Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Brendan Kavanagh

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Brendan Kavanagh

(
)
[[File:|133x150px|Dr K with his trademark hoodie and dark glasses ]]
Dr K with his trademark hoodie and dark glasses

Created by Crum375 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC).

  • While the hook is interesting, I would caution against using the term "YouTube sensation" here as it sounds like puffery here. Thus, the hook will need to be revised. Narutolovehinata5 tccsd:new 12:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: Per the nom "Source" section above, see the Talk page for support for the phrase "Youtube (or Internet) sensation". But if you feel that it's still "puffery", can you suggest how to convey (in a short hook) that he has more than 1.1M YT subscribers and has been called a "YouTube sensation" by reliable sources? Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be a better idea to just simply use the term "YouTube personality" and leave the "sensation" and subscribers part to the article itself. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: would you accept "YouTube star" per this Daily Mail article (emphasis added): "A 16-year-old opera singer has gone viral after being filmed beautifully singing at London Tube station with YouTube star Brendan Kavanagh."? Crum375 (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm still not so sure. Personally I still think "personality" is the safest term that can be used here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: the problem with "personality" is that it doesn't convey anything special, so it's not very hooky. If the guy is not famous in some way, the rest of the hook doesn't mean much and doesn't pull people in to find out more. How about comparing the possible alts so far, with their sources for the noun star/sensation/personality? Crum375 (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Source for "star" (emphasis added): Daily Mail: "A 16-year-old opera singer has gone viral after being filmed beautifully singing at London Tube station with YouTube star Brendan Kavanagh."
Sources for "sensation" (emphasis added):
  • ClassicFM: "Also known as Dr K, the pianist, composer and former secondary school English teacher had left his day job in order to become a YouTube sensation by giving live Boogie Woogie style performances in unusual places."
  • Shareably: "Dr K, also known as Brendan Kavanagh, is a pianist, performer, and more. He’s also currently a complete YouTube sensation. He’s had millions of views thanks to his Boogie Woogie style of piano playing. People adore it."
No source for "personality", but assumed non-contentious? Crum375 (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, non-contentious. It would be like avoiding saying "Dr. Jones is a famous physician" and instead saying "Dr. Jones is a physician". Even if the sources say that Dr. Jones is famous, the article (or in this case hook) doesn't need to explicitly say it but instead explain how or why; there's actually a guideline on this very topic. Also, I disagree that the hook can't be hooky unless "star" or "sensation" are used; in fact, I'd argue that mentioning a Holocaust survivor become a concert pianist in the hook (or even simply the Holocaust survivor by itself) is already interesting by itself. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I think you are swinging the pendulum too far in the opposite direction in an effort to prevent puffery. Sure, we don't want to say in WP's voice that Dr. Jones is a star, unless we have multiple sources that specifically say exactly that. If we then suppress it just because the word "star" in and of itself "smacks of puffery", then we are distorting the facts, i.e. the consensus of the reliable sources. In this case, take this source as example. It specifically says the following (emphasis added):
  • "Brendan Kavanagh is an internet sensation" (starting phrase in the article)
  • "Kavanagh’s a YouTube star with more than a million subscribers to his channel"
  • "While he’s famous for his impromptu piano-playing, there’s another aspect that kicks some of his performances up a notch."
Now, if we as WP made up those statements out of primary sourced facts, then sure, that would be "puffery", but the point is that the stardom or sensation is a big part of what makes this person notable, and those words are not ours, but are used by the reliable sources to convey the important aspects of the article's subject. If only a single source said that in passing, then maybe it's still puffery, but if you go through them you will notice that they pretty much all refer to him that way. So if we just said "Dr. Jones is a personality" where every source pretty much calls him a star, we would not be correctly summarizing what the sources say about him, which is our goal. Crum375 (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm still not sure why you still want to use terms like "sensation" and "star" in the hook. Yes they may have been mentioned in reliable sources, but guidelines such as WP:PEACOCK still suggest refraining from using similar terms, regardless of their use in reliable sources. I really don't think that the hook's hookiness is negatively affected if the hook simply uses "personality"; as I mentioned above, the Holocaust survivor angle should already be interesting to audiences by itself. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Striking the hooks with puffery terms in them. As Gatoclass notes at WT:DYK, where Narutolovehinata5 asked for additional opinions on this matter: Even if such a term got passed at DYK, it would be edited out after five minutes on the main page. As "YouTuber" isn't a word, "YouTube personality" works as a non-loaded term. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be written in an encyclopedic tone, which "sensation" and "star" do not fit, regardless of how many sources use (typically overblown) language like that. If you want to quote the sources in a review section of the article, you certainly can (provided that the overall effect doesn't go beyond proper neutrality), but then the words are clearly the source's, not Wikipedia's. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
"Personality"? I thought that this was a slightly less disparaging synonym of "celeb": somebody famous for appearing on reality TV, being seen at parties, recycling conspiracy theories on Youtube, etc. But this man actually does something. He's a pianist; how about "Youtube pianist"? -- Hoary (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I am OK with "YouTube pianist" per ALT4 below:
But what about the review that BlueMoonset is suggesting? Who can do it? Crum375 (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with any single ingredient of ALT4; but taken as a whole, it seems overburdened. "Public piano Youtube pianist" (Blame me!) is unfortunate, and it's not obvious to me that nationality is important; how about "that Youtube pianist", or "that street pianist"? -- Hoary (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
