Talk:Michael Laucke/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 21:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well. I will be making my review comments over the next couple of days.

• initial comments

• There is a neutrality tag that needs to be addressed before there is any point in going on with the review. Putting it on hold to allow for issues to be addressed, once they are satisfied I will review the article. Note, do not just remove the tag. @Walter Görlitz: you placed the tag, I will ask you to please comment if the neutrality is addressed?
• Second of all - I am kinda disturbed this is put to the Peer Review after being nominated for Good Article. The point is that it should already be there at GA level when nominated, not afterwards. Putting it for Peer Review tells me that you're not confident in the quality.

@Checkingfax: - Review on hold to get the neutrality addressed if it is addressed within 7 days I will continue the review.  MPJ-US  21:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, MPJ-DK. Thank you for considering this article for GA review. I did not receive your ping, but I did get a ping from the bot.

The neutrality tag says the issues to be addressed are on the talk page, but they are not. Thank you for poking Walter on that. The article has been up for over six months with the participation of over 40 distinct editors and none before has ever placed any maintenance tags. Walter has placed the POV tag twice without offering specifics. Walter has instituted several very helpful minor edits, with most being from a MoS perspective.

As for peer review, this article was in the GA hopper for over three months so I figured I might as well reach out for some pre-polishing to make your GA review job easier. It is always helpful to get a fresh set of eyes on an article. Walter was one, if not the only one, who responded directly to that request. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Alright so here is my suggestion. I will do a review of the article, if Walter replies within 7 days and I agree there is a neutrality issue we can deal with it. If there is no reply within 7 days and I do not see a neutrality issue I will remove the tag on the article at that point in time. I think that's probably the most fair approach, give him time to comment while we can work in any review improvements I might find, would you agree?  MPJ-US  02:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry that its' not clear what the neutrality issues are. I clearly did not make any section titled neutrality issues, but I did write quite a bit on the talk page.

The first issue issue the amount of fan cruft that's included. The article that sourced "yo-yo competition among 2,000 contestants" is sourced to an editor who may have been writing a fluff piece. It's really not relevant. And much of the article is like this. I have not discussed it before, but this is part of the problem with the article. The same can be said about the snooker section.

What I did discuss was the inordinate length of this article compared to other publications. I compared it to the length in thecanadianencyclopedia.ca and that of other Canadian musicians. Bruce Cockburn and Glenn Gould immediately came to mind. The Wikipedia articles for those two is about the same length as their entries in the Canadian Encyclopedia. This article is two paragraphs long there while it's much longer here.

The detailed lists of self-published musical works and transcriptions for guitar. The media links, etc. All too much for this barely notable musician. If every musician got their PR team to work on a Wikipedia article so that it were to be as promotional as this one, the project would become completely worthless. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Walter Görlitz that some parts of the article look unnecessary and perhaps non-encyclopedic as well. We are interested in Laucke as he is a musician, I don't see why we should write such a lot on his snooker skills here. I feel the same about the "Articles" section. If it must be mentioned, then just add a line or two on it. I am not sure if the length is a problem so long as the article remains focused and comprehensive. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, MPJ-DK (with cc to Sainsf and Natalie.Desautels). I am not a fanboy of Michael Laucke and never heard of him until Natalie came to The Teahouse asking for help and nobody seemed able to help her. I checked out her efforts and surprisingly was able to help her. Since then over 50 editors (and bots) have pitched in. Laucke's article was 100% about the musician and frankly was not a biography. In a quick search I could find no references about Laucke, period, to expand his biography. I do not understand the statement "we are interested in Laucke as he is a musician". When I read a biography, I expect to read a holistic biography not a sequestered one. I want the good, the bad, the ugly, the early, the late, and the end. If something is not encyclopedic we can fix it. Natalie is enthusiastic which comes across as puffery, but that is not her intent, and most puffery has been toned down to levels strictly supported by reference. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Alright now we're getting somewhere on this, thank you Walter and Sainsf for your feedback. I would agree to a large degree with all the comments - although I don't care about the size compared to some other website, I do care that this seems to go into excessive detail on some points or add in these totally irrelevant side tangents about someone or something mentioned in the article that's not Laucke - it has a real problem with focus. Having heard input from a few people and with what I've seen it's currently really far away from being a Good Article. I am torn on if it's too much work to achieve in about a week and fail it or do a full bore review.  MPJ-US  12:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, MPJ-DK (with cc to Natalie.Desautels). Please roll up your sleeves, dish it out, and we (meaning all interested editors) will quickly address your concerns. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

---

GA Toolbox

I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.

