Talk:Yehudi Menuhin International Competition for Young Violinists

Refimprove tag

For the person who removed the "refimprove" tag:

Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

That says it all. This article has NO sources that are independent of the subject. It must have them in order to be presumed notable. This is the basic guideline for articles, so it shouldn't be a surprise. LaMona (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Why are you phrasing your request so abruptly and negatively? What problem do you have with this website, which is THE reference for this competition? These are the people who publish the lists of winners of this competition. Why do you find this source inadequate? Instead of throwing orders at others, which is bound to cause frustration and pushback, please help us improve this article by requesting specific improvements and pointing out specific issues that need to be addressed. Thanks. J.P. Martin-Flatin (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Citing policies on WP is not an order, it's information, and what is inadequate, as I said above, is that the article does not have any reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It's hard to state that lack in a "positive" way - it's what the article does not have which is a problem. The website for the competition is not independent of the competition. I think that's pretty well understood as a general policy. Because you questioned this I am asking for advice at the classical music project -- there are lots of these competition articles and some have no references at all. There may be community guidelines about competitions that create an exception to GNG. If not, that may be the group that could be interested in doing cleanup on these articles. See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Competitions. LaMona (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Added the templates back. They really do need to be there. Bromley86 (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see the point. Could user LaMona please let us know what was the outcome of the discussion with the classical music project? Thanks. J.P. Martin-Flatin (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no one answered me. I will try again, making the point that this is holding up some decisions. LaMona (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, this time I got a response. There is no blanket exception for these articles, but someone who follows music has promised to add appropriate references to some of the competition articles that have none. This one is included in that, so we should see it improved and the tags removed. That's the purpose of tagging, btw, to alert editors that an article needs attention and to encourage that it be improved. LaMona (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Clean up

In response to LaMona's request for help at WikiProject Classical Music, I'll be cleaning up and referencing this article over the next few days. I've made a start today, removing advertorial, copyediting, adding references to independent sources, etc. I will continue this tomorrow. This article has been extensively edited by people who are clearly connected to the competition, e.g. [1], and it shows in the poorly written, disorganized, and promotional, unencylopedic style of the contents from the day it was created [2]. This is a highly notable competition with extensive coverage independent sources over the years. It deserves better than this. Voceditenore (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I find your comment "poorly written, disorganized, and promotional, unencylopedic (sic) style" inappropriate for an Editor, and insulting for those of us who already spent many hours working on this article. It surely needed further improvements, but why did you feel compelled to bash people who had worked on it before you?

You deleted many table and list entries on the grounds that "4th, 5th, 6th and 7th prizes are extremely minor. That level of detail is inappropriate here." Who are you to tell what is an important prize and what is not? Unless you provide sound arguments for doing so, I will revert your edits.

The photos that you added next to the tables make them look ugly, due to the reduced width. I will move them elsewhere right now. J.P. Martin-Flatin (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

J.P. Martin-Flatin, if you are going to get angry every time another editor makes changes to an article you have worked on your life here at WP is going to be quite difficult. Rather than lash out, it is customary to open a discussion. Any changes that have been done can be un-done. You can open a section here to discuss the "minor" prizes, and you can suggest that some photos are badly placed. I agree that Voceditenore's assessment of the article was harsh, and they may wish to apologize for that, but at the same time the article has been greatly improved with added information and sourcing. This is the kind of effort that makes WP what it is.

You lashed out at me when I tagged the article as needing work. You have lashed out at Voceditenore who has done the work. WP requests civility from its volunteers. We are all here to make the encyclopedia better. Please try to use a more positive approach with your fellow editors. LaMona (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

J.P. Martin-Flatin, by all means restore any part of the tables/prizewinners if you think that level of detail is appropriate. I don't, but we can agree to disagree. I was much more concerned with improving the text—having an article which actually told the reader something accurate, informative, and neutrally worded about the competition itself and its history with independent sources that verified it. In other words, an encyclopedia article. I'm also fine with where you moved the images, although I've now removed one completely to avoid crowding the page. I'm sorry you took my comments about the way the article was written personally, but as far as I can see, you haven't significantly edited or added any of the text or added any references, apart from one primary source for the prizes. My comments obviously don't apply to you, but they do apply to the users clearly associated with the competition, who were basically using the article to promote the competition. Voceditenore (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have reinstated the prize winners that you had deleted. Thanks for improving the text, which is much better now. J.P. Martin-Flatin (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)