This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I am curious to know which sources are not considered reliable, or potentially so.
Mark C Carlson 03:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
@Markccarlson: In short, the overwhelming majority of the citations are to low quality sources. Only 2 or 3 are independent professional news media. The system flagged the article's creation for citing user-generated content sites like typepad.com and blogspot.com. Citations to YouTube are generally not reliable, and citing an open wiki like Wikipedia is unacceptable. Organization website are considered self-published and are also not acceptable. Another editor has tagged for {{notability}} due to the low quality references. The best thing to help the article is to cite independent mainstream media sources that verify how Mr. Cavaterra meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for musicians. • Gene93k (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Gene93k: In accordance with these guidelines, I have removed all Youtube and Wikipedia sources, as well as personal blogs, and have replaced/added numerous sources that better meet the criteria for "mainstream media" within the classical music sphere (e.g. Musical America, SF Classical Voice, et al., including widely circulated classical news sources and other periodicals). Please see the revised References list. As regards organization websites (despite being self-published), if an organization or arts series lists its own personnel, would this not be considered a legitimate source (by comparison, a university faculty roster, or a company listing its staff, etc.)? The ensembles/series for which Cavaterra served as composer-in-residence record that title on their own sites; what better source could there be (such things are also rarely reported as news in the mainstream media)? These changes should markedly improve this article's standard for Wikipedia's notability criteria for musicians. TonstantWikiWeader (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@TonstantWikiWeader:The Daily Journal is an okay reference, reputable news site that is intellectually independent of Cavaterra and provides non-trivial coverage about Cavaterra the person or his music. The best chance for establishing notability is more non-trivial published commentary from professional critics. Classical Voice fails as independent coverage, as YPSO is the intellectual author. Finally, the use of self-published sources is restricted in Wikipedia. They may fill in some basic facts, but they cannot serve as evidence of notability. At best, they can only state that the musician worked there. An independent source is better, as it not only verifies the facts but also notes their significance. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