Peer review tool

• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), honour (B) (American: honor), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), jewelry (A) (British: jewellery).

-Comment: Natalie wrote the article in American English from the beginning and I placed a {{Use American English}} tag at the top of the article to clarify that. Walter changed the tag, and recently began a British English conversion of the article. There was no consensus for this change, but it makes sense to me. Natalie is a French Canadian, but she chooses to write in American English on the English Wikipedia, as is her choice. That is a bit of background on the recent inconsistency. By the way, British English is not held to isation vs. ization; that is not supported by actual current usage in Britain. Natalie has stated she is happy to join in the conversion.

• Fixed as far as I can tell to Canadian usage (other than within quotes of printed matter)Y

• didn't used outside of a quotation should be "did not"

-Done? Not finding it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

-Done; found and corrected by Corinne in Early life section. N.D.

Copyright violations Tool

• No issues Y

Disambiguation links

• No issues Y

External links

• No issues Y

Well written

• My first read through will focus less on grammar and more on content, neutrality, POV and issues pointed out by wikipedians.
• A general comment - almost everything has some sort of quote praising Laucke, even his video release has words of praise for it. I get it on occasion, but rarely have I seen an article that borrows so many word of praise from sources, almost like a peacock showing off its feathers - I do agree with the neutrality tag.

-Comment: Early reviewers and/or editors requested/performed edits changing blanket statements to quoted style.

Lead

• Why are there so many sources in the lead? If it's covered in the main article it does not need sources in the lead.

-Comment: The backup sources in the lead were requested by early editors. Not all editors subscribe to the school of thought that the lead needs to be free of redundant citations. I am happy to remove them and I will, but you asked a question, so I answered it.

-All sources removed from lead Y

-To further clarify, the references in the lead have been changed back and forth 5 times due to editors' conflicting interpretations about refs in lead. One editor says an important claim needs proof by way of reference, then another deletes the ref saying there should never be references in the lead. Thus, I am happy with whatever is decided by wise editors with a higher understanding. Natalie.Desautels (Should each issue be signed?)

-As the nominator it is implied that I am the respondent so I will not be signing. Maybe for brevity you could sign yours with N.D.? Cf

• A 1991 source cannot support "now averaging 150 concerts a season" twenty five years later, nor can a source that's from 1988.

-Removed 150 Y

Early life

• Yes he won a yo-yo concert and a bike, he built a toothpick boat but just because it can be sourced - thank's to Laucke apparently keeping ancient articles and then publishing them with the right CC tags - does not mean it should be added. Seems like an "interesting factoid", crufty to an extend and really something that makes it seem unencyclopedic

-See Snooker comment.

-Early life section refactored.

Snooker

• It's already mentioned in "early life", adding a separate section that overelaborates with quotes etc? That seems like it's over the top.

-Comment: Personally, as a reader, I like the way this segues from toothpick boat, to yo-yo champ, to earning money through snooker, to enabling a lifelong passion and career. It flows for me and is all germane.

-Snooker sub-section removed and refactored into Early life section.

Early career

• "In 1961 Laucke had his photo taken by Frank Angelo, Laucke's first manager and who later became founder of MAC Cosmetics" - Unencylopedic, fluffy.

-Fluff removed.

• "who was the main sponsor of the bill that created the National Endowment for the Arts.[20]" - lack of focus, how i this relevant to Laucke? it's like stating "hey he knows famous people" - which is fine for a magazine profile I guess, but this is not a magazine.

-Trimmed.

• " transmitted live on Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) TV.[22]" - it is the Olympics, of course it was transmitted live on a variety of channels around the world.

-Trimmed.

• Here it mentions sharing a loft - appropriate level of detail here. later it has its own section too? Too much honestly.
• "They performed together in private for, and befriended, the New York City jet set including fashion designer Calvin Klein, Tiffany jewelry designer Countess Elsa Peretti, Andy Warhol, Halston, and Giorgio di Sant'Angelo.[25][26]" again this is where it turns into a puff piece - "look at me I know people" is not really relevant unless it led to something else - and not playing for a fashion show.

-Name dropping removed.

• Reference 27 does not actually seem to mention Laucke?

-Quote expanded to more fully include subject Laucke. N.D.

