Talk:Bradley Joseph/Archive 1

Initial message

Thank you for your input. Please advise how to edit this to make a presentable informative neutral article. Maybe remove reviewer comments? Any help is appreciated. Cricket0825 04:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Note from author/editor

I am not affiliated with Bradley Joseph, but am an interested-enough party to try and write a valid concise, informative, and verifiable article about his work and career, and have cited all references. If anyone has more knowledge and would like to elaborate, or finds a discrepancy, please feel free to edit this article, or enter your comments/thoughts here and I can edit it. Please adhere to Wikipedia guidelines for biographies of living persons, i.e. Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, with due regard to the subject's privacy, and as much as possible to cite sources that are credible, neutral, and independent. Thank you. Cricket02 06:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

This article has come a long way and has really improved in the last few months. Cricket02 asked me to come and look over the article. Here are some notes:

• There is no need for a lot of external links. I removed a few of the links, because they did not provide any valuable information.
• The infobox has a lot of genres in it. Would it be possible to generalize his genre in order to keep it manageable? If more genres want to be discussed in the article that is fine, but we do not want to get too specific if it can be helped.
• The introduction could use a little more information and length (2-3 paragraphs). See WP:LEAD.
• I was a little surprised by the tables' colors. Is there any reason not to use "class=wikitable"? Also, the professional reviews would be best linked to from an album's article page.
• Although the article looks fine with the gaps between paragraphs, it would be best to remove the breaks inbetween them.

This article has the ability to become a good article, – Heaven's Wrath   ^Talk  21:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: discography section. I think it would be best to use "class=wikitable". I added his studio albums into a gallery and then the credits I edited to a wikitable. (We can continue the discussion here, I have this page watched.) – Heaven's Wrath   ^Talk  21:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks great! I like the gallery and I didn't know the wikitable could be downsized like that, it looks so much better. That was just the tech help I needed. Thanks so much! Do you think the intro is expanded enough now? Cricket02 03:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a little more information to the intro. It is not worded very well, so feel free to edit/revert it. And I think the length is looking good. – Heaven's Wrath   ^Talk  01:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate your time and expertise here, thanks much. Cricket02 18:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

Article is looking good, few things stop it from getting GA status

• Bradley Joseph (born in 1965) sounds cheesy, take this example from Paul Mcartney, (born June 18, 1942, Liverpool) sounds better
• Remove the double space before the biography section
• On the info box make it www.bradleyjoseph.com a lot clearer to read.
• He started playing classical piano at age 8, put eight, numbers below 10 should be spelt.
• A lot of wikilinks are repeated throughout the article making it very blue and awkward to read.
• Joe Senser, and Wheelock Whitney, does Joe need to be mentioned? that red link stands out a lot
• Sheet music has one link to an album? no point of it being there as the album is in the discography
• Fan sites are a no-no on wikipedia
• Remove the space between the template and the external links. tried - didn't work.  ?
• References arent formatted properly, please check {{cite web}}
• This paragraph 'His music can be heard in regular rotation in the United States and Canada' has two links that are not formatted as references
• Remove the random quote at the end of solo career
• —Bradley Joseph, Indie Journal Interview, external link in the middle of the text, make it a reference or remove. Removed both as they are in Wikiquote
• Perhaps add a song sample or two so readers know what his music is like. I would like to and 've looked into this before, but technical limitations prevent me from doing so.
• People from Willmar, Minnesota | People from Saint Paul, Minnesota he's from both?

