Cgweeks
Joined 22 May 2010
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Cgweeks in topic Greyson Michael Chance
Greyson Michael Chance
editHi Cgweeks; I've responded to your post on my talk page. Take a look there - thanks. ~ mazca talk 15:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Greetings. I have removed the note on the section Discovery and Appearances for Greyson Michael Chance as you have made quite important improvements on the content of that section. However I have to remind you that now the section "Management and Label Interest" is already outdated and full of unnecessary details. Now that section needs a huge write-up. All that unnecessary quotations make it painfully unreadable. The tone is promotional and reads like a fan site with so much detail. I am adding a note on tone of that section. I suggest immense curtailing of quotations. I know they are there to accentuate the notability of the subject, but now that he is signed to eleveneleven, there's no need for all that. werldwayd (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Now I realize the entire first paragraph of "Management and Label Interest" is very contradictory to what actually happened if not greatly redundent. werldwayd (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- The first paragraph reads like a play-by-play development of events as they are occurring -- rather like a news article -- instead of an encyclopedia article. The word "interest" in the title of that section also points to this newsy tone; much of the "interest" has now materialized, in label and management. The fact that Oseary and Troy Carter (via ABC News) are going to co-manage Greyson's career ought to be included somewhere in the article, perhaps near the end of the Discovery section after the last mention of "eleveneleven", as a mere statement of fact? The last paragraph dealing with the initial controversy could be its own section, although it seems problematic. Most of the sources in the final paragraph are speculative in nature, asking questions about the rise of Greyson Chance on the music scene rather than offer anything substantial; does it adhere to the stricter standards for biographical articles? I am unsure, so I haven't touched it. Cgweeks (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Actually it is unclear at this stage what are exactly the involvement of these individuals. In initial stages of development of a story, some of our articles read like a newsreel, but as new facts surface, much details leading to the event need not stay (as they become just speculation or at best "educated guesses". As the parents' comments clearly display, they are just playing for time and are feeding to the media frenzy, that's all. So new events will certainly overshadow the present details making them unnecessary. As for the original school video being "staged", I think this is a very legitimate concern and as it has been widely discussed in so many media outlets, I think that that specific segment is the only relevant segment that should stay actually, as this "accusation" will remain over the whole affair for a very very long time indeed, even if Mr. Chance succeeds commercially by any chance (sorry I couldn't resist the pun). In any case, I prefer to keep the note about "tone" for a while, and as things get clearer, the entire section could (rather should) be re-written in a clear way. werldwayd (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- I will need to give this some more thought. I do have a link to a video of news anchor Kelly Ogle of News 9 in Oklahoma City, in which he says he was at the performance shown on the Paparazzi video; plus there is another YouTube video showing the event in wide-angle, in which most of the choir and part of the adult audience are visible. These might add balance to the questions concerning the "staging" of the video, although they don't address the possibility of corporate micro-management/creation of the "viral event". The largest problem seems to be the newness of Greyson Chance and the lack of substantial writing exploring both sides of the issue; this may come in time, as Chance becomes more prominent. As for those linked videos, I'm not sure to what degree adding them in an argumentative style (as an "other side" to the questions raised by sources already linked) would represent original research. The News 9 video stands the test of verifiability, but the other YT video was posted by someone claiming to be one of Greyson's teachers-but under a YouTube pseudonym. Cgweeks (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Actually it is unclear at this stage what are exactly the involvement of these individuals. In initial stages of development of a story, some of our articles read like a newsreel, but as new facts surface, much details leading to the event need not stay (as they become just speculation or at best "educated guesses". As the parents' comments clearly display, they are just playing for time and are feeding to the media frenzy, that's all. So new events will certainly overshadow the present details making them unnecessary. As for the original school video being "staged", I think this is a very legitimate concern and as it has been widely discussed in so many media outlets, I think that that specific segment is the only relevant segment that should stay actually, as this "accusation" will remain over the whole affair for a very very long time indeed, even if Mr. Chance succeeds commercially by any chance (sorry I couldn't resist the pun). In any case, I prefer to keep the note about "tone" for a while, and as things get clearer, the entire section could (rather should) be re-written in a clear way. werldwayd (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)