Talk:Linc Chamberland

Cleanup

Article is in need of a semi or complete overhaul to fit the WP:MOS, specifically the use of refbegin and the dividers/html coding. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 08:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox changes

An editor didn't like my changes, so I offered to go over some of them, starting with the infobox.

It's always interesting to me that an article can be weak, and yet the writer found enough time and learned enough of the rules to tack on a "use my dates" template. More than a little territorial, if you ask me. That time could've been better spent on the content of the article or reading documentation.

• Cleanup template: There was a "cleanup-reorganize" template from January 2017, so someone before me thought this article needed a lot of work.
• Image, caption, image size, and alias: fields were blank, so I deleted them.
• Birth place: city should be piped with U.S. added
• Death place: Large cites like New York City don't need brackets.
• Genre: I put jazz first because he's categorized as a jazz guitarist.
• Occupation: Music educator v. teacher: judgment call. Recently I've been using "educator", thought it's a more general, abstract term that doesn't necessarily mean standing in front of a classroom. The problem here is that today many jazz musicians are teachers of some kind because they can't make a living as musicians. Therefore to single them out as teachers isn't say much. Like composer. Most jazz musicians are composers. Mentioning it is about as helpful as "pants wearer". For jazz guitarist v. musician, I've been following the example of the infobox documentation by using musician, then putting "guitar" under instrument. Sometimes a musician plays more than one instrument. I prefer the generic term "musician." If I say "guitarist" then putting "guitar" in the instrument field will be redundant.
• Years active: 1961–mid 1980s. When you say mid 1980s, do you mean 1985? Five is the median of ten.
• Labels: should be piped. I prefer commas over line breaks because they take up less space than a vertical list. Judgment call.
• Associated acts: Why was Linc Chamberland listed as an associated act of Linc Chamberland? Multiple personality disorder?
• Website: supposed to link to official site, not to a fan site
• Notable instruments: has been deprecated.
  –Vmavanti (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Graph 1

• My understanding is that for the deceased only the birth date and death date are required, not the birth place and death place, which are in the infobox anyway.

• "United States" should not be linked.
• "Jazz guitarist" doesn't need to be linked. Most people link "jazz" instead. Look at each article (jazz, jazz guitarist) and tell me which you think is more useful to link to—make sure you read the parts of "jazz guitarist" before I started working on that article last week, because I made a lot of improvements. I try to keep links to a minimum in music articles, esp. in the first graph. I have a link to that point on my user page. You have two blue links next to each and neither needs to exist. Adjacent blue links should be avoided if possible.
• "Based in Connecticut": Perhaps a judgment call. I see this phrasing a lot, probably because music writers say it. It doesn't mean much to me. Based? You mean he lived there his whole life? Or that he was born there? Or that he never left Norwalk except to perform or record? Or that he only performed and recorded in Norwalk? Yes, I understand the usage, I see it all the time, but to me it's flabby and pretentious. I recall this phrasing being used for companies, not for individuals, and I wish it would return to its old usage.

• You wrote: "was an {United States|American} {jazz guitarist} based in Connecticut who, after playing in the 1960s with The Orchids, shunned touring and thereafter subsisted by teaching privately and playing locally near Norwalk, Connecticut."

Your comma makes the reader stop and inhale. Who are the Orchids? Should "The" be capitalized? Is "shunned" POV? Did something terrible happen on tour that he compelled him to "shun" it? There's dramatic nothing in the article to warrant that hyperbole. Why not say he "stopped" touring? He "thereafter subsisted". Or you could say "he made a living" or "he worked". That's how we talk in America. Even in Norwalk. Why "subsisted" when writing for a general audience. On the internet, people want information quickly and succinctly. Why "thereafter" instead of "after"? Are points scored if more syllables are used? If you've already used the past tense (he shunned touring), then you don't need to add "thereafter", as you wouldn't say "he shunned touring and after shunning touring, he". The past tense puts us in the past. We don't need "after" or "thereafter" for emphasis. Did he teach and perform near Norwalk or in Norwalk or both? That takes me back to what "based in Norwalk" means.

