Talk:Diane Schuur

Questions regarding Diane Schuur article

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, Forgive me for posting this on your archive page by mistake--it's a wonder you found it. I have done a near total rewrite of a stub article I found, Diane Schuur. When I started, it had a BLP tag dated June 2013 and only 4 citations. I have added a great deal to it both in research and citations and have removed the template. I would appreciate your taking a look at it to see what you think it needs. I have a couple of questions, since you have been my best Wiki teacher in the last coupe of years. QUESTION 1 — the personal life section of the article has some rather sensitive information — well-documented, but possibly embarrassing to the subject. The words came directly from her mouth if one takes the time to watch the interview. QUESTION 2: In the lead, citations 3 and 4 refer to Youtube videos of performances of the Schuur, first at "Kennedy Center Honors" for Stevie Wonder, and the second with Ray Charles. Is Youtube appropriate as a reference? The videos are certainly compelling and do support the statements made, but I do not know how to tell if there is any copyright violation. Best regards, Eagledj (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Eagledj:. I have just finished my copyedit. As usual, a wonderful job. There are a few hidden notes for you to look at. Other than that, I think it's ready for a good article nomination. I was surprised to see that none of the articles you've worked on have been taken there by you, since at least all the ones we've worked on in the past (and this one) seem worthy. Any reason you haven't? Would you want me to do the honors? As to the matters above, I think the sensitive information belongs. It's verified, certainly important to a complete biography, and not dwelled upon by you in your write-up with undue weight. I checked all the YouTube sources. Everything seems okay. The main thing to look for with videos like this is whether the source of publication likely has rights to the material they publish. So, random person posting a video of a BBC new story is a copyvio; BBC posting a video of a BBC new story is A-Okay. HoustonPBS is surely okay. As to the ones posted by Schuur, I suppose it's possible that she didn't have the right to tape or post, but we can't hamstring ourselves over unbounded copyright paranoia. Best--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Fuhghettaboutit, Your edits are spot on, and always helpful. They make me wonder why I didn't see that, or think of such and such. A good collaborator really helps. You obviously spent some time working on it to verify the sources and make the words succinct and logical. I have found the three hidden notes you inserted and addressed them. I've also add a few things just now which may be clumsily worded. Please take a look. Yes, I would like for you to do the honors for good article status if you will. Regards, Eagledj (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Diane Schuur/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 07:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Don't feel obligated but I have a music GAN (M2M (band)) if you're interested. Rather than bring them up here, I will just fix any minor issues I see myself. If you're unhappy with any of my changes, just revert them and we'll discuss here instead. I'm happy for you to work on any issues I bring up as I bring them up; don't feel the need to wait until I finish the entire review. Freikorp (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit:@Eagledj: Just pinging you both here so you know this review has been started. Freikorp (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Lead

   I think it would be better to place grammy awards mentions as the last sentence of the first paragraph.

   Lead mentions "As of 2015" but the body mentions "As of 2016" with the same information. Be consistent.

   "Some of her albums have featured as co-performers" - I find this to be awkward wording. How about changing to "Co-performers on Schurr's albums have included ..."

   You should remove the citations from the lead as per WP:LEADCITE

   Early life

   All good, but if Schuur has any other siblings it would be worth mentioning them.

   Musical beginnings

   Adding a brief explanation of what 'Harrah's' is would be of benefit to the reader.

   Discovery

   "the album did not do very well because of poor production and distribution" - accordingly to whom? Blaming poor sales on bad production and distribution probably needs attribution.

   Big break

   "Big break" doesn't sound very encyclopedic. How about changing it to "Breakthrough" or something else?

   Career

   "Schuur tapped into the upper echelon of record making know-how" - Can you reword this a bit less dramatically? Or just scrap it entirely?

   "veteran producer/arranger" - Dave Grusin has already been introduced at this stage. I think you can drop this description of him.

   "It was her first record to be released nationally and abroad." - Do you have any details of where is was released abroad? Abroad is a very vague term.

   "The album featured the work of 87 musicians ..." - Why do you feel the need to mention this? There's no secondary coverage, so I don't see why this is of any value. Sure it's probably more musicians than the average record, but if it's not enough to get secondary coverage I don't think it's important enough to mention.

   "Schuur would subtly demonstrate" - in what way was the demonstration subtle?

   "She performed at Carnegie Hall in a tribute" - don't have one sentence paragraphs. Merge this into another one.

   "The twentieth album of her career was the live album" - this entire paragraph is un-sourced.

