject has been called this. As the section summarizes the content, it shoudl stay. As well, removing the citation that notes this is inexplicable.
• "Endorsements followed from Peavey Amps., Schecter Guitar Research, and production agreements from Nova Sound Studios and Long View Farm Studios recording studios in North Brookfield, Massachusetts. When she returned the following year to play at the NAMM Show, she was introduced as "the future of rock and roll."" - there were endorsement deals/ This is also cited. Most musicians spend their entire lives looking for an endorsement deal from companies like Peavey. It's notable, cited by at least two sources, and should remain.
• "and is also proficient on the drums" - I removed this because in two different sources, she has specifically stated that she is not proficient with drums. Ergo, the removal.

I welcome discussion, not reverting. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it is cited, but *who* introduced her as "The Future of Rock and Roll"? The source does not say but it seems likely to be someone from Peavey, which is one of her endorsements. (NAMM = National Association of Music Merchants). Is this notable? IMO, it is not, as this runs against [[1]], as it is direct product placement: she got the intro, and it only does Peavey good to promote their artist at a show they help to underwrite![2]

I'm fine with the drums comment, that got swept up in the rollback. Markvs88 (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it from the sources, it doesn't matter who said it: it was said to a huge crowd of people who clearly passed it on. Whether it was someone from Peavey a sponsor or an unnamed emcee is a matter of speculation, and I think speculating would be a slippery slope. As far as product placement goes, there are at least two sources noting the endorsement deal, which is a bit more concrete than fannish speculation. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly does matter: Peavey sponsors (at least a part of) the event and she is a Peavey sponsoree. That's self promotion, QED. Or you can take the other route you propose, where it is unverifiable and is *also* out. Either way it is not encyclopeic, just like her father's praises or other rah-rah as we've been over before. I'm not trying to be a dick here [[3]], but IMO this is not a small deal. Markvs88 (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, we do not know who the person who announced her as such and while it would be splendid to know, it would be speculation on our part to try and sherlock out who it might have been. We don't do QED here, at least, not when it comes to writing an article, as it usually results in synthesis. We are simply reporting what was said to thousands of non-sponsored attendees at the NAMM Show, without exploring their motivations for doing so. And despite the assertion that it was "unverified", the fact that it has been reliably sourced to (at least)one notable publication means that we have met our burden for inclusion. We aren't here to extrapolate meaning or intent, unless someone else (who can also be reliably cited) does so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, synthesis. In that case, you're good with the change I just made. After all, it is a far more accurate title. Markvs88 (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not. Could you explain why you thought I would be? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it is syntehsis at work! Seriously, as written it is a section that spans multiple years should be titled just that. She was called "the future of rock and roll" *once* in 2006 (and here I'm ignoring the self promotional aspects of that). The other editors made many of the same edits I did because this is an encyclopedia, not a promotional space. Again, I'm just trying to keep the page neutral. Markvs88 (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misapprehending how we are interpreting synthesis, Marksv88; the section title summarizes the label she was given at the culmination of the previous years' efforts. For the section titling to be synthesis, I would have to be arguing that she is the future of rock and roll absent citation to that effect. As for your continued sherlocking that the title is self-promotional in design - itself grossly misleading, as the subject (or her management) doesn't appear to have been cited as naming herself that - I think that we are going to have to agree to disagree. If you are to uncover evidence that it was given by a promotional sponsor to pimp her out, feel free.

That said, a quick survey of other FA-quality articles of other performers doesn't use anecdotal information in subject titles. For that reason (and that reason alone), I concede the edit. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Jack, I don't take any of this personally and neither should you. You and I both know that there's no way to prove my point regarding "TFoR&R", but let's suffice it to say that so long as the article doesn't read like an ad that I'm all for its existance and improvement. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Jack, I'm sorry if you thought i was making this personal. Maybe it was the use of the term "sherlocking"; I use it in any situation when someone is trying to suss out information. It wasn't meant as a dig. I like working with you. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism, bad grammar...

…This article is a hot mess. 62.198.110.206 (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

And that's why we millions of contributors, anon62. Lend a hand and fict it spmething special. Top it off with some nice spoilers and a new coat of wax. ;) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

And I'm pretty sure her name is Desirée ... and not Desireé ... Edoderoo (talk) 05:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)