Talk:David D'Or/GA1

GA Review

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

Looks like I'm restarting a GA review for David D'or. There's some superficial problems I'll get to in the next hours. And there's some heavier suggestions... yeah. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 00:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK this is great stuff. I'm a fan of countertenors- & David D'Or (henceforth I'll use DDO for that article reference) is new to me. You seem to have an enthusiastic group of 5 recent editors- correct? Next question: Just wondering-Are we all native English-speakers? Please give me a head-count on both of these numbers.

Tx. Yes, I at least am a native English speaker.--Ethelh (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see your group got serious & made a ton of changes in the last 2 months, forming about 50% of the (under #500) edits. One criteria of GA is 'Stability', & DDO shows an operating stability. This is a wonderful start with tons of detail. The sense of excitement around the artist comes through nicely. The main issue for me is, this enthusiasm needs tempering. This is the typical issue for newer arts articles.

Understood. I think that the article has been expanded largely due to the back and forth discussion, and though some issues were debated at length it appears that as to most issues there is consensus (or at the least, grudging forebearance).--Ethelh (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BALANCE

The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see also NPOV-Bias which states:

"Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives... Editorial bias toward one POV should be... repaired."

In this case I feel DDO takes an implicitly partisan, non-impartial POV, promoting a wholesale preference for this artist without offering any variety of perspectives. I do like countertenor, but I could almost feel trapped with a recruiter here. WP is not the place for a Fansite. The multiple-banners issues (above) might also evidence 'fansite' orientation (btw compser and songwriter are considered distinct careers in the USA today. cf Danny Elfman). Gently back away from the star... We want a general article. I'd want a more objective tone overall- specifically, balancing every various view with criticism. Example: "Steak is most delicious and good for you." vs "Steak, most popular in higher latitudes, is implicated in several health problems connected to fat and protein over-consumption". It's the only way. This makes for balance.

DDO tends to put the man on a pedestal, everything's sugar. Nothing indicates variety or balance in POV.

I found one review where the reviewer termed his voice bombastic, and put that in. I will take another look for reviews and the like that are negative in tone. I believe that the article reflects what is available on the web in an impartial, non-POV manner. His performance at Eurovision is an example of him not being everyone's "best", and that is reported prominently. Beyond what is reported, and reflecting it accurately, there is little we can do if there are not more negative reviews/events to report.--Ethelh (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I searched through google for other reviews of D'Or, to see if I could find any that provide a more critical view, and could not find any. I'm not sure what more we can do than reflect what the reviewers say which is out there for attribution. I believe that the article does reflect fairly, with proper citations, the views of reviewers, etc., and that is what the article is supposed to do. I will keep an eye out for more "balanced" reviews, etc., though.--Ethelh (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DAY 2: I found one criticism, about the weight of the voice. This is what this article needs 100% more of (&that suggestion's literal). But this opinion is unsourced- or WP:OR. This is the most interesting part of the article, about the man's unique as well as unusual instrument. This ought to be our most well-rounded section, selecting notable opinions for widest variety.

I know that can be hard, it takes a bit of training. But think of yourselves as outsiders. Let our POV flow inside the article. Search for critics of this work or this voice- critics who describe tendencies vs limitations, artistic vs. commercial aspects, ambitions vs failures, etc.; even perhaps peripheral aspects- ie.: Does D'Or (or his management) associate any graphic-art or videos with this music? Is that art comparably original, powerful, or is it comparably weak, or even exploitative? Where are this acts' Achilles' heels? Allegedly everyone *must* have these to be human.

I found one review where the reviewer termed his voice bombastic, and put that in. I've added some citations to this section. Will keep my eye out for any more to round it out further. As mentioned, I've searched for critics (other than blogs), and other than his elimination in the EV contest have not found much along those lines. Have not found material on limitations/failures (other than his noting the failure of the Army experience to improve his music/art or videos/originality/Achilles heel. If there are critics along these lines, they appear not to be on the web from reliable sources.--Ethelh (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next, are there other, notable personal (or 'humanizing') aspects? You have many quotes from the subject. Others' descriptions would tend to be more balancing- more human, well-rounded, less narrow or egoistic. Criticism is a discipline in itself, and there's so many ways to go here. But broad balance is essential for a GA.

Agreed. I think that the weaving in of his father's illness and death, and the impact on the EV contest (implicitly) and his later songs (shirat rabim) is such an instance. Also his having to go to the army. I looked for more and did not see it.--Ethelh (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"What is available on the web" could indicate what his record company pays for. If it is indeed the case he has relatively no critics, that would be notable enough to mention. I tend to think this is an artifact of nationalism. I'd search the non-Israeli press, even including non-English, b/c 'Balance' is core GA criteria. Otoh the fact that you dont find material online... This tends to support questions being raised about this article's community- that it's deceptively narrow- as well as questions about the subject's notability. D'Or seems to work a small overseas pop market. Prove that wrong.

The balance encountered "online" should not affect GA criteria. The balance needs to be there implicitly as I suggest; or explicity, as an admission that the press tends to be unanimous in unqualified praise. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.