How about "public piano youtuber"? (Might be too jargony, though.) gnu57 02:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I like it, gnu. -- Hoary (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Full review needed of entire article and remaining hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: would you mind doing that review? It would be very much appreciated. Crum375 (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I won't be able to. I'd imagine another reviewer will come along soon; there aren't many unreviewed left on the list posted on the DYK talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I'll be claiming this for review then, will be doing it in a few hours once I get back home. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The article is new enough, long enough, and is adequately sourced. As Earwigs is currently down, I am currently unable to check for close paraphrasing. Although the nominator provided a QPQ, one was not necessary as the nominator has less than five credits according to the DYK tool (feel free to correct me if this is inaccurate). Per consensus, the "sensation"/"star" hook wordings were deemed unsuitable and have already been struck by BlueMoonset. In addition, part of the hook fact (that Ben-Or is a Holocaust survivor) is not explicitly mentioned in Kavanagh's article; this will have to be resolved before any hook mentioning it can be approved. Finally, the last section could probably be copyedited a little, as it seems to have a slightly promotional tone. Per the above discussions, it might be better to simply stick with either "YouTube personality" or "pianist" when describing Kavanagh in the hook. Other possible hook suggestions I could think of could either be on how he was a former academic who left the academe after publishing a book expressing his disillusionment (although such a hook may need to comply with BLP), or possibly saying something about him performing incognito at train stations and other places (the thing he's best known for). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I've added the Holocaust part to Prof Ben-Or's description (wiki-linked to more details in her own article)
  • Earwigs seems to be up now (albeit slow) and shows 1% max, but feel free to check
  • I've copy edited the last section to reduce the promotional tone
  • Re other hooks, I agree that the others you suggest are interesting, but I think his crediting a Holocaust survivor classical pianist for allowing (and even encouraging) him to indulge in playful boogie woogie improvisation while learning the very formal classics (after his other classical teachers had frowned on it) is what got my own attention, so hopefully the typical reader's as well.
  • Thank you for all your comments and the review! Crum375 (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I am adding ALT5 above as another alternative, since "piano ... pianist" sounds awkward, and youtuber sounds like a potato. :) Crum375 (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Just a drive-by comment, why does the last line in the article have 10 references, surely this can be cut down? Same for the lead, with six references. The style guide for leads actually recommends not having any references in the lead if possible as it is a summary for the sourced content below. Also we shouldn't be referencing the subject's LinkedIn (ref 7) as a source and his birthplace and birthyear seem to not have an inline ref.Cowlibob (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Cowlibob: thank you for your comments. I agree with much of what you say, but as you know this is a new article for a relatively new subject so the sources are in flux. For example, there are informational conflicts between various sources, so I had to ask the subject privately for clarification, but private communication is not an acceptable source although it can help find the proper ones. Regarding LinkedIn, I think that's a "self published" document, and per the relevant policy it is typically acceptable for non-contentious information about the subject. Of course one must use common sense, e.g. a celeb may want to distort their age, or a politician their educational background, etc. In this case I am not aware of anything controversial or contentious, but let me know if you think otherwise. Regarding citations in the lead, per MOS:LEADCITE, (quoting relevant part) "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus". IOW, your statement about the lead citations is a bit too strong, at least for the current version of that policy section. In this case I simply picked a few sources that seemed to cover the key points, but like anything else it's open to review and consensus. Regarding the sheer number of citations at the end, the reason is that they each cover a small part and I haven't yet been able to find a single source that covers a lot. So for the time being I have kept anything that adds relevant information, to be eventually culled once more comprehensive sources appear. Thanks again. Crum375 (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The article looks better now, but the proposed hooks above are a bit on the long side. Could there be a way to shorten them? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
ALT5 is 178 characters excluding "(pictured)". I think asking to shorten the hooks at this late date is unfair after six days of hook discussions, especially as they are over 10% below maximum anyway; if Crum375 is willing, that's one thing, but if not, the existing hook should be approved provided it meets sourcing requirements. (I do agree that "performer" rather than "pianist" in the hook is a good idea.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clearer earlier, I meant to refer to the "British-Irish public piano YouTube performer" part when I was talking about making the hook shorter. While I'm fine with that wording, there were some comments above that seemed to hint at it being too complicated. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I've stricken out ALT3 and ALT4 for reasons mentioned above, leaving ALT5 which I think is reasonably balanced. I agree that the "British-Irish public piano YouTube performer" is a mouthful, but it is also informative. Overall the hook is within the max length and IMO every removed word would reduce its effectiveness. But if you have a suggestion of how less can be more here, please advise. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
What about simply "British-Irish pianist" or "British-Irish YouTube pianist"? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: IMO the focus on public piano is the most distinguishing and notable feature in Brendan Kavanagh's career and thus the article. Crum375 (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset, Hoary, and Genericusername57: Would you all be fine with if "British-Irish public piano YouTube performer" is kept in the hook as is? If so, I'll be approving this as soon as Earwigs starts working again. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, if you like it, go for it! -- Hoary (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I was saying above. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, sounds good. Cheers, gnu57 03:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay then. Earwigs has no problems so we should be good to go with ALT5; it's cited inline and verified. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Brendan_Kavanagh&oldid=946017386"