Talk:Michael Laucke/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Discussion : edits made to Michael Laucke on March 17, 2016

@Walter Görlitz and Checkingfax:

Hallo @Walter Görlitz:, Die beste des Tages. First of all, congratulations on WikiProject Christian music - an amazing accomplishment in progress, to be sure! ...some gorgeous music too beside being very interesting. Congratulations too on your long tenure with Wikipedia and helping contribute so much. I would be amiss not to also thank you for that super interesting script which I look forward to installing in all its instances; it will be put to good use, to be sure. (As one of my diplomas is in computer science, I am always interested in these incredibly time-saving java implementations.)

I have been out of town, have just returned and jetlag is taking its toll. So I am tired and will make changes very soon. For now, on the business at hand. Many thanks for visiting the Michael Laucke article; I do hope you enjoyed it while making some constructive suggestions. I'll put in some time over the next few days to deal with the points you raised. Checkingfax and I worked hard on this article, along with smaller contributions from 41 other editors; ...well over 1500 edits if I recall and hundreds of hours, and of course it can always be improved. You pointed out things I left out, the reason being that I felt that the article was quite long enough. I actually have hundreds of excellent, secondary high quality sources on Michael Laucke from online newspapers, libraries, databases, and so on, and copies of the original scans of important newspapers floating around the web. But, as I said, a "readable prose size" of 20 kB (3374 words), with 125 references, seemed sufficient for now, and I did want to move onto articles in my other mother tongues of French and Spanish (and others) which I'm fortunate to enjoy, and help with translation.

I've noticed that on Wikipedia, many of the issues raised, such as some of the points you've made, are "corrected" and restored several times, each time with a different, at times conflicting, point of view, and citing different WP policies to provide a rational for the edits. ...price to pay I guess for such an amazing encyclopedia...

Adelante, entonces!

Kindly consider:

• WP:ELNO: I see that I did not make sufficiently clear that Laucke was a soloist only until 1988; that is, until then he performed solo guitar recitals mostly alone or in duo or trio. He went on to build several music groups; in particular, he performed with, and garnered lots of press for, his "Fiesta Flamenco" group for the next 26 years! I noticed that he performed for 10 consecutive seasons at Montreal's Place des Arts; he began with only 3 artists and in 1999 we see 16 musicians, dancers and singers on stage! Newspaper articles talk about the show of "Michael Laucke and his group Fiesta Flamenco", and it is with this group that he also performed in many countries. So I will restore group categories [[Category:Musical groups from Montreal]] and [[Category:Musical groups from Quebec]], with your kind indulgence. I hope you concur and I certainly hope no offence is taken, while I really do appreciate your good faith and help.

Also, [[Category:Contemporary classical music ensembles]] should be restored since Laucke formed the classical group Trio 3 (with Dizzy Gillespie's right-hand man Sayyd Abdul Al-Khabyyr), as well as the Canadian Guitar Quartet, also classical. Finally, we should restore [[Category:'''Atonal''' compositions]], which is arguably the most important category of all here. Master French musician Pierre Boulez declared that Laucke was one of perhaps 3 guitarists in the world to perform his most difficult atonal work "Le Marteau sans Maitre" and 25 Canadian composers, among the most well-known in the field of atonal music, have written works for, and dedicated works to, Laucke. Many of these atonal works were performed by Laucke in Carnegie Hall and elsewhere. I feel strongly that a category for Atonal compositions belongs in this article. It is rare that new atonal works by 25 composers exist because of one musician. Again, I hope I've made my point delicately enough and in a civil and polite manner. Your thoughts are appreciated on this, of course.

• I see you put back some of the flatlists which Checkingfax implimented, as I recall, but then deleted them again. So I defer to Checkingfax for his opinion. I like the effect of flatlists, but am ok with or without
• I think Flamenco and New Flamenco should have caps, but I again defer to Checkingfax and others for an opinion; clarification required.
• WP:INFOBOXFLAG: Thank you for presenting this policy I was not aware of. Interesting about flag icons in infoboxes as "unnecessarily distracting and giving undue prominence to one field among many." I don't want to stir up conflict; I'm practically allergic to it! But WP does say that the infobox may contain the national flag icon of (for example) an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in the particular sport. Laucke won a great many competitions always representing Canada, but I certainly wont push this point.; it seems a bit of a stretch. Again, share your thoughts if you wish; always appreciated.
• WP:OVERLINK is another interesting point. You un-wikilinked terms like snooker and yo-yo. I think at least snooker would be important as many in North America, unlike England, might not know what snooker is, as opposed to the more popular "pool". I feel it does have an important place in the article as Laucke was, curiously (and verifiably), the youngest North American snooker champion and this financed his musical career. ...other opinions would be great. Helping readers know what snooker is, and the connection to this article, adds an unusual interest.
• WP:BLP sources: There are 125 references and only one is missing; if you do find others, kindly advise. I do have the required source on Peter Gzowski's program but never got around to adding it; I'll let you know when it's implemented in order to remove this tab and the one cn it refers to.
• WP:POV: I imagine that you have some neutrality issues in mind but which were not noted anywhere. I removed the tag since WP:POV states that it should be removed when a) It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given, and b) In the absence of any discussion. Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems explains: "Adding tags ...without discussion on the talk page which explains the problems is derided as "drive-by tagging" when done by editors who are not involved in the article's development. ... you should explain yourself on the talk page and/or in an edit summary." Again, I am looking forward to learning of any neutrality issues you may see, and advancing of course towards improving the article as much as possible. In this regard, I have been very careful to be entirely objective and only write what has already been stated by reliable sources, but ...no one is perfect (except Hermes Trismegistus)

