Talk:Jaliba Kuyateh

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Benjamin Mako Hill in topic article comments

Legit Article edit

First, I would to congratulate you on this article! Great job. The only suggestion I have, other then the one missing comma, is that a few sentences are a few wordy if that makes sense. Sometimes short and sweet is more impactful and keeps the readers attention. Other than that I really enjoyed this article.

SleeepyD (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Great Start! edit

This is off to a great start. You mentioned that there was a book but I'm assuming you have not entered that material yet as a reference? I think that will really help in terms of establishing notability. —mako 22:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Feedback edit

@Aidaja12: I think your article looks great! Your references and links all are wonderful. I don't think I'd change a thing! Kewall27 (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Aidaja12: The article is neat and easy to understand. Good to know more about the interesting music instrument. Phoebepoonn (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, guys. Aidaja12 (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

article comments edit

Hey, @Aidaja12: I've got a few comments/suggestions for the article.

  • ISBN 8191097796 may be a possible source (though it appears to be a pretty rough translation). ISBN 0226101614 also has some content. As does ISBN 9781843530831 and (finally, a non-book source!) this short article may have some content you find helpful.
  • Statements like "Jaliba Kuyateh is the most popular musician from Gambia" should be cited even in the lead. There are a number of sources and you can just reuse one (if you're in the visual editor) or create a named reference (if you're editing in the source editor) or just have one cite for that statement in the lead by itself.
  • The lead looks a bit short. For articles like this you don't need to add much, but imagine a single paragraph with 3-5 sentences) giving a short summary of everything in the article. That will flow much better with the article content as it is right now and shouldn't take too much work.

All in all the article looks fairly good. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Aidaja12: I would also add that I had some concerns about tone. Although it is clear that you are very excited about Kuyateh, it's important to try to maintain a neutral point of view. —mako 23:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply