Jump to content

Talk:Laura Mvula

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources

[edit]

Placing a list of sources here - I don't have time to read them right now. (And many more can be found on Google News.)

anemoneprojectors19:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of name

[edit]

We have a reliable source that provides a pronunciation of the name as "Mmm-voola". This reliable source may be wrong in this instance, but without reliable sources otherwise, we do not include any other pronunciation guides based solely on what we think we hear on the radio. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source isn't wrong, it just doesn't show the emphasis on the "voo". It's not based on what's been said by radio presenters but by Mvula herself and those who have interviewed her on television. –anemoneprojectors22:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unneeded sectioning

[edit]

There is so little content that there is no need for sectioning. A good quality Lead section would have 4-5 paragraphs, and this article only has 3 total. And there are no intricacies about the content in the paragraphs themselves that warrant sectioning for clarification. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think three paragraphs is good. I wouldn't expect many long, detailed articles to have five. But I wasn't going to revert your de-sectioning again. It's just that most short articles I come across have a short lead with sections, rather than a large lead with no sections, and the lead should summarise the article, not be the article. –anemoneprojectors17:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the only thing " gained" by sectioning this short 3 paragraph article is that instead of being able to read the whole thing at once, we force the reader to scroll. Oh wait, that is a NON-benefit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the benefit is that someone wanting to know details of her music career doesn't have to read through her personal life first. Using sections isn't detrimental to the article. –anemoneprojectors20:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
that is an issue that only impacts a minority fraction of the readers, where has having to scroll to see ANYTHING affects EVERY reader. but if you think it is a significant minority, place the music career stuff first and all is well for everyone. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to scroll, you can just press the "hide" button on the TOC. You have to scroll to see the discography anyway. What's wrong with scrolling? Most articles require it, either that or use the TOC to click to the section you want. –anemoneprojectors08:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
again, why would we force people to "hide" a TOC to read the content, when without the section headings they can read the whole article without doing anything? What is gained by adding 2 section headers for 2 single paragraph sections? "All the other kids are doin' it" is not a valid justification. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's being forced to do anything. You have to scroll to read the whole article anyway, with or without the sections. –anemoneprojectors10:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Laura Mvula. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Laura Mvula. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laura Mvula. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

[edit]

I'm suggesting that Jazz, Gospel and potentially Classical should be added as genres to Laura Mvula's page. Having read numerous interviews, Mvula often refers to her music as not being classifiable by genre but also acknowledges she accepts others classifications of the music.

Sources/Citations

Mvula states that the genre classification should be made by anyone but her. The Arts Desk

[1]


Reviews/ articles/ biographies referencing genre's additional to those currently listed:

R&B, Jazz and Pop

All Music [2]


Jazz

Jazz Times [3]

Jazz Wise [4]

The Guardian [5]

NPR [6]

SongKick[7]

Huffington Post SA [8]


Jazz, Gospel, Pop, Classical

Billboard [9]

The Guardian [10]

The Independent [11]


Classical, Jazz

The Independent [12]


Musical Architect/ Jazz/Pop NY Times [13]


Interview in which journalist notes the difficulties of classifying Mvula and Mvula states that she would not classify herself but rather believes her music is a result of music from that genre that she has enjoyed. [14]

Mvula again states she wouldn’t classify herself as Jazz or other genres but that Jazz is present in her music: [15]


Alternatively perhaps genres should be removed?

Let me know your thoughts!

CambridgeJF (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

@CambridgeJF: If anything, you've made an argument for the genres to remain as they are, as they seem to be broadly reflective of how published sources classify her music. She may be influenced by other genres or may resist classification, but we shouldn't have a laundry-list of everything someone's used to describe her music. I thank you for declaring your affiliation on your user page; please carefully read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before editing further. --Laser brain (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: I appreciate the feedback! I do think only listing Soul and R&B is reductive and that adding at least Jazz and Pop would be a more accurate reflection given the majority of articles, biographies reviews etc. reference these two genres.

As per WP:WikiProject_Albums/Sources using the sources cited for genre definitions is permitted and in line with guidelines. In particular AllMusic is used as a source for various other pieces of information on the page and lists 4 genres.

In addition to this, looking at some of Mvula's contemporaries - Paloma Faith, Ellie Goulding, Jessie Ware, Lianne La Havas, Jess Glynne, Florence and the Machine I note that 4+ genres is common to capture the essence of an artists work. Where these genres are referenced they cite reviews and articles from reliable sources as I have done above.

Let me know what would be criteria for adding genres if the above is not sufficient or if you feel additional/different sources are needed.

I have readWikipedia:Conflict of interest and did not understand there to be a conflict however I am happy to leave someone else to edit this if there is some consensus on the changes being made.

I will read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure now however I am not being paid for the editing so do not believe this will be relevant. Thank you! CambridgeJF (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with adding jazz and pop. Let's hear what others have to say. --Laser brain (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Year of birth

[edit]

Is it 1986 or 1987? On Wikidata and other databases that's 87. In few sources (here on Wikipedia, here and here) it's 86. --Vojtěch Veselý (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both existing sources (AllMusic and axs.com) say 1987, so I have corrected to match that. I have taken out the hidden note as I don't think it's best placed there. If we can find better sources we can discuss here. I see already that BBC has 1986, as does discogs and National Portrait Gallery.Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Vojtěch Veselý (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am now thinking there may be more, or more better sources, for 1986. So maybe we should change to that? I have searched at freebmd.org for a Laura Douglas born between Mar 1986 Dec 1987 without any success. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I always smile when I see Martinevans123 has been dabbling in a page I decide to edit. :-) Hi Martin! I tried today to find a good source and still nothing, her own website is obvs just a placeholder with no bio etc. Bummer. I was just here to update links that I found were dead. Sadly her biggest hit has no Wiki entry and it took me some time to find the songwriter credits. Cheers! --gobears87 (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, so I'm a "dabbling bummer", am I?! How very dare you! Thanks, gobears87. Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]