In closing, one of the problems of cyberspce is that you can't "feel" the person—body language, speech inflection, and so on. The best of intentions can be misconstrued. I hope that my intention here is not. I remain appreciative of your effort to help improve this article. I've also looked over your talk page and contributions, admirable indeed, and contributed myself a bit with Stryper and elsewhere . Like the music; thanks for bringing it to my attention! Merci beaucoup! Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Natalie, Natalie.Desautels (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Natalie.Desautels. That JavaScript is a bit buggy and not ready for primetime. I have alerted the developer some time back. I too look forward to using the script when it is solid. Flatlists are cuter. They're clumsy for longer groups. Flamenco and New are not capitalized unless they are the name of a song or album. Spanish flamenco would have a Cap S, because it's a region. Almost nothing is Capped on Wikipedia unless it is a proper name, the King, or the beginning of a sentence. See: MOS:CAPS. Itermedemusic.com seems to be down which makes four of Laucke's references dead. Do NOT remove the dead references. We have two years to find replacements for them per WP:Repairing dead links. I sent Walter a note about his recent edits on the article but he deleted my note 30 minutes later without replying and 30 seconds after that he went back to making similar edits. See this diff for my note to Walter to open the lines of communication. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

{{Infobox musical artist}} stipulates the look of the infobox. Checkingfax (talk · contribs) has either not read it, not understood it, decided to ignore it or has decided that this article does not apply to it (which would make sense from the use dmy dates but use American English). The capitalization of those genres is made clear there and should not be present. It also stipulates that on {{flatlist}} should be used. Checkingfax has made multiple uninformed and incorrect edits including the previously mentioned edits to the format of the infobox, and WP:OVERLINK violations and excessive and unnecessary use of {{nbsp}}, linking this BLP to categories for musical works. Do not defer to him. He made a request to have a peer review the work. I came and did so. I found many problems and he basically said "fuck you", and reverted all of the problems I found and fixed in the article. I am putting him on notice: grow up. Your editing is terrible and this article is promotional and self-serving to the musician. It's a giant fluff piece. Compare it to the entry in http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/michael-laucke-emc/ which is three paragraphs long. That's about how long this one needs to be as well. I'll check back in a few days. If this article is still a steaming pile of manure, I'll take it to other projects to investigate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

And for further comparison, the Canadian Encyclopedia's online entry for Bruce Cockburn is about 30 paragraphs long, before the awards, etc. and our article is about 40 paragraphs, and ours are smaller paragraphs. But he's a "popular" musician, let's do the same for pianist Glenn Gould. It's just under 70 paragraphs there and ours is 61 paragraphs, but has three articles that have been split from it. I think it's only appropriate to emulate the length based on those criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Gzowski

The Morningside reference is weak. I can write that I was a feature guest for the month of my graduation from high school this way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hm. ...good point. I do have the entire series of audio interviews (all copyright secured), wherein Gzowski states exactly what I transcribed. Would you know if I can use the audio as a reference if I upload this particular 30 second portion? That way it would be coming from Gzowski himself. Would you know if audio files used as references on Wikipedia? Thanks again. Oh, you can hear a tiny part of the interview in the infobox. Hm, come to think of it, if you think it worthwhile, I could add Gzowski himself to the beginning of what is already there, where he states what I transcribed. Kindly advise. ...much appreciated. Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

PS. Or we could just delete this reference if none of the above seems feasible, if you think it best. There's hundreds of Laucke interviews, so one interview more or less... But Gzowski was wonderful, so intelligent and so nice, so I guess it's worth rolling up one's sleeves to more solidly support the ref. --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The CBC is very strict on copyright. I don't think that it has been released to be used on Wikipedia, but you're the one they'll sue since you uploaded it. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again, Walter, for sharing your thoughts. The file was uploaded by Laucke himself, or his office; ...notice is [1]. At any rate, the file carries an "all rights waived" permission, so it seems it would be fine to use. My personal experience has been that it's pretty easy to get rights from CBC, as long as it's for cultural interest and not for profit; so perhaps that's what Laucke did, or he bought it, or whatever. But thanks for the admonition! May I ask you to again share your thoughts on the above suggestion of referencing an audio file; would it make for a valid wiki ref? I'm willing to put in the time and effort of course if you think we should go for it. best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Natalie.Desautels. There is a citation template for cite radio so yes, citing radio is on the good list. Same for album cover, poster, sign, podcast, speeche, report, theses, press release, magazine, interview, map, episode, book, and so on. There is even a one size fits all citation template called: {{citation}}. You fill it with parameters and metadata and it adapts and does not squawk about what you fill it with.

Here is a list of the named cite templates (plus you can use the all purpose citation one).

Citation Style 1 templates

{{Cite arXiv}}	arXiv preprints
{{Cite AV media}}	audio and visual media
{{Cite AV media notes}}	AV media liner notes
{{Cite bioRxiv}}	bioRxiv preprints
{{Cite book}}	books and chapters
{{Cite CiteSeerX}}	CiteSeerX papers
{{Cite conference}}	conference papers
{{cite document}}	short, stand-alone, offline documents
{{Cite encyclopedia}}	edited collections
{{Cite episode}}	radio or TV episodes
{{Cite interview}}	interviews
{{Cite journal}}	academic journals
{{Cite magazine}}	magazines, periodicals
{{Cite mailing list}}	public mailing lists
{{Cite map}}	maps
{{Cite medRxiv}}	medRxiv preprints
{{Cite news}}	news articles
{{Cite newsgroup}}	online newsgroups
{{Cite podcast}}	podcasts
{{Cite press release}}	press releases
{{Cite report}}	reports
{{Cite serial}}	audio or video serials
{{Cite sign}}	signs, plaques
{{Cite speech}}	speeches
{{Cite SSRN}}	SSRN papers
{{Cite tech report}}	technical reports
{{Cite thesis}}	theses
{{Cite web}}	web sources not covered by the above
See also	Specific-source templates Citation Style 1 wrapper templates

The more metadata you can put into a citation the better. For instance, is there any reason this one has such an "old" accessdate= ? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 16:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax and AndrewOne: Hi Checkingfax.: ...many citation styles duly noted, with much appreciation, as always. ...and just when you think you've gotten to the End of Wikipedia. I'll put these to good use in the future, to be sure. ...interesting to learn about the general-purpose {{citation}}template. I'll be back later tonight but I did want to write quickly to extend my appreciation of your always amazingly generous help. Hm, I should send you some cookies... Oh, I corrected the accessdate you mentioned above. By the way, did you see the phenomenally refined and tasteful editing User:AndrewOne did yesterday. I must get back to him and express my deepest appreciation. Besides the beautiful subtleties he brought to bear, I enjoyed studying how his mental processes worked to administer changes in "les grandes lignes" (in French, in other words "from the broadest perspective"). Awesome! very best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: Natalie.Desautels. More citation templates for your editing pleasure: Category:Citation Style 1 specific-source templates Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, a pleasure it will be! ...exciting to discover ...many thanks. very best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Canadian subject should be using Canadian English

MOS:TIES/MOS:ENGVAR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Thank you ever so much for these very interesting edits regarding Canadian English. To think that Canadian English is my mother tongue (at least one of them) and I never noticed. Great catch! (I did notice, subconsciously I guess, the classic differences like "honor/honour", but in all the hustle bustle never got around to implementing corrections.) 'Practicing' or 'practising' was a surprise to me however, and again you are totally right. The word 'practising' always has an 's' because it is always a verb ('practice' is a noun). Again, many thanks; ...much appreciated. best wishes, Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Also the excellent changes you implemented to the infobox did not go unnoticed and are certainly much appreciated. My thanks once again. Overall, the design looks so much better! With the previous {{plainlist| version here, the infobox extended quite below the lead and even into the Early Life section, and just looked awkward. The {{flatlist| you brought to bear now is more eloquent and compact, the bottom is now perfectly flush with the Contents box and the infobox ends neatly before the Early Life section. ...so much more balanced. with all my appreciation once again, and all my very best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

AndrewOne - A bowl of strawberries for you!

@AndrewOne: I took the pleasure to send you a bowl of strawberries ...with my deepest appreciation for your refined and tasteful editing on this article. Besides the beautiful subtleties you brought to bear, I enjoyed studying how you implemented various turns of phrase, and better organized the chronology in the Early career section. In the lead section, I would be amiss not to mention the tasteful 'crescendo' you created from beginning to end and the elimination of redundancy that could possibly be construed as promotional (over-emphasizing a point). Finally, observing how you re-shaped paragraphs from "les grandes lignes" (in French), in other words "from the broadest perspective", was so interesting. Fabulous! very best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Michael Laucke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150227002551/http://intermedemusic.com:80/language/english/albums/intcd4002/ to http://intermedemusic.com/language/english/albums/intcd4002/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160304104949/http://intermedemusic.com/language/english/albums/intcd1004/ to http://intermedemusic.com/language/english/albums/intcd1004/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151117014108/http://intermedemusic.com/language/english/home/ to http://intermedemusic.com/language/english/home/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150227002551/http://intermedemusic.com:80/language/english/albums/intcd4002/ to http://intermedemusic.com/language/english/albums/intcd4002/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 21:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well. I will be making my review comments over the next couple of days.

• initial comments

• There is a neutrality tag that needs to be addressed before there is any point in going on with the review. Putting it on hold to allow for issues to be addressed, once they are satisfied I will review the article. Note, do not just remove the tag. @Walter Görlitz: you placed the tag, I will ask you to please comment if the neutrality is addressed?
• Second of all - I am kinda disturbed this is put to the Peer Review after being nominated for Good Article. The point is that it should already be there at GA level when nominated, not afterwards. Putting it for Peer Review tells me that you're not confident in the quality.

@Checkingfax: - Review on hold to get the neutrality addressed if it is addressed within 7 days I will continue the review.  MPJ-US  21:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, MPJ-DK. Thank you for considering this article for GA review. I did not receive your ping, but I did get a ping from the bot.

The neutrality tag says the issues to be addressed are on the talk page, but they are not. Thank you for poking Walter on that. The article has been up for over six months with the participation of over 40 distinct editors and none before has ever placed any maintenance tags. Walter has placed the POV tag twice without offering specifics. Walter has instituted several very helpful minor edits, with most being from a MoS perspective.

As for peer review, this article was in the GA hopper for over three months so I figured I might as well reach out for some pre-polishing to make your GA review job easier. It is always helpful to get a fresh set of eyes on an article. Walter was one, if not the only one, who responded directly to that request. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Alright so here is my suggestion. I will do a review of the article, if Walter replies within 7 days and I agree there is a neutrality issue we can deal with it. If there is no reply within 7 days and I do not see a neutrality issue I will remove the tag on the article at that point in time. I think that's probably the most fair approach, give him time to comment while we can work in any review improvements I might find, would you agree?  MPJ-US  02:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry that its' not clear what the neutrality issues are. I clearly did not make any section titled neutrality issues, but I did write quite a bit on the talk page.

The first issue issue the amount of fan cruft that's included. The article that sourced "yo-yo competition among 2,000 contestants" is sourced to an editor who may have been writing a fluff piece. It's really not relevant. And much of the article is like this. I have not discussed it before, but this is part of the problem with the article. The same can be said about the snooker section.

What I did discuss was the inordinate length of this article compared to other publications. I compared it to the length in thecanadianencyclopedia.ca and that of other Canadian musicians. Bruce Cockburn and Glenn Gould immediately came to mind. The Wikipedia articles for those two is about the same length as their entries in the Canadian Encyclopedia. This article is two paragraphs long there while it's much longer here.