I will put it on hold as these issues aren't huge and you seem active on this article. Feel free to ask any questions as i am only here to help :) good luck! M3tal H3ad 05:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. Issues addressed with a few comments above. Cricket02 16:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Issues addressed, article is looking a lot better good job. Passed GA M3tal H3ad 01:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on the FA article

It's nice to see a young, modern, human topic as a featured article. I'm also glad to see his cooperation in giving a free (great) photos to use with the article. You can't buy that $1,000,000 main page featured article space, but a little cooperation will get you there. I hope Bradley's income/career gets a good bump from this article appearing on the Main Page. Great job on the article. JohnABerring27A (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you John. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 06:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What you just said about the $1,000,000 value of being a main page featured article is why we should have a strong bias against advert bio articles like this shameless piece of self promotion. 212.157.14.74 (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The article wouldn't have reached featured status, and thus on to the Main Page, if it had been written as "self promotion", as policy is strongly against this. However, Wikipedia has no control over any side-effects of the articles it has, and that's what's being addressed here. If we put "The Pyramids of Egypt" on the front page and people decided to go there, would that be promotional? I don't think so. --Rodhullandemu 14:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There are thousands of biographical articles in Wikipedia that are meant to be informative and this one is no exception. 3-1/2 years of research went into the baby steps it took to bring this particular biography to featured status. As a contributor, I have been an interested-enough party to try and write a concise and verifiable article about this gentleman's work. This article is meant solely to be informative and I think the sources of all information speak for themselves. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand the user's concerns though. The whole article seems to be lacking a single sentence critical of the subject. I find that a little worrying. Also quotes are used to present critics' response as fact. Note the lead: "his musical style ranging from "quietly pensive mood music to a rich orchestration of classical depth and breadth". If this was changed to a more negative point (e.g. if a critic had described it as "dull and repetitive") then it would not stand. Neither should the positive side stand. It should be pointed out that Joseph's music has been described as such instead. No? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I take your point, but the "quietly pensive.." is quoted, and referenced, indicating that it's somebody's opinion. As for negative criticism, I'm sure the FA reviewers would have ensured that the article be balanced on that point, and it may be that there is no reliable source for any negative criticism. Maybe everybody who matters likes his music. --Rodhullandemu 15:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it seems that way. Taking a look at the references it appears Joseph doesn't seem to register outside of the musical circles in which he is appreciated, a very unique situation which causes the article bias. Given the available material it's a good example of an encyclopaedic article! Very odd. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The sourced phrase, quietly pensive mood music to a rich orchestration of classical depth and breadth is meant to be descriptive of the different styles of music this artist composes, and was chosen carefully to be a neutral statement. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

and WP:NPOV doesn't mean we must have negative criticism, only that if there is any it should be included with appropriate sourcing and weight. The article isn't biased if there IS no reliably-sourced such criticism, it's honest, fair and within policy. --Rodhullandemu 15:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The article itself well-written, well-sourced, and seems very complete. However, as far as I'm concerned, being front-page-worthy is as much about the subject as it is about the quality of the article. Bradley Joseph barely qualifies for an entry in "Births in 1965" (if we knew his birthdate). If someone were to put in a 2,000 word detailed biography of, say, me, it would be deleted before an hour was out, despite general agreement that I am AWESOME. In short, who the heck is Bradley Joseph? Nobody. Are we really so desperate for quality articles that we're putting up backup musicians? Matthearn (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

All featured articles are "front-page worthy', and notability is certainly established. And if you would read on, being a "backup musician" is only a fraction of this gentleman's career. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The above statement is misleading; we should be weighing some articles more than others when it comes to getting displayed on the front page. I think all-positive bio articles that reek of promotion like this one does should be decreased in priority when choosing what gets on the front page. 81.253.58.8 (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an issue that is better suited to discussion with those who select articles for the front page, here. --Rodhullandemu 17:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My $1,000,000 point is that it is a mere side effect of FA articles and that other notable people and businesses should take a hint that their cooperation will them places in Wikipedia that money can't buy. There are many sources to read high quality, detailed info on Jesus, George Washington, etc., but Wikipedia is the only place to go to read high quality, detailed info on less well known topics - exactly Wikipedia's strength. This article on Bradley Joseph is available world wide for free. No one really knows who or how many people will find it useful, but it is there for their needs, for free, forever, thanks largely to Cricket02's efforts. JohnABerring27A (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, maybe i'm trying to prove a point but the effects of efforts to put certain topics on the main page should be thought out. Call me extremely pessimistic but it's only going to be so long before Pepsi realises that there's some cheap adspace to be had. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, this really isn't the place to prove your point. For now, in this case, I take it that you are calling my volunteer efforts to this encyclopedia and music-related topics such as this one somehow invalid and quite frankly, I resent it. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Birthday

