Greetings! I know you've waited a few months for a review, but I have good news! I'm stuck in a tin can for 5 hours tomorrow late night UTC, so I'm going to use that time wisely to review this article. I expect to have the review posted in the early morning hours UTC the following day. (Approximately less than 36 hours from this post.) I look forward to reading and reviewing this article. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The way this article is written, it seems like Hope's notability solely relies in his relationships with other musicians. This article might win the award for most wiki-links per sentence on average. It reads like someone is name-dropping for Hope to make him see more important. Aside from that, the article needs a bit of work. See the prose review below. TLSuda (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On notability: that's a bit of an exaggeration, but is not an entirely inaccurate summary of the fate of many a jazz musician who didn't quite attain what he might have in different circumstances. On name-dropping: it's about a jazz musician from the 1950s and 60s... who played with whom on what album is what's normally given, with whatever other info is available. Who he played with forms part of the overall narrative of his life, as illustrated by the Buffalo Jazz Report comment: he was part of the scene with all of these developing (future) great players, but didn't achieve the same recognition for himself. Some of the people mentioned at the beginning and end of his career are less well-known than Hope is, but the article wouldn't be complete without them; if those people and recordings have a Wikipedia article, then they should be wikilinked. I've cut Charlie Haden, as that didn't add anything. EddieHugh (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Perhaps because of" reads like WP:OR and is against WP:WTW
At first glance, perhaps, but it's actually a summary of the (sourced) main text. The "despite" part is based on the final sentence of Legacy; "perhaps because of" is from the preceding paragraph in Legacy. None of those words is in WP:WTW. EddieHugh (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you reference that Hope was shot by a policeman, you should explain why he was shot the first time it is mentioned.
Why is contentious: the police said that he was mugging people; Hope said that he was running away as a passer-by. The outcome and comments from the attorney let the reader decide, but that all has to come later. Just stating starkly that he was shot draws the reader in, I think. EddieHugh (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The three career sections should all be subheads under an overarching career header. That section should include a couple sentences on his overall career.
I've done what you recommended, with the exception of those points where I think that the current version is better. Justification for these is included above. Thank you for the review and let me know if anything else is required. EddieHugh (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble getting over "perhaps because of." It still reads like WP:OR, as to me "perhaps" seems like "maybe" with respect to contemplating or hypothesizing. And although its not specifically on the list for WP:WTW, lets remember that guideline "...is not limited to the examples..." That being said, I found the use of that phrase in well over 500 articles, with many being GA quality, so I will not let that cloud my opinion on the GA nature of this article.
I also don't like mentioning that he was shot, then explaining why 3-4 sentences later. You may want to "draw the reader in" which would be great for a novel or newspaper article, but we are an encyclopedia first. That being said, I also won't let this affect the overall opinion.
With the changes that you have made, I believe the quality of this article is much improved and I am happy to promote this article to Good Article. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've belatedly cut "perhaps" – I see your point, and "or perhaps" adds little but more speculation to "or" alone, and both "despite" and "because of" are covered by the sourced main text. Thank you for the review. EddieHugh (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
