Talk:Dorian Holley

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dorian Holley article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Dorian Holley was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 29, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
January 26, 2020	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

Television: Idols Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Idols task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Michael Jackson Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michael Jackson, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Michael Jackson on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Michael JacksonWikipedia:WikiProject Michael JacksonTemplate:WikiProject Michael JacksonMichael Jackson articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dorian Holley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the lead, "The subsequent year, he worked with Michael Jackson for the final time", you don't need to add "Michael", since it's already noted he worked with him. Unless of course Holley worked with any of the Jackson family, or someone with the Jackson last name, then it's fine. In the James Taylor, Dangerous Tour and HIStory Tour section, "...after child sexual abuse allegations were levelled against Jackson and he cancelled the remainder of the tour due to the stress caused by them", "them" you refer to the allegations, right? Same section, in the first paragraph you have "Michael Jackson", so you don't need to keep saying "Michael Jackson", just "Holley worked with Jackson again for the entertainer's last concert series". At the beginning of this article, it's noted that Jackson is a successful singer, so in the Debut album, workshops and This Is It section, you don't need to add that, just say that Holley once again worked with Jackson.
Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 00:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Are there no free images of Holley available?
What about any images?
No, unfortunately, I've found no free images of him. Pyrrhus16 00:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just needed to know.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to both Crystal Clear and Pyrrhus for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dorian Holley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Dorian Holley/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I don't believe this article meets GA status. I will address this through the GA criteria below.

1.Well Written:

The tone of the article at times reads somewhat more like a press release than an encyclopedia article. Some examples (not exhaustive): in the lede, the phrase "and a worldwide television audience" needlessly overexplains what American Idol is to make it sound big and important; the sentence "It was reported in October 2008 that Holley had been conducting workshops on the art of audition." makes it sound like some great secret was revealed by unspecified keepers, and there is no need to refer to "the art of audition" rather than just auditioning; the phrase "he offered advice to young singers who wanted to become famous" romanticizes the pedestrian activity of giving a master class; "As part of the tour, Holley performed to over 4 million people, including Diana, Princess of Wales and Charles, Prince of Wales" breathlessly tells us facts about Jackson's tour that are not at all attributable to Holley's efforts; Holley had "experiences" with Michael Jackson rather than performing with him or working for him.
The article over-quotes Holley, and many of the quotes don't do much to tell us important things about Holley's career. For instance, the quote that starts out "Everyone starts out dreaming" is the kind of thing one reads in a self-help book or career guide, and doesn't illustrate anything remarkable about Holley's musical endeavors, nor anything particularly revealing about his vocal coaching philosophy. The same is true for the quote starting "Sometimes they think they want Sheryl Crow".
In terms of MOS, the article's first sentence identifies him as "an African American musician" - the first sentence of the lede should identify people by nationality, rather than race, and I see no indication that Holley was born in Africa. The article does not have an infobox, and would profit from the addition of a musical artist or person infobox.
The subsections are not well laid out. It's not clear if it's organized chronologically or by topic, and some of the headings jumble together disparate activities.

2.Verifiable:

The article has footnotes to a few primary sources. Footnote 1 references Holley's own site and a commercial primary source; footnotes 2 and 26 (BLP-verifying footnotes about Holley's family members) are primary sourced to law firm websites; footnote 27 is to Holley's daughter's personal website.

3.Broad in its coverage:

The article does not discuss Holley's early life at all. We don't know when and where he was born, where he grew up, where he received his education and training. The first chronological event in Holley's life that is addressed is his being hired for the Bad tour in 1987.

4.Neutral:

I noted in some detail in the "well-written" section above that the tone of the article subtly promotes the subject.

5.Stable:

This is not an issue as far as I am aware.

6.Illustrated:

The article has no photograph of Holley. Holley appears to still be living, so getting a free photograph may take some effort, but Holley has routinely appeared in public performance for decades, and a good article should include a picture of his face.

Chubbles (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks have now passed. There does not appear to be any active effort to update or improve this article - in fact, the article has not been edited at all since I started this review. Not all of the issues I noted above are sufficient cause to delist a GA; however, some of them are, namely the failures in subsection layout (GA criterion 1), missing early life (GA criterion 3), and promotional tone (GA criteria 1 and 4). Accordingly, I believe it is justifiable to delist this article from GA status. Chubbles (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]