Talk:Jackie McLean/Comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I probably shouldn't be rating the article, since I have been the chief contributor to it, but the criteria (which I don't entirely agree with) are pretty objective. So I'd give it a B. It doesn't satisfy the prerequisites for any higher rating. If anyone wants to edit the article so it conforms to the standards for a higher rating, more power to you. I'm going to spend the time listening to Mr. McLean's oeuvre. John FitzGerald 15:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I gave it a Start class though as it doesn't really meet the requirements for B plange 00:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

To explain further as requested, the article really only has one of the elements required to be in Start class (subheading that treats an aspect in depth) and while it nominally has the others, it just doesn't have the majority of the elements which B says it needs to have. What about his life outside of this career? Any photos? Lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD; too many one sentence paragraphs. It still has an "under construction" feel to me. It's a great Start though :-) plange 04:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. Although I don't see these as deficiencies (for example, I don't see the value of including details of his personal life unless they affected his career, as his drug addiction and imprisonment – both mentioned – did), I won't impede any attempts to bring the article up to what you consider a higher standard. John FitzGerald 23:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

But that seems to have been too much trouble for everyone. I guess the Biography Project was trying to colonize the article – declare it a biography and then hope the people interested in Mr. McLean would be shamed into into making it one. To do that, though, you have to believe there were benefits to doing it, and no one has bothered to respond to my requests for an explanation of the value of biography, both in general and in understanding Jackie McLean. John FitzGerald 17:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You do realize how many biographies we have in our scope? We can't get to every one of them instantly, and so yes, we're hoping current editors will help improve it, though there's no shame in having a start or a stub, so this was not an attempt to shame anyone into improving it. We're merely cataloguing the current state of biographies on WP (which we're not done yet, BTW) while also helping to improve, one article at a time. If you're wanting more feedback than what I gave, you might consider putting it up to a peer review. Also, WP Musicians is now part of our scope, so you might check there for editors that can help. I will add that parameter to the tag so it shows up on their radar. Thanks! --plange 17:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

As I noted on your talk page back in October, no, I don't know how many biographies are "in the project's scope." Starting off with an unmanageable number of biographies is not a good way to manage a project. And no, I don't want more feedback – yours was perfectly adequate and you've been very helpful in clarifying the standards you used. I'm just feeling as if I've been taken. Not your intention, I'm sure, but I think I've wasted some time I could have used for other things. John FitzGerald 16:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)