User talk:Apriltools/sandbox

(Unofficial) review

@Apriltools requested that someone look over their sandbox as a potential replacement for the Lester_Sill article, and so I'm here to give some feedback on it. I am not an official reviewer, but I thought "I'm here, might as well give it a go!"

The Good:

• Lots of sources, halleluiah! 41 of them, to be exact. I'll have to double-check the reliability of all the sources, but an initial skim read through the RS archives and the sources listed shows that you do have some good sources.
• The lede paragraph is alright, it summarizes Sill's importance and significant contributions.
• There is a lot of detail in the draft. A bit too much, but brain-dumping all you know is the first step in writing an article. The next step is "what do I really need in here?"

The Bad:

• Well, it's a paid article, so it's no real surprise that the draft is written in a highly promotional tone. I highly recommend you read the neutral point of view policy, but here's a crash course: write about the subject as if you had just learned of their existence. You must present information in such a manner that the opinions formed by readers are the opinions they have reached on their own. Ideas, opinions, and ideology can be presented in a Wikipedia article, but the article cannot imply or state a preference towards or against said concepts. It must discuss, not advertise.
• The article describes Lester Sill's record companies and the people he worked with, but it doesn't impart much information as to the impact of Sill himself.
• It reads like an autobiography at times, and that may be in part due to the fact that you use quite a few books as sources.
• Significance is not inherited from family. You mention Sill's children in a promotional tone but do nto expand on them. You do not need to demonstrate their significance independent from their heritage in the article about Lester Sill, because if Lester Sill's children are significant by Wikipedia standards, then they can have their own article detailing them.

The Ugly:

• If I were to remove all of the book quotes from the draft, the article would be significantly shorter.
• You rely heavily on primary sources for information about Lester Sill. Secondary sources that have been or are provably reliable in their field are Wikipedia's status quo. independence from the subject is preferrable, but if a secondary source has good content but a clear bias in view towards the subject, then that bias does not eliminate the source's value. Biased secondary sources are still usable, they just need to be handled more carefully to make sure the article discusses their contents from a neutral point of view.

So, how can you improve this? Well, I recommend looking at other articles about people and seeing what you can glean from the writing style. A relevant example is, funnily enough, the article on Joel Sill. His article does not go into excruciating detail about his works and life, but it extensively details and sources his life's work, and it demonstrates to readers why Joel Sill is a significant person. Your draft as of right now lacks a clear and simple enough indication of Lester Sill's significance.

I also strongly advise you read the biographies of living people policy because it contains information vital to the integrity of articles about such. WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH are highly valuable reads as well. Just poke around the policies and such to see what you can learn, and even take a look at some of the essays written by other Wikipedians over the years!

Please get back to me on this when it's convenient for you, I want to confirm you've read this and that you are responsive to constructive criticism. I believe that you have the potential to create high quality articles, and this is just a stepping stone on the road to improvement! Sirocco745 (talk) 05:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Lots of useful advice here. I agree 100% with the review above. Axad12 (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Replying to:@Sirocco745:

Let's start with The Good:

"41 references"

• WP:N is established.

"The lede paragraph is alright, it summarizes Sill's importance"

• I agree.

"There is a lot of detail in the draft."

• The draft is a little over 1600 words excluding references, well within WP:SIZERULE

The Bad

"*Well, it's a paid article, so it's no real surprise that the draft is written in a highly promotional tone."

• Yes, it is unfortunate that I have to disclose paid relationships with reviewers, it slants a lot of editor's pov when evaluating the content.

"The article describes Lester Sill's record companies and the people he worked with"

• What I am trying to convey here is that Sill built and managed companies around people who became, not just successful, but extremely successful. When he took the job at Screen Gems, he worked his way to president and was later hired as a president for Motown's publishing company.
• In effect, Sill's expertise in life was recognizing talent and providing them with what they needed to thrive -- thus his biography will naturally include the people he made successful and the vehicles he used to do it.
• Also, some of these record labels have articles that appear to be candidates for AfD, the sections in this draft could be redirect location for folding those articles into a single source.

"Significance is not inherited from family. You mention Sill's children in a promotional tone but do nto expand on them."

• BIOFAMILY is for establishing WP:N.
• As far as I know, a mention in the Wikipedia does not require being notable, at least not yet. Two of the sons have Wikipedia articles, Lonnie is not interested and Greg has passed away. Sill's grandson Alex is a professional guitarist and is quite likely to one day have a Wikipedia article WP:TOOSOON.

The Ugly:

"If I were to remove all of the book quotes from the draft, the article would be significantly shorter."

• I agree the article would be shorter if you removed content, but why would we want to do that? Quotations are a good way to comply with the no original research policy but they must be used with care.

"You rely heavily on primary sources for information about Lester Sill."

• I disagree, a journalist's notes are primary sources, once a biography or memoir has gone through the editing and publication process, they are the reflective thoughts and opinion of the writer -- therefore secondary.
• It is obvious that the Carole King and Barbara Dane quotes are not independent sources, the reader can see this at a glance but the references are not needed to establish WP:N, the quotes and references just support the surrounding copy.

"Your draft as of right now lacks a clear and simple enough indication of Lester Sill's significance."

• I thought we established WP:N in the lead?

IMHO, I am just providing the article framework for the magic of community editing pillar to take place WP:5P3 and to correct the copyright infractions of a previous editor in the published article. I am certain that the article will be improved through community editing.

Thanks! Apriltools (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree with your comment on Yes, it is unfortunate that I have to disclose paid relationships with reviewers, it slants a lot of editor's pov when evaluating the content. The material was so promotional that it would immediately have been identified as the work of a paid conflicted editor even without the disclosure.

It's a pity that don't seem able to take on board the well-intended and excellent advice provided at the top of this thread. Axad12 (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

...by which I mean all of the advice in Sirocco745's review, not just the specific element of advice that the brief quote above responded to. Axad12 (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

While Wikipedia is indeed a volunteer organisation, there is an expectation of quality from its editors, especially when an editor has already shown themselves to be competent and capable. As of right now, I believe that you are both of those. You show understanding of policy, wikitext formatting, general Wikipedia article formatting, etc, and you've shown the ability to find a number of sources and use the information in them to build an article. You are well aware of guidelines like notability and such too, which is one thing that I see paid editors often ignore.

Yes, Wikipedia is a community, and the community will (eventually) improve upon your work. I'm not here purely to clean up after others though, and neither is everyone else. Despite the Creative Commons license your edits are automatically released under, you still have to "own" your edits. You are the one who wanted to make this article, and although I won't pressure you on this, you should value your work a bit more, mate. Hold yourself accountable to doing a good job and leave other editors impressed instead of depressed.

How about a friendly competition, eh? I'll rewrite your draft in a way that I think best fits with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and all of that, and you do the same. Then we'll get some other editors to look over them and see who did the better job. What do you say? Sirocco745 (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sirocco745:

What would be more effective and appreciated here would be to use Template:Promotion inline "to flag an inline problem with prose that seems promotional in nature," specifically pointing out what line(s) "seem" promotional to you. I've found that section and header flags are not specific enough and it is impossible to guess which portions are offensive to the commenting editor. (Saying the article seems promotional is like throwing a hand-grenade into a room and then saying, "There, I fixed that.")

Your rewrite challenge has me thinking, the results of such an experiment might make an interesting article for Wikipedia Signpost if we set up some ground rules. More on that later.

Apriltools (talk) Apriltools (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)