BANNERS

For Balance alone the GA will have to wait (more below). Another automatic fail might be:

There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid.

I see at least one banner. Whassup with that banner?

DAY 2: I see the banner over 'Professional career' was removed and you got an opinion from WP:WikiProject Eurovision. Please consider my other criticisms in this new material as well. 03:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The editor who placed the banner deleted it, indicating that he was satisfied with the edits made in response to the banner.--Ethelh (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Written

Now for the "last shoe" to drop: It needs to be Well Written (ie., conforming to our modern English style manual) , in English prose. The spelling looks alright, but neologisms are always problematic. Where did you find "machoistic " defined? [Check around for examples for the correct usage; Blogs don't count, NY Times does.]

That was a phrase DDO used, not arrived at by the editors.--Ethelh (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That usage _needs_ to be made clear... if you keep it. But I wouldn't- It's not an English usage & only creates questions- about DDO, about our English... Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.

More importantly, I feel DDO is too long by half. It's detail-heavy. At times DDO even turns into a list. Encyclopedic, good; But difficult to enjoy reading... bad. Open it up. This will let it flow more conversationally. I expect you could chop 20% and not even notice, and I think it will be a better article at half the length.

It is longer and heavily detailed as a direct response to the banner that you mention and suggestions by editors. To see the "chopped by 20%" version, you would only have to go back to the version of 2 months ago.--Ethelh (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this desirable to you? Do *you* prefer one version? The banner was about a WikiProject qualification. I'm more about encyclopedic readability. Which comes first? Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.

I'm referring to what appeared to be the consensus of opinion of the editors, to which I deferred, not just to the banner, as mentioned above. I had a different view, but deferred to the consensus, and it now appears that your view was as mine ... but this is certainly confusing for me as an editor.--Ethelh (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DAY 2: Please review WP:Cruft in the light of "...too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole."

Allow what is truly notable to have more impact by removing what is less-notable. The fact he is married and a parent may be notable elsewhere, but is it needed here? The references can speak to these minor details.

I checked a few FA bios, and it appears somewhat standard to mention if the person is married, and if they have children (actually even more detail ... the childrens' names ... is often input). Furthermore, his wife (as mentioned is now his manager, which seems relevant.--Ethelh (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's rarely what, but how. I tend not to object to any one detail, but rather the overall effect. My "here" is literal, referring to this odd section. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.

But most importantly: Refrain from aggrandizing the subject (NPOV). A re-write with simply this this in mind should make DDO more suitably encyclopedic and more readable.

OK: I like what DDO is telling me, but I won't say this is well-written today. I'd simply say no; and then we can continue to work on this. Maybe y'all can work on another article elsewhere for the experience. Because it's not the mechanics so much as the intent that makes it awkward. And I suspect your group already knew this isn't ready for GA. So don't push it. Still, I see y'all are crazy motivated. So I can wait 72 hours "On Hold" to see if you have a more balanced, less PR-driven version ready to drop, then I'm inclined to drop this GA round to reconsider a few things:

Holds should be applied if the changes needed are minor and can be reasonably expected to be completed within a week or so.

Honestly, minor changes I can fix myself. I suggest one full revision, minimum. I'm only wanting to consider all the possibilities; so I'll review that Hold after 72 hours. Time is the best reviewer, there can be no hurry.

I feel this article is coming along very well; while the point of GA is to make the article better. Thus I'm hoping ALL of these observations will be able to help the article.

Thank you for reading this far ;-) Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 06:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving on retreat for a month this week and won't weigh back in until August. For now, balance is improving when you avoid the PR-based material. DO NOT limit yourself to on-line verifiable material- GA are 'broad'.

Of course Editors can contradict other Editors. We seek to balance. Numbers should not become distracting. DDO sometimes reads as if extra detail were inserted in an attempt to bulk-up the article, in response to the banner. But how is this appropriate: "The basketball game attracted 13.7% of Israeli TV viewers"? How is that figure even notable? This is just the most glaring example of overall tone. Again, please address WP:Cruft#Usage. Is a revert desirable to you? Or can the article be made generally *readable* yet also longer, incorporating relevant detail conversationally?

To answer this, Please read other encyclopedias- a highly-readable form. Try composing DDO to read out loud, to make conversation from it. You'll see "mentioning" family detail is not as useful as 'incorporating' that same detail- incorporated into perhaps (family-)management issues. Much more successful is the charged story about Palestinian-phobia- as it's relative to DDO's concert-giving. Now it offers one excellent opportunity to build related details around- as does the too-short section on the instrument.

Please review Composer and justify use of that link. Remove material aggrandizing to the subject. Meanwhile it appears you are trying for a lot, all by yourself- including these continuous reviews. Please address the appearance of sock-puppetry in the DDO discussion and elsewhere. I suggest what this article needs is a community- but such things take time. Thanks, Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.

PS- It's not inappropriate to thank a reviewer, for their time if nothing else works for you... Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 22:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Ethelh (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]