• The whole section on the "practiser" seems overly detailed and not sure how encyclopedic this actually is.
• "Laucke went on to receive several other awards and critical acclaim" - as generic a statement as can ever be made

-Comment: We are encouraged to write in summary style and allow the reader to follow the footnotes if they want an expanded view. This single line has six footnotes behind it to follow.

Articles

• List them at the bottom at most, not necessary to have a bullet list here.

-Moved list to bottom of page, but above See also section per MOS:LAYOUT

-NOTE: Also, moved Highlights and awards section down there too, to de-emphasize it.

World tours

• No source for "averaging 150 each season", he did 150 in 1991 but that doe not mean he averaged that since then - it has been 25 years after all.

-150 removed.

• The side note on Raymond Nelson are totally irrelevant to Laucke - while tragic they do not belong in this article. This is just one of several places where info not relevant to the subject is added.

-Removed side note.

• So at this point it ceases to be a chronological article and jumps around - unless "early life" and "world tours" really brings us up to date on his career? At this point some of the sections become repetitive, expanding a lot on something already stated (like "Paco de Lucía"). It loses it's focus and jump from subject to subject.

-Comment: digging in. Can you be more specific? The whole article loses focus? Or the section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Checkingfax (talk • contribs) 16:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Personal life

• This section is really symptomatic of the problems this article has. It's not really about his personal life, except a short mention about the foundation - but the section is about the foundation and their work, not Laucke. Lack of focus.

-Comment: There is very little citeable sourcing on Laucke's personal life.

-Trimmed: In spite of hundreds of existing newspaper articles, including popular magazines, there is nothing on Laucke's "personal" life, if this means gossip column "personal". An early, experienced editor said to put Laucke's charity work for MAC in the Personal life section. Section now trimmed to focus on Laucke's role as Director of Mac AIDS Fund (M·A·F). N.D.

• I am not going to do a grammatical review right now, for this to be neutral several areas will have to be rewritten, reduced etc.

Sources / verifiable

• I see a lot of scans uploaded to wikimedia that would normally not have been available, they're basically taken off a Flickr account by Laucke's publisher - unless he himself felt like showing off all this stuff (unlikely). The fact that all these are funneled into the article totally raw by uploading them to wikimedia instead of just linking to the Flickr account is again not helping the POV appearance of the article. Some were uploaded within 8 days of being put on Flickr??

- Partially done. TO DO: link all images directly to Flickr account. N.D.

• I don't see Laucke's name mentioned in the link for reference #1

- Partially done. See Talk page concerning Intermede record company source. N.D.

- Done. N.D.

• Reference #2 does not mention Laucke's name either?

- Partially done. See Talk page concerning McGill University Records source. N.D.

- Done. N.D.

• Reference 16 should list the title of the article, Google News Archive is just the means of displaying the content - that would be like listing "Wikipedia" if citing this article

-Done. Title entered as appropriate. (This must refer to Ref #10 since it is the only reference stating Google News Archive.) N.D.

• Reference 19 does not list the author, fairly obvious from the source who it is. and "Unites States Senate letter" as the publisher?

-Fixed author. See Talk page N.D.

-Done. (Also,linked to Flickr account as per recommendation). N.D.

• I have never seen a reference like #35, what is that about?

-Added missing first part of quote to further clarify Laucke's invention of the "practiser". N.D.

• And 48?
• Reference 41 and 42 are identical.

Done. Two different reviews (October 1981 and March 1982) See Talk page N.D.

• Reference 46 does not mention Laucke's name, so it's not sourcing any statement made about his involvement in the movie.

-Fixed. Un-useful reference deleted. N.D.

• The note on reference 47 is not found in the image linked?
• "2016-02-08" format is used once or twice, all references should have the same date format.

-Done: unified date formats per MOS:DATEFORMAT by script. In this case to dmy. Y

• Reference 76 does not actually source anything other than the website exists?
• Reference 86 does not seem to support anything stated about Laucke?

- Partially done. concerning composer Bregent. See Talk page N.D.

• Reference 99, a collection of references again?

-please review the References section. I am not seeing the issue.

• Reference 117, a collection of references again?

-please review the References section. I am not seeing the issue.

• Reference 128 and 129 are basically just external links, no info in the references?

- Partially done. ...to be sourced using more complete AV citation template. See Talk page N.D.