What is the birthday of Bradley Joseph? Can anyone add it in infobox?--NAHID 14:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume it's not there because we don't have a reliable source for it. His own bio page doesn't give it, but if it can be sourced, it can go in. --Rodhullandemu 14:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no source for a birth date. In fact, the birth year of 1965 may need to come out as there is no source for it either, was gained only by a little math subtracting from HS graduation year of which there is a source. However, when emailing this artist a few years ago for permission to use the image, I asked him to look the article over for inconsistencies, and he did not state that the year was incorrect. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Joseph was 39 as of September 15, 2004, so 1965 may be correct.[1][2]. -- JohnABerring27A (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

NAV?

What is NAV? It just appears, without explanation, without any link, and Wikipedia contains no apparently appropriate article thereon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.160.20.30 (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ref #31: New Age Voice (NAV), currently New Age Reporter (NAR) ([3]). Ref need not be in the lead for uncontroversial material and if it is contained in the body. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It stands for New Age Voice's radio charts, which is not very notable as far as this search goes. If the New Age Voice isn't notable enough for an article (let alone their charts) does it really belong in the article? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Try "NAV" "radio chart". [4] ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My point was that, if NAV is significant to the material of the article, then it's full name should be spelled out, at least the first time it appears. Else, how would a casual reader be able to gain any context for the material. Otherwise, if "NAV" is not worth explaining, then, as Sillyfolkboy suggested, what's the point of mentioning it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.160.20.30 (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugly protection notice is just UGLY

Is it really necessary to grossly disfigure the article with the UGLY {{pp-semi-vandalism}} notice? It looks bad. What's wrong with the normal semi-protection notice?--92.40.6.232 (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look great on the MPFA, so I've smallified it. --Rodhullandemu 21:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured Articles are going nowhere

This article is written more like a never-ending musical review than a biography or encyclopedia entry. Worst featured article I've seen in a while. Good job everybody.--98.169.71.114 (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil and assume good faith. Thank you. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the above anon could actually write a featured article himself, since he has elevated himself to the level of an expert. Don't be surprised if he doesn't bother everyone. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

One need not have the skill and know-how to fly a jumbo jet to have the "expertise" to recognize and comment on the sight of a demolished, burning heap of 747 wreckage. -- Cool as a Cuke (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Still, the IP complainant has a point. If you look at the FAQ section of Bradley Joseph's web page, it says he is available to play business holiday parties and "even weddings". If you buy all of his CDs that are specially designed for dogs and cats, you get a discount on the bundle. Seriously. I can't make this up. -- Cool as a Cuke (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Upon further consideration, I have decided that I love this article and the music of Bradley Joseph. -- Cool as a Cuke (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

All signs of a shrewd businessman to me, but is completely irrelevant to the quality of this article where this artist chooses to perform or how he chooses to sell his CDs. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 04:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how impartial you are, given that you have a dog (one of Joseph's key audiences) and that you have written many other articles about Yanni's touring musicians. Even if you're not financially vested in these matters, perhaps you are so emotionally tied to the subjects, you may have lost a bit of outside perspective that many of the rest of us still try to maintain. Let's face it -- BradleyJoseph.com has been on the web for over eleven and a half years. The site's ranked by Alexa as the 10,687,151st most popular site on the Internet. There are 20 outbound links to his site from Wikipedia, and from my brief research, it appears that ALL of these links were added by Cricket02. Now, to an impartial observer, one could completely understand if a conclusion might be drawn that you are either in love romantically with Bradley Joseph, related to him by blood, or shilling for his enterprise. I'm not saying that's the case, but you have to understand if people begin to assume such. - Cool as a Cuke (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Upon further consideration, I have decided that I love this article and the music of Bradley Joseph. -- Cool as a Cuke (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)