The detailed lists of self-published musical works and transcriptions for guitar. The media links, etc. All too much for this barely notable musician. If every musician got their PR team to work on a Wikipedia article so that it were to be as promotional as this one, the project would become completely worthless. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Walter Görlitz that some parts of the article look unnecessary and perhaps non-encyclopedic as well. We are interested in Laucke as he is a musician, I don't see why we should write such a lot on his snooker skills here. I feel the same about the "Articles" section. If it must be mentioned, then just add a line or two on it. I am not sure if the length is a problem so long as the article remains focused and comprehensive. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, MPJ-DK (with cc to Sainsf and Natalie.Desautels). I am not a fanboy of Michael Laucke and never heard of him until Natalie came to The Teahouse asking for help and nobody seemed able to help her. I checked out her efforts and surprisingly was able to help her. Since then over 50 editors (and bots) have pitched in. Laucke's article was 100% about the musician and frankly was not a biography. In a quick search I could find no references about Laucke, period, to expand his biography. I do not understand the statement "we are interested in Laucke as he is a musician". When I read a biography, I expect to read a holistic biography not a sequestered one. I want the good, the bad, the ugly, the early, the late, and the end. If something is not encyclopedic we can fix it. Natalie is enthusiastic which comes across as puffery, but that is not her intent, and most puffery has been toned down to levels strictly supported by reference. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Alright now we're getting somewhere on this, thank you Walter and Sainsf for your feedback. I would agree to a large degree with all the comments - although I don't care about the size compared to some other website, I do care that this seems to go into excessive detail on some points or add in these totally irrelevant side tangents about someone or something mentioned in the article that's not Laucke - it has a real problem with focus. Having heard input from a few people and with what I've seen it's currently really far away from being a Good Article. I am torn on if it's too much work to achieve in about a week and fail it or do a full bore review.  MPJ-US  12:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, MPJ-DK (with cc to Natalie.Desautels). Please roll up your sleeves, dish it out, and we (meaning all interested editors) will quickly address your concerns. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

---

GA Toolbox

I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.

Peer review tool

• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), honour (B) (American: honor), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), jewelry (A) (British: jewellery).

-Comment: Natalie wrote the article in American English from the beginning and I placed a {{Use American English}} tag at the top of the article to clarify that. Walter changed the tag, and recently began a British English conversion of the article. There was no consensus for this change, but it makes sense to me. Natalie is a French Canadian, but she chooses to write in American English on the English Wikipedia, as is her choice. That is a bit of background on the recent inconsistency. By the way, British English is not held to isation vs. ization; that is not supported by actual current usage in Britain. Natalie has stated she is happy to join in the conversion.

• Fixed as far as I can tell to Canadian usage (other than within quotes of printed matter)Y

• didn't used outside of a quotation should be "did not"

-Done? Not finding it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

-Done; found and corrected by Corinne in Early life section. N.D.

Copyright violations Tool

• No issues Y

Disambiguation links

• No issues Y

External links

• No issues Y

Well written

• My first read through will focus less on grammar and more on content, neutrality, POV and issues pointed out by wikipedians.
• A general comment - almost everything has some sort of quote praising Laucke, even his video release has words of praise for it. I get it on occasion, but rarely have I seen an article that borrows so many word of praise from sources, almost like a peacock showing off its feathers - I do agree with the neutrality tag.

-Comment: Early reviewers and/or editors requested/performed edits changing blanket statements to quoted style.

Lead

• Why are there so many sources in the lead? If it's covered in the main article it does not need sources in the lead.

-Comment: The backup sources in the lead were requested by early editors. Not all editors subscribe to the school of thought that the lead needs to be free of redundant citations. I am happy to remove them and I will, but you asked a question, so I answered it.

-All sources removed from lead Y

-To further clarify, the references in the lead have been changed back and forth 5 times due to editors' conflicting interpretations about refs in lead. One editor says an important claim needs proof by way of reference, then another deletes the ref saying there should never be references in the lead. Thus, I am happy with whatever is decided by wise editors with a higher understanding. Natalie.Desautels (Should each issue be signed?)

-As the nominator it is implied that I am the respondent so I will not be signing. Maybe for brevity you could sign yours with N.D.? Cf

• A 1991 source cannot support "now averaging 150 concerts a season" twenty five years later, nor can a source that's from 1988.

-Removed 150 Y

Early life

• Yes he won a yo-yo concert and a bike, he built a toothpick boat but just because it can be sourced - thank's to Laucke apparently keeping ancient articles and then publishing them with the right CC tags - does not mean it should be added. Seems like an "interesting factoid", crufty to an extend and really something that makes it seem unencyclopedic

-See Snooker comment.

-Early life section refactored.

Snooker

• It's already mentioned in "early life", adding a separate section that overelaborates with quotes etc? That seems like it's over the top.

-Comment: Personally, as a reader, I like the way this segues from toothpick boat, to yo-yo champ, to earning money through snooker, to enabling a lifelong passion and career. It flows for me and is all germane.

-Snooker sub-section removed and refactored into Early life section.

Early career

• "In 1961 Laucke had his photo taken by Frank Angelo, Laucke's first manager and who later became founder of MAC Cosmetics" - Unencylopedic, fluffy.

-Fluff removed.

• "who was the main sponsor of the bill that created the National Endowment for the Arts.[20]" - lack of focus, how i this relevant to Laucke? it's like stating "hey he knows famous people" - which is fine for a magazine profile I guess, but this is not a magazine.

-Trimmed.

• " transmitted live on Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) TV.[22]" - it is the Olympics, of course it was transmitted live on a variety of channels around the world.

-Trimmed.

• Here it mentions sharing a loft - appropriate level of detail here. later it has its own section too? Too much honestly.
• "They performed together in private for, and befriended, the New York City jet set including fashion designer Calvin Klein, Tiffany jewelry designer Countess Elsa Peretti, Andy Warhol, Halston, and Giorgio di Sant'Angelo.[25][26]" again this is where it turns into a puff piece - "look at me I know people" is not really relevant unless it led to something else - and not playing for a fashion show.

-Name dropping removed.

• Reference 27 does not actually seem to mention Laucke?

-Quote expanded to more fully include subject Laucke. N.D.

• The whole section on the "practiser" seems overly detailed and not sure how encyclopedic this actually is.
• "Laucke went on to receive several other awards and critical acclaim" - as generic a statement as can ever be made

-Comment: We are encouraged to write in summary style and allow the reader to follow the footnotes if they want an expanded view. This single line has six footnotes behind it to follow.

Articles

• List them at the bottom at most, not necessary to have a bullet list here.

-Moved list to bottom of page, but above See also section per MOS:LAYOUT

-NOTE: Also, moved Highlights and awards section down there too, to de-emphasize it.

World tours

• No source for "averaging 150 each season", he did 150 in 1991 but that doe not mean he averaged that since then - it has been 25 years after all.

-150 removed.

• The side note on Raymond Nelson are totally irrelevant to Laucke - while tragic they do not belong in this article. This is just one of several places where info not relevant to the subject is added.