   "From 1991 on, she made an album almost every year," - this entire paragraphed is also un-sourced. Consider whether it actually improves the section, and if so if it can be merged with another paragraph.

   I feel that this section has some problems in regards to the flow of reading, but fix all the other issues first then we'll get into that.

   Personal life

   "but not for the "usual" reasons" - I think this needs further attribution. Who said "usual"?

   "cat fancier" - I suggest rewording this. Keep it simple.

   "She has experienced skydiving," - firstly, when did this happen? Secondly, again, avoid having one-sentence paragraphs.

   As with the above section, I think this section could be reworked to flow a lot better, but first things first. Fix the other issues and then i'll take another look at it.

   Grammy history

   I don't see any point of listing the nominations and wins in bullet form since they are much better presented in the table. Move the citations to the table and ditch the bullet points.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Conflicting retrieval dates styles. I.e "Retrieved December 1, 2016" and "Retrieved 31 December 2016", and some sources don't have retrieval dates at all.

• Hey Freikorp. Paper sources do not take retrieval dates. They are for web-only sources that could change by some person fiddling with a few electrons, or go dead, and so we mark them to show when the source – that can change at a moment's notice – verified content at least at one time, or was live.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

1. B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Un-referenced paragraphs as per above comments.

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: I'm placing this one on hold until the above issues are addressed. As per the above comments, I think both the 'Career' and 'Personal life' sections could also be structured much better. But they will no doubt be improved when the above issues are addressed, at which point I'll take another look at them. Freikorp (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit:@Freikorp: Thanks for the suggestions. I've addressed most of them, still working on removing citations from the lead (All of them?) — at least it's a starting point. --Eagledj (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking good so far. I've put strikes through the issues I consider to be resolved. You only need to put citations in the lead if the information there is particularly controversial or libelous, or if there is a direct quote, so in this case you don't need any there. Of course, all information in the lead must be supported by citations in the body. Freikorp (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit:@Freikorp: Ok, the lead is free of citations. I believe I've accounted for everything mentioned there, with the exception of three names out of a list of seven: Maynard Ferguson, Vince Gill, Allison Krause. What do I do there? Otherwise, things are now addressed and cited in the body of the article. The "Career" section is so fact-laden it doesn't read as well I'd like, but I'll keep refining it. I've tried to do a detailed edit summary so you can easily see my tracks. Cheers--Eagledj (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm not 100% what you're asking about those three artists. Are you saying you can't find sources for them in the body? In that case they should be removed.

I'm glad you're aware that the career section doesn't read as well as it should. Do you want some more time to keep working on it? This article is capable of being GA, but I'm not comfortable passing it with that section as it is right now. Don't be afraid to trim some of what's there in order to make the overall section better. The immediate thing that stands out from an overview is how short a lot of the paragraphs are. Try and make them at least the size of the paragraphs in the above three sections.

Also you've added some information on her sister. You indicated you didn't know her sister's name in the edit summary, but do you know of the sister is older or younger, or if Schuur has any other siblings? If so please add this to the 'Early life' section. If you can't find this information, don't worry about it. Freikorp (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Freikorp, All things mentioned in the lead are now covered in the body, including Ferguson, Gill, and Krause. Frank Sinatra added in lead and body as well. There is a sister who is older, but I find nothing about her that is notable, but at least she included in the "early life" section now, and I found where she did accompany Schuur flying to an audition in Burbank, which is briefly mentioned. The short paragraphs have been addressed. I think the compelling part of the story for the reader is in Schuur's early years and her discovery — that is a great story. By the "career section" the story levels off, but rises again in the "personal life". I have continued to condense "career". I believe it is some better with the Sinatra anecdote and I am still working on it. Best regards--Eagledj (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I will do a copyedit pass this weekend.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Considering the major improvements I'm happy for this to pass now, but by all means continue making copyedits and minor fixes; you're doing a good job. Well done on the article. Freikorp (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Just finished my copyedit. Very minor fixes. It reads really well. Great job Eagledj, and thank you Freikorp for pushing it to the next level with structured criticism. I came away with a single one remaining of my own: "Schuur gave a moving performance in 1999..."; "moving" is in Wikipedia's voice. We know it was moving because it says not long after: "Wonder was visibly emotionally moved..." so I would just remove the word, but if you want to keep it in, I think it needs in-text attribution. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the word "moving" did not belong there has been removed. The fact that Stevie Wonder was "moved" is covered later, with citation to support.Thanks--Eagledj (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)