Broad in coverage

• Has issues, details outlined in the "Well written" detailed review section

Neutral

• Has issues, as already outlined by other commenters, in the reference section and I do get a strong vibe of this being a promo piece with the straight import of everything Laucke's publicist puts on Flickr.

Stable

• With the neutrality tag and comments from several wikipedias I would say no, there is content disputes with the current version.

Illustrated / Images

• While everything is licensed to Laucke himself I do get the impression of bias in the descriptions of these pictures - Like "great friend" etc. really is not helping this piece shake the impression of not being encyclopedic in parts.

-Comment: Not finding "great friend" at this juncture. Please point out more examples that need fixing.

-Done. N.D.

Comments

• @Checkingfax: - I have pointed out quite a few places where the article needs to address the tone, content, focus, neutrality etc. so I am going to allow editors to try address those in the next couple of days instead of failing it which I am sure some reviewers would have done. MPJ-US  14:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, MPJ-DK. Roger that. Going forward please cc Natalie.Desautels as she is the one who did all the research for this article, she speaks French, and she is very willing and eager to adapt the article, as I am, and to polish it where it is currently lacking. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi MPJ-DK. On the Laucke talk page Natalie has put a call out for the previous editors to stop by and help address the concerns you have listed. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi MPJ-DK (with cc to Natalie.Desautels). A couple of references have now been deleted so your numbers are no longer relevant. Can you please point out the references that still need attention? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi MPJ-DK (with cc to Natalie.Desautels). Can you please circle around with your green checkmarker and {{aye}} all issues you deem as done? Also, still need some clarification on a couple of reference numbers as the reference numbers have shifted, or have been removed. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Initial comment by Natalie

@Checkingfax, MPJ-DK, and Sainsf:

Hello MPJ-DK, My heartfelt thanks for your fantastic work here, truly appreciated, to be sure. I love to work very hard and roll up my sleeves, and will take the pleasure to do so here, addressing all the issues you so kindly took the time to mention. Most are very interesting, and some embarrassing, such as "great friend" which must be deleted; as you said, now we're getting somewhere. Even if it doesn't achieve GA worthy status first time around, it will be greatly improved thanks to your observations; one week is ample time I would say. I have some translation work commitments and a deadline right now, and am eager to get to work on this. Meanwhile, I have made a quick comment on the minor issue of the yo-yo and snooker competition wins, and the influence they had on, and link to, Laucke's music career. As mentioned, I will get to the meatier material later. You have been more than generous and I don't want to infringe upon your good nature. If you have a moment, I would love to have your thoughts on the logic of the following thoughts, wiki-wise, about EARLY LIFE: YO-YO AND SNOOKER.

There is a human interest angle here as well as being music study and career related. Even though Laucke went onto become an international success as a concert guitarist, the Early Life sections on yo-yo and snooker are in fact an integral part of who he is—his character, drive, sense of competition and determination. People do have hobbies of course, but for someone to excel in unrelated fields at this level is exceptional I think, and interesting; it piqued the interest of a great many newspapers who have asked how he could achieve such a high level in everything he undertook. There is a connection to music of course in each case. He defeated 2000 kids to become Montreal yo-yo champion and earned sorely-needed money, since the family was poor. This financed his guitar studies. The yo-yo thing is of some interest, but becoming the youngest ever North-American snooker champion? Many musicians were excellent billiard players—Mozart, Arthur Rubenstein, Villa-Lobos, Django Reinhardt, etc, but none became youngest ever champion of a continent. More meaningfully, the large snooker win financed 110 trips from Montreal to New York for Laucke to follow his heart and to study classical guitar and have his music "bring people together". It was the money earned from the snooker that allowed Laucke's music study to initially happen, and talent took over from there.