-Removed side note.

• So at this point it ceases to be a chronological article and jumps around - unless "early life" and "world tours" really brings us up to date on his career? At this point some of the sections become repetitive, expanding a lot on something already stated (like "Paco de Lucía"). It loses it's focus and jump from subject to subject.

-Comment: digging in. Can you be more specific? The whole article loses focus? Or the section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Checkingfax (talk • contribs) 16:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Personal life

• This section is really symptomatic of the problems this article has. It's not really about his personal life, except a short mention about the foundation - but the section is about the foundation and their work, not Laucke. Lack of focus.

-Comment: There is very little citeable sourcing on Laucke's personal life.

-Trimmed: In spite of hundreds of existing newspaper articles, including popular magazines, there is nothing on Laucke's "personal" life, if this means gossip column "personal". An early, experienced editor said to put Laucke's charity work for MAC in the Personal life section. Section now trimmed to focus on Laucke's role as Director of Mac AIDS Fund (M·A·F). N.D.

• I am not going to do a grammatical review right now, for this to be neutral several areas will have to be rewritten, reduced etc.

Sources / verifiable

• I see a lot of scans uploaded to wikimedia that would normally not have been available, they're basically taken off a Flickr account by Laucke's publisher - unless he himself felt like showing off all this stuff (unlikely). The fact that all these are funneled into the article totally raw by uploading them to wikimedia instead of just linking to the Flickr account is again not helping the POV appearance of the article. Some were uploaded within 8 days of being put on Flickr??

- Partially done. TO DO: link all images directly to Flickr account. N.D.

• I don't see Laucke's name mentioned in the link for reference #1

- Partially done. See Talk page concerning Intermede record company source. N.D.

- Done. N.D.

• Reference #2 does not mention Laucke's name either?

- Partially done. See Talk page concerning McGill University Records source. N.D.

- Done. N.D.

• Reference 16 should list the title of the article, Google News Archive is just the means of displaying the content - that would be like listing "Wikipedia" if citing this article

-Done. Title entered as appropriate. (This must refer to Ref #10 since it is the only reference stating Google News Archive.) N.D.

• Reference 19 does not list the author, fairly obvious from the source who it is. and "Unites States Senate letter" as the publisher?

-Fixed author. See Talk page N.D.

-Done. (Also,linked to Flickr account as per recommendation). N.D.

• I have never seen a reference like #35, what is that about?

-Added missing first part of quote to further clarify Laucke's invention of the "practiser". N.D.

• And 48?
• Reference 41 and 42 are identical.

Done. Two different reviews (October 1981 and March 1982) See Talk page N.D.

• Reference 46 does not mention Laucke's name, so it's not sourcing any statement made about his involvement in the movie.

-Fixed. Un-useful reference deleted. N.D.

• The note on reference 47 is not found in the image linked?
• "2016-02-08" format is used once or twice, all references should have the same date format.

-Done: unified date formats per MOS:DATEFORMAT by script. In this case to dmy. Y

• Reference 76 does not actually source anything other than the website exists?
• Reference 86 does not seem to support anything stated about Laucke?

- Partially done. concerning composer Bregent. See Talk page N.D.

• Reference 99, a collection of references again?

-please review the References section. I am not seeing the issue.

• Reference 117, a collection of references again?

-please review the References section. I am not seeing the issue.

• Reference 128 and 129 are basically just external links, no info in the references?

- Partially done. ...to be sourced using more complete AV citation template. See Talk page N.D.

Broad in coverage

• Has issues, details outlined in the "Well written" detailed review section

Neutral

• Has issues, as already outlined by other commenters, in the reference section and I do get a strong vibe of this being a promo piece with the straight import of everything Laucke's publicist puts on Flickr.

Stable

• With the neutrality tag and comments from several wikipedias I would say no, there is content disputes with the current version.

Illustrated / Images

• While everything is licensed to Laucke himself I do get the impression of bias in the descriptions of these pictures - Like "great friend" etc. really is not helping this piece shake the impression of not being encyclopedic in parts.

-Comment: Not finding "great friend" at this juncture. Please point out more examples that need fixing.

-Done. N.D.

Comments

• @Checkingfax: - I have pointed out quite a few places where the article needs to address the tone, content, focus, neutrality etc. so I am going to allow editors to try address those in the next couple of days instead of failing it which I am sure some reviewers would have done. MPJ-US  14:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, MPJ-DK. Roger that. Going forward please cc Natalie.Desautels as she is the one who did all the research for this article, she speaks French, and she is very willing and eager to adapt the article, as I am, and to polish it where it is currently lacking. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi MPJ-DK. On the Laucke talk page Natalie has put a call out for the previous editors to stop by and help address the concerns you have listed. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi MPJ-DK (with cc to Natalie.Desautels). A couple of references have now been deleted so your numbers are no longer relevant. Can you please point out the references that still need attention? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi MPJ-DK (with cc to Natalie.Desautels). Can you please circle around with your green checkmarker and {{aye}} all issues you deem as done? Also, still need some clarification on a couple of reference numbers as the reference numbers have shifted, or have been removed. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Initial comment by Natalie

@Checkingfax, MPJ-DK, and Sainsf:

Hello MPJ-DK, My heartfelt thanks for your fantastic work here, truly appreciated, to be sure. I love to work very hard and roll up my sleeves, and will take the pleasure to do so here, addressing all the issues you so kindly took the time to mention. Most are very interesting, and some embarrassing, such as "great friend" which must be deleted; as you said, now we're getting somewhere. Even if it doesn't achieve GA worthy status first time around, it will be greatly improved thanks to your observations; one week is ample time I would say. I have some translation work commitments and a deadline right now, and am eager to get to work on this. Meanwhile, I have made a quick comment on the minor issue of the yo-yo and snooker competition wins, and the influence they had on, and link to, Laucke's music career. As mentioned, I will get to the meatier material later. You have been more than generous and I don't want to infringe upon your good nature. If you have a moment, I would love to have your thoughts on the logic of the following thoughts, wiki-wise, about EARLY LIFE: YO-YO AND SNOOKER.