• I wrote: "After playing with The Orchids in the 1960s, he stopped touring, became a private teacher, and performed locally in Norwalk."

Nothing POV here. Now you tell me which is easier and faster to read. Which one is in plain, direct English that appeals to more readers.

• Next, you wrote, "Published critical acclaim by industry professionals, fans, and virtuoso jazz musicians rank Chamberland as legendary. Tommy Mottola, who, among other things, headed Sony Entertainment, called Chamberland "One of the greatest guitarist of all time." "You never heard anything like Linc."{ref name="Hitmaker"}{ef name="SonicScoop"}

OK, you don't think this is puffery, I guess because you have sources. I don't know why you put your sources under References when you could simply use "reflist". I've seen a small number of people do this. I guess it has something to do with wanting to reduce clutter, which would make sense, but if you use colored syntax when you write code then clutter is much less a problem. Also, I like to see the first occurrence of the source in the text itself, not in the References section. It's logical, it's easier for everyone to follow. Again, I'm thinking of other readers who will look at or work on the text. I used the "Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books" at "reftag.appspot.com" to shorten the Google URL and give some consistency to citations.

You write "published acclaim" — OK — by "industry professionals — meaning what or who? Mottola? isn't he singular? — "fans" — plural? who are not impartial and can't be used as sources — "virtuoso jazz musicians" — plural again, like who? Does being a virtuous jazz musician automatically bestow authority and impartiality and good judgment about other musicians? Takes one to know one? Not always. More important, you write that there are many people praising Chamberland but you list only person, Mottola. Mottola is a good guitarist, but I'm not sure he's a virtuoso. I doubt he is considered one of the top fifty jazz guitarists. He's known more for being an executive, the head of Sony. An important job. But does the head of Sony have an interest in calling a guitarist one the greatest of all time? And if he is one of the greatest of all time, why is Mottola the only one saying that? How did Mottola know Chamberland? Could he be considered an impartial source? As impartial as Scott Yanow? You have another source. Mark Herrman's web site. Who's he? You link to something he wrote on his web site called "Missing Linc: An Open Letter to My Great Mentor". Was that published anywhere else but his web site? Do you think he's an impartial source? Even after writing "My Great Mentor"? I didn't delete it. You think I was overcritical, but I was being generous. I didn't even leave a template by that citation or comment about it in the edit summary. But it probably doesn't belong there as a source, does it? Also, the citation says "1913" when I think you meant "2013".

If we don't show a little humility and backbone when we're wrong, then we can't learn, progress, and improve. Some people are afraid of change. But editing is all about change. You are probably correct that I should not have been so blunt. My expectations for myself are high, and I make the mistake of assuming others have the same standards.
–Vmavanti (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• This is not my usual field, but most of Vmavanti's changes seem appropriate: for example, in bios we do not include a list of non-notable students, and some of the wording was certainly a little too much puffery. But it's absurd to argue over really small details. Except for FAs, Wikipedia is not written with a very high level of prose style, and it's enough to make sure everything is accurate, and cited. But when someone does improves the wording, it's counter-productive to change it back. DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Right. Thank you for the response. I know prose in Wikipedia is intended to be plain, and I dislike arguing details, but I find that simple changes can sometimes make a big difference. My edits are not solely concerned with prose style. Moreover, my explanations stopped at graph 1, as you can see. I'll continue if I hear from the person who didn't like my edits. Otherwise, I think I provided enough evidence to show that I think about what I'm doing, that I'm not reckless, though I admit I make mistakes. I don't mind making mistakes because that's one way to learn. I don't mind being corrected about mistakes, because if editing isn't about correcting, then what is it? So long as the corrections are reasonable and sound. One other point to anyone reading. Don't confuse Tommy Mottola with Tony Mottola. Both played guitar, but the former only briefly before becoming an executive.
–Vmavanti (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)