There is precedence in Wikipedia; this human interest angle is found in more articles than one can mention. I mean, one could ask what did delivering newspapers, selling golf balls and stamps have to do with who Warren Buffett became? Yet, these are interesting facts into the character of the person. …so it is interesting, and perhaps encyclopedic since it appears here. Bill Gates's article states his family encouraged competition; "it didn't matter whether it was hearts or pickleball or swimming to the dock ... there was always a reward for winning". And on and on. (This is not a comparison of course; few could match the accomplishments of the two aforementioned individuals.) …Human interest into what the person is made of, what drives them, how they think—how they manage to consistently lift themselves up, and why is interesting, and maybe encyclopedic as we've seen so often on Wikipedia. I may be wrong ...to err is human; your thoughts on this, albeit brief, would be wonderful. My warmest thanks (I'm French and we're warm—hope it's not embarrassing ). ...much, much more to come. Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• I appreciate the comments and the effort presented on this topic. And yes there are quite a few issues to address, but as long as I see constructive work going on I will be happy to keep this review open, even if it goes past the normal 7 day limit - I would rather make sure it's right than fast. Oh and I am Danish we don't embarrass easily ;-)  MPJ-US  20:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, MPJ-DK. Thank you again for your generosity and open spirit. I'll nevertheless try my best to combine efficiency and correctness. Well, now that I know, my warmest thanks Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, MPJ-DK. I chipped into it, and will continue to chip away. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax and MPJ-DK: Thank you again for your wonderful collaboration...will be back later today with more fixes ...lots of interesting work ahead—encouraging and just what was needed in our quest for improvement. Natalie.Desautels (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Natalie.Desautels. Great job. It would now be helpful if you focused on the Sources/verifiable section of this GA review (GAR). Also, I think MPJ-DK/US wants us to leave tagging things with {{aye}} to them. Just mark thinks in plain text, and s/he will tag them with the green checkmark when accepted by them. At least that is my takeaway. As for signing your name to edits, how about just N.D. for brevity? As the nom, I will not sign them at all. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Checkingfax Thank you kindly. The Sources/verifiable section of this GA review will certainly be next on the list of the many items I am eager to attend to. I should have more time soon as I am getting to the end of my urgent translation work. I was wondering about the {{aye}} tag so I stopped adding it, thinking along the lines you mentioned. It would be good to know with certainty the correct protocol to follow here; indeed, plain text will be used for now. I also appreciate the excellent tip to sign simply N.D., certainly less cluttered. very best wishes, with renewed thanks for your wonderful, and wondrous, help, as always . Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The article has indeed improved a lot! Thanks to each one of you here. But I see some lines without citations at the end, they may look unsourced... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sainsf, Thank you for your encouragement; we're just getting started! We have some very nice and amazingly competent and skilled people so I'm excited about the accomplishments to come over the next few days. Would you be so kind as to provide more details where we can find the "lines without citations at the end, which may look unsourced." which you mentioned above. The section where the sentence appears would be most helpful. By the way, I'm glad you got my little attempt at Marathi . I will head over to your talk page now; it's only 3;30 am—sleep is highly overestimated :) very best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 07:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Natalie.Desautels: I love talking to people... but let us talk between us at my talk page and leave this review page only for things related to the article. :) I will add my comments on this in a clearer way in the next few days. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sainsf, Noble ideaǃ I just had the pleasure of returning from your talk page; thanks for the reminder though. very best, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Sainsf. Go ahead and salt the article with {{cn|date=April 2016}} tags so we can get busy. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Checkingfax ...just a quick update. ...been going for 8 hours straight now - it just took long to give thought to materialize @Corinne and Pdebee:’s suggestions, all excellent. I want to advance with the Sources / verifiable section of the GAR right after I stretch my legs after a little walk. Got to get up early though, but I hope to make some good progress. I started a GA discussion page to initially address the Sources / verifiable section. There are lots of options; ...just have to choose the best one. Natalie.Desautels (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, added the cn tags. Check the changes. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 08:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

̼@Checkingfax: Hi Sainsf ...will be glad to attend to this shortly, right after completing Sources / verifiable. Thank you kindly. Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Sainsf, Done. ...very pleased that all 'citation needed' tags have been attended to. My gratitude for helping us improve this article. ...more progress to come... Kindest thanks, Natalie.Desautels (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Well done, now MPJ-DK will look at the rest of the verifiability concerns. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 04:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Driveby comments by Sainsf

Hi, just gave the article a thorough read. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 08:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• In "Early life", I would have liked to limit the quotes. Except the most important one Then I decided to leave snooker ... music was my love. You! If I had known it was you ... Laucke had the title. Though reader-friendly, this sounds more like a story than an encyclopedic account.

-Trimmed.

• There seems to be some repetition in this part toward the end of "Early career": when some flamenco works began to appear in his classical music programs. From 1990 his concerts consisted exclusively of flamenco and new flamenco works

-Trimmed.

• Laucke went on to receive several other awards and critical acclaim need not be said as we are soon going to discover this as we read on.

-Removed.

• Nelson helped organize U.S. President Carter's I think we should give the full name of the President.

-Done.

• I don't like repeating "Rolando Valdès-Blain" so often. My preference is to introduce the person and then refer to him by just his last name.

-Done.

• In "Paco de Lucia", how relevant is this line? : De Lucía was installed in the living room, but to practice, de Lucía would shut himself in the bathroom because he liked the resonance of the hard tiles.

-Comment: acoustics seem relevant to me for practising.

I am still not sure if it is relevant, I think MPJ-DK should have his/her say here. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Sainsf (with ccs to MPJ-DK and Natalie.Desautels). Thank you for striking out items as done. I will change resonance to acoustics. Does that make it more relevant to you? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually I can't see why we are discussing de Lucia here. Not adamant on this, but the part but to practice, de Lucía would shut himself in the bathroom because he liked the resonance of the hard tiles appears irrelevant to me. What do you say MPJ-DK?

Comment: still waiting for a reply from MPJ-DK, but in the meantime, things have been refactored, and among other things resonance has been changed to acoustics. Cheers! (with cc to Sainsf and to Natalie.Desautels) {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 16:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Better, but the trouble is as pointed out by Corinne here. You see, this part appears somewhat non-encyclopedic to me, a bit out of place here. Corinne explains it better. I am afraid I am not in favour of keeping this or the other parts Corinne points out in the article. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sainsf, Checkingfax, and Corinne: Dear Sainsf, ...all shall be revealed soon, permitting a more informed decision to be formed. ...more info on this forthcoming. If it still irks you, we'll just delete, pas de problème. kind regards, Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Laucke was a director and is presently an honourary charter member of the board of directors of the Mac AIDS Fund (M·A·F) I find "presently" confusing, when did we add this to the article? We should mention since when he has been a member.

-Note to Natalie: Can you please jump into the article and fix this? Don't bother explaining it, just fix it!

-Done. N.D.

Hi, Sainsf. Please take another look and hone your comments. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• I would agree that de Lucia practicing in the bathroom is irrelevant to this article.  MPJ-US  20:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK, Checkingfax, Sainsf, and Corinne: ---problematic phrase about de Lucia practicing in the bathroom and tile acoustics deleted. Natalie.Desautels (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Very well, now that my concerns have been addressed I have nothing more to say. I await MPJ-DK's decision. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 04:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow so much work has gone on here.I am going to read through it again today, hopefully for the final review.  MPJ-US  13:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Final review

@Checkingfax, Natalie.Desautels, and Sainsf: - I have completed my review and I have removed the POV tag, it is no longer warranted. So I had one thing come up in my review, the use of the word "percs", but I replaced it with "percussion instruments" instead of asking someone else to do it.

With that I am pleased to say that all the hard work has paid off, contrats Checkingfax and Natalie. And a special thanks to Sainsf for also jumping in on this, that's the true spirit of Wikipedia. I am passing this for Good Article status.  MPJ-US  14:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks MPJ-DK, Natalie.Desautels and Checkingfax. I am pleased I had the chance to collaborate with you amazing people, it was a great experience. And congrats for the article! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 14:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, MPJ-DK. After Natalie.Desautels and I did a lot of weed whacking based on the lengthy punchlist provided by you and your wingman Sainsf, Corinne swooped in and filled in all the divits we had created in the process. A tip of the hat to Corinne is in order, and, one to you too, kind sir. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK, Sainsf, and Corinne:

Hi, Checkingfax, divits ? My goodness, I'm learning more new English words here than ... . Indeed it was such a fulfilling collaborative effort and ultimately, rewarding accomplishment. As we say in Spanish 'adelante' (onward, as in charging ahead ). PS. I am soon going to present an unique idea to you for a music/classical guitar technical article. ...warm regards, --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sainsf, Corinne, Checkingfax, and Pdebee:

Hello MPJ-DK. If I'm not mistaken, the reviewer is part of the team as well, lest we forget! So I am just so delighted to send you a very well deserved Teamwork barnstar on your talk page for the exciting springboard and kind help you provided in achieving GA status for Michael Laucke. My goal was really to make the article the best it could be, and of course your input was not only immensely helpful but simply indispensable. ...and the GA status is nice too :) ... ...excited about the possibility of the next article creation. ...Time to celebrate with a nice croissant, as we French are wont to do . Besides the hard work, it really was a pleasure all around. My warmest (...havent forgot your roots either), heartfelt thanks for your fantastic work here, truly appreciated, to be sure. --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)