There is a human interest angle here as well as being music study and career related. Even though Laucke went onto become an international success as a concert guitarist, the Early Life sections on yo-yo and snooker are in fact an integral part of who he is—his character, drive, sense of competition and determination. People do have hobbies of course, but for someone to excel in unrelated fields at this level is exceptional I think, and interesting; it piqued the interest of a great many newspapers who have asked how he could achieve such a high level in everything he undertook. There is a connection to music of course in each case. He defeated 2000 kids to become Montreal yo-yo champion and earned sorely-needed money, since the family was poor. This financed his guitar studies. The yo-yo thing is of some interest, but becoming the youngest ever North-American snooker champion? Many musicians were excellent billiard players—Mozart, Arthur Rubenstein, Villa-Lobos, Django Reinhardt, etc, but none became youngest ever champion of a continent. More meaningfully, the large snooker win financed 110 trips from Montreal to New York for Laucke to follow his heart and to study classical guitar and have his music "bring people together". It was the money earned from the snooker that allowed Laucke's music study to initially happen, and talent took over from there.

There is precedence in Wikipedia; this human interest angle is found in more articles than one can mention. I mean, one could ask what did delivering newspapers, selling golf balls and stamps have to do with who Warren Buffett became? Yet, these are interesting facts into the character of the person. …so it is interesting, and perhaps encyclopedic since it appears here. Bill Gates's article states his family encouraged competition; "it didn't matter whether it was hearts or pickleball or swimming to the dock ... there was always a reward for winning". And on and on. (This is not a comparison of course; few could match the accomplishments of the two aforementioned individuals.) …Human interest into what the person is made of, what drives them, how they think—how they manage to consistently lift themselves up, and why is interesting, and maybe encyclopedic as we've seen so often on Wikipedia. I may be wrong ...to err is human; your thoughts on this, albeit brief, would be wonderful. My warmest thanks (I'm French and we're warm—hope it's not embarrassing ). ...much, much more to come. Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• I appreciate the comments and the effort presented on this topic. And yes there are quite a few issues to address, but as long as I see constructive work going on I will be happy to keep this review open, even if it goes past the normal 7 day limit - I would rather make sure it's right than fast. Oh and I am Danish we don't embarrass easily ;-)  MPJ-US  20:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, MPJ-DK. Thank you again for your generosity and open spirit. I'll nevertheless try my best to combine efficiency and correctness. Well, now that I know, my warmest thanks Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, MPJ-DK. I chipped into it, and will continue to chip away. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax and MPJ-DK: Thank you again for your wonderful collaboration...will be back later today with more fixes ...lots of interesting work ahead—encouraging and just what was needed in our quest for improvement. Natalie.Desautels (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Natalie.Desautels. Great job. It would now be helpful if you focused on the Sources/verifiable section of this GA review (GAR). Also, I think MPJ-DK/US wants us to leave tagging things with {{aye}} to them. Just mark thinks in plain text, and s/he will tag them with the green checkmark when accepted by them. At least that is my takeaway. As for signing your name to edits, how about just N.D. for brevity? As the nom, I will not sign them at all. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Checkingfax Thank you kindly. The Sources/verifiable section of this GA review will certainly be next on the list of the many items I am eager to attend to. I should have more time soon as I am getting to the end of my urgent translation work. I was wondering about the {{aye}} tag so I stopped adding it, thinking along the lines you mentioned. It would be good to know with certainty the correct protocol to follow here; indeed, plain text will be used for now. I also appreciate the excellent tip to sign simply N.D., certainly less cluttered. very best wishes, with renewed thanks for your wonderful, and wondrous, help, as always . Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The article has indeed improved a lot! Thanks to each one of you here. But I see some lines without citations at the end, they may look unsourced... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sainsf, Thank you for your encouragement; we're just getting started! We have some very nice and amazingly competent and skilled people so I'm excited about the accomplishments to come over the next few days. Would you be so kind as to provide more details where we can find the "lines without citations at the end, which may look unsourced." which you mentioned above. The section where the sentence appears would be most helpful. By the way, I'm glad you got my little attempt at Marathi . I will head over to your talk page now; it's only 3;30 am—sleep is highly overestimated :) very best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 07:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Natalie.Desautels: I love talking to people... but let us talk between us at my talk page and leave this review page only for things related to the article. :) I will add my comments on this in a clearer way in the next few days. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sainsf, Noble ideaǃ I just had the pleasure of returning from your talk page; thanks for the reminder though. very best, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Sainsf. Go ahead and salt the article with {{cn|date=April 2016}} tags so we can get busy. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Checkingfax ...just a quick update. ...been going for 8 hours straight now - it just took long to give thought to materialize @Corinne and Pdebee:’s suggestions, all excellent. I want to advance with the Sources / verifiable section of the GAR right after I stretch my legs after a little walk. Got to get up early though, but I hope to make some good progress. I started a GA discussion page to initially address the Sources / verifiable section. There are lots of options; ...just have to choose the best one. Natalie.Desautels (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, added the cn tags. Check the changes. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 08:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

̼@Checkingfax: Hi Sainsf ...will be glad to attend to this shortly, right after completing Sources / verifiable. Thank you kindly. Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Sainsf, Done. ...very pleased that all 'citation needed' tags have been attended to. My gratitude for helping us improve this article. ...more progress to come... Kindest thanks, Natalie.Desautels (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Well done, now MPJ-DK will look at the rest of the verifiability concerns. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 04:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Driveby comments by Sainsf

Hi, just gave the article a thorough read. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 08:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• In "Early life", I would have liked to limit the quotes. Except the most important one Then I decided to leave snooker ... music was my love. You! If I had known it was you ... Laucke had the title. Though reader-friendly, this sounds more like a story than an encyclopedic account.

-Trimmed.

• There seems to be some repetition in this part toward the end of "Early career": when some flamenco works began to appear in his classical music programs. From 1990 his concerts consisted exclusively of flamenco and new flamenco works

-Trimmed.

• Laucke went on to receive several other awards and critical acclaim need not be said as we are soon going to discover this as we read on.

-Removed.

• Nelson helped organize U.S. President Carter's I think we should give the full name of the President.

-Done.

• I don't like repeating "Rolando Valdès-Blain" so often. My preference is to introduce the person and then refer to him by just his last name.

-Done.

• In "Paco de Lucia", how relevant is this line? : De Lucía was installed in the living room, but to practice, de Lucía would shut himself in the bathroom because he liked the resonance of the hard tiles.

-Comment: acoustics seem relevant to me for practising.

I am still not sure if it is relevant, I think MPJ-DK should have his/her say here. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Sainsf (with ccs to MPJ-DK and Natalie.Desautels). Thank you for striking out items as done. I will change resonance to acoustics. Does that make it more relevant to you? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually I can't see why we are discussing de Lucia here. Not adamant on this, but the part but to practice, de Lucía would shut himself in the bathroom because he liked the resonance of the hard tiles appears irrelevant to me. What do you say MPJ-DK?

Comment: still waiting for a reply from MPJ-DK, but in the meantime, things have been refactored, and among other things resonance has been changed to acoustics. Cheers! (with cc to Sainsf and to Natalie.Desautels) {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 16:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Better, but the trouble is as pointed out by Corinne here. You see, this part appears somewhat non-encyclopedic to me, a bit out of place here. Corinne explains it better. I am afraid I am not in favour of keeping this or the other parts Corinne points out in the article. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sainsf, Checkingfax, and Corinne: Dear Sainsf, ...all shall be revealed soon, permitting a more informed decision to be formed. ...more info on this forthcoming. If it still irks you, we'll just delete, pas de problème. kind regards, Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Laucke was a director and is presently an honourary charter member of the board of directors of the Mac AIDS Fund (M·A·F) I find "presently" confusing, when did we add this to the article? We should mention since when he has been a member.

-Note to Natalie: Can you please jump into the article and fix this? Don't bother explaining it, just fix it!

-Done. N.D.

Hi, Sainsf. Please take another look and hone your comments. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• I would agree that de Lucia practicing in the bathroom is irrelevant to this article.  MPJ-US  20:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK, Checkingfax, Sainsf, and Corinne: ---problematic phrase about de Lucia practicing in the bathroom and tile acoustics deleted. Natalie.Desautels (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Very well, now that my concerns have been addressed I have nothing more to say. I await MPJ-DK's decision. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 04:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow so much work has gone on here.I am going to read through it again today, hopefully for the final review.  MPJ-US  13:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Final review

@Checkingfax, Natalie.Desautels, and Sainsf: - I have completed my review and I have removed the POV tag, it is no longer warranted. So I had one thing come up in my review, the use of the word "percs", but I replaced it with "percussion instruments" instead of asking someone else to do it.

With that I am pleased to say that all the hard work has paid off, contrats Checkingfax and Natalie. And a special thanks to Sainsf for also jumping in on this, that's the true spirit of Wikipedia. I am passing this for Good Article status.  MPJ-US  14:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks MPJ-DK, Natalie.Desautels and Checkingfax. I am pleased I had the chance to collaborate with you amazing people, it was a great experience. And congrats for the article! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 14:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, MPJ-DK. After Natalie.Desautels and I did a lot of weed whacking based on the lengthy punchlist provided by you and your wingman Sainsf, Corinne swooped in and filled in all the divits we had created in the process. A tip of the hat to Corinne is in order, and, one to you too, kind sir. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK, Sainsf, and Corinne:

Hi, Checkingfax, divits ? My goodness, I'm learning more new English words here than ... . Indeed it was such a fulfilling collaborative effort and ultimately, rewarding accomplishment. As we say in Spanish 'adelante' (onward, as in charging ahead ). PS. I am soon going to present an unique idea to you for a music/classical guitar technical article. ...warm regards, --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sainsf, Corinne, Checkingfax, and Pdebee:

Hello MPJ-DK. If I'm not mistaken, the reviewer is part of the team as well, lest we forget! So I am just so delighted to send you a very well deserved Teamwork barnstar on your talk page for the exciting springboard and kind help you provided in achieving GA status for Michael Laucke. My goal was really to make the article the best it could be, and of course your input was not only immensely helpful but simply indispensable. ...and the GA status is nice too :) ... ...excited about the possibility of the next article creation. ...Time to celebrate with a nice croissant, as we French are wont to do . Besides the hard work, it really was a pleasure all around. My warmest (...havent forgot your roots either), heartfelt thanks for your fantastic work here, truly appreciated, to be sure. --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Toolbox discussion / Notes

Sources / verifiable

• I see a lot of scans uploaded to wikimedia that would normally not have been available, they're basically taken off a flickr account by Laucke's publisher - unless he himself felt like showing off all this stuff (unlikely). The fact that all these are funneled into the article totally raw by uploading them to wikimedia instead of just linking to the Flickr account is again not helping the POV appearance of the article.

TO DO - link all images directly to Flickr account

• I don't see Laucke's name mentioned in the link for reference #1

Ref # 1 is Intermede Music, one of the the record company labels that recorded several albums with Laucke. The label completely revamped its interface one month ago! Need better ref. Canada archives has good references to all the albums Laucke recorded for Intermede Music, as does WorldCat library. See possibly http://web.archive.org/web/20150227000121/http://intermedemusic.com/language/english/albums/intcd2013/ --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Reference #2 does not mention Laucke's name either?

similar to #1. Check out https://www.library.yorku.ca/find/Record/885229. for details on McGill University Records album with Laucke

• Reference #19 does not list the author, fairly obvious from the source who it is. and "Unites States Senate letter" as the publisher?

Author now listed but may be best to change template to report {{Cite report |author= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= |title= |url= |publisher= |page= |docket= |accessdate= |quote= }}

• Reference 41 and 42 are identical.

These are two different reviews (October 1981 and March 1982) albeit by the same author of Guitar and Lute magazine. Ref #40 reviews, then nominates Laucke's "Jade Eyes" album for one of the Year's Dozen best. Ref # 41 votes it the best international classical guitar album of the year. The critical review is interesting in Ref #40, and the win (best international classical guitar album) is interesting in Ref # 41. N.D.

• Reference 86 does not seem to support anything stated about Laucke?

(Reference 86 is now 85). References #86 and 87 refer to compositions written for Laucke by composer Michel-Georges Brégent, while Reference 86 is an article in the The Canadian Encyclopedia on Michel-Georges Brégent since he does not have a Wikipedia article. To do - Search for document and/or newspaper mention on Brégent/Laucke for verifiable source.

• Reference 128 and 129 are basically just external links, no info in the references?

Needs more info; consider using more complete AV media citation template {{cite AV media |people= |date= |year= |title= |trans-title= |medium= |language= |url= |access-date= |archive-url= |archive-date= |format= |time= |location= |publisher= |id= |isbn= |oclc= |quote= |ref= }}

New article 'Michael Laucke : CDs, Films and Dedicated works' Comment

Hi @Checkingfax:. I am planning the section we spoke of, that is, 'Michael Laucke : CDs, Films and Dedicated works', and have started a first sketch here. Once again, I impose upon your good nature to ask few questions: - In view of the more compact format of the original article, is this new section necessary now? We originally thought it might be useful in shortening the original - If we do move ahead, does this sort of adjunct article needed the lead which I prepared. - I copied over the infobox , but I imagine I would use {{Infobox artist discography}} I am also preparing, offline, the Flamenco Road CD new article as well. Thanks so much once again. very best wishes, Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Natalie.Desautels. Start subpages for the new articles so you can do a clean move when they are ready. Otherwise you will nuke your sandbox and bring along a lot of sandbox clutter. And then, you have to recreate your sandbox anyway.

Start a new subpage in your sandbox for each new article. Just put a forward slash after the word sandbox and start the new article name after that and the new article will be launched.

Remember article names do not go in Title Case unless the term is a proper noun‍—‌but the first word always is Capped unless it's a weird trade name title like iPhone.

So it would be:
Michael Laucke films, dedicated works and CDs

I would suggest not putting the Cap C of CD right next to the Capped Laucke.

Actually, the name is long. How about: Michael Laucke discography and filmography

Wait, that's almost as long. How about: Michael Laucke works

Do you remember how to create a subpage? Looks like this:

User:Natalie.Desautels/sandbox/Michael Laucke discography and filmography

Starting subpages will make a clean Talk page for each new article too.

I think the lead is good. I do not think having a redundant infobox is good. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Checkingfax:. Many thanks! I moved my initial rough sketch to User:Natalie.Desautels/sandbox/Michael Laucke discography and filmography as per your suggestion. Before delving in, I am wondering if the Michael Laucke article should be split in the first place and would love to have your thoughts on this. According to Wikipedia:Splitting , if readable prose size is less than 40 kB, than the length alone does not justify division. "Readable prose size" (text only) for Michael Laucke is only 21 kB, not counting tables of course. However, guitarist Paco de Lucia's prose size (text only) is 26 kB "readable prose size", still under the 40 kB recommendation, but the Discography is split to Paco de Lucía discography. very best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Natalie.Desautels. Page history is shown in b which is easily converted to kb. However, page size for most things is measured like this:

Prose size (text only): 21005 characters (3386 words) "readable prose size"

Neither of those has to do with the b or the kb of the readable prose. I do not know how to convert characters or words to b or kb. How do you know the readable prose for ML article is 21kb?

In hindsight instead of creating a new subpage and doing a cut/paste move you could have done a regular page move and thereby preserved the page history. Oh well. When you move it to Article Namespace you can do it "right". LOL. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Checkingfax:. I use a tool called ProseSize, which you can find here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dr_pda/prosesize; it's very easy to install. I see that you don't have it under your JavaScript page at User:Checkingfax/common.js (Sorry, I hacked in to see ). Just adding "importScript('User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js'); // [[User:Dr pda/prosesize]]" to your common.js page should install it. The tool gives a very useful summary at the top of the page, and highlights in yellow all text considered "readable prose size". The summary for Michael Laucke is:

• Document statistics:
• File size: 312 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 38 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 9307 B
• Wiki text: 93 kB
• Prose size (text only): 21 kB (3386 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 456 B

I still have the history in the old Sandbox. ...alas . So, do you think the article would benefit from a split, considering the WP 40 kB recommendation? best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Natalie.Desautels. It strikes me as odd that the character count and the b count for the ML article are both 21k. Seems impossible.

Do you have much more to add to the discography and filmography? You stated before that it was "partial".

I do have a DYK JavaScript installed that gives the prose in characters, then

approximates the words based on the character count. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Checkingfax: I can't find where it says that the character count is 21k. Indeed it would be impossible for character count and b count to be the same. The filmography is complete. In the past, I had found 2 or 3 more CDs for the discography but have to find them again; ...won't make much difference in the length. So, prose size is 21K. Do we split? very best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Natalie.Desautels. This might help us decide:

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines, the discography section of the musician's primary article should "provide a summary of the musician's major works."

WP:DYKcheck gave me the figure of 21K characters (or 3386 words). and Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Checkingfax: ...mulling over the options. I think I'll opt for a Discography/Filmography summary of major works in the main article and a more complete Discography and Filmography in a new main article, as per the excellent link you sent me—to wit: the discography info at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines. best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, Natalie.Desautels. I will be interested to see the progression. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Greetings from Natalie ~ to select contributing editors of the Michael Laucke article

@Robvanvee, Checkingfax, GrammarFascist, MusikAnimal, and Vipinhari: @Casliber, Robert McClenon, Pdebee, Collect, and Corinne: @Collect, Corinne, Jerome Kohl, Mathglot, and Bgwhite: @StarryGrandma, DESiegel, Jerome Kohl, Mathglot, BlueMoonset, and Sainsf:

Hi Everyone. I am pinging some of the over 50 editors who so kindly contributed to the article on Michael Laucke, and other helpful souls as well. The article is nominated for GA status and many improvements remain to implement as reviewer User:MPJ-DK generously pointed out. I will take the pleasure to work very hard on this during the next week. Feel free to adjust/comment as you wish. If father time does not permit, I still extend my warmest best wishes. PS. The discography and filmography tables will soon be moved to a new article to make less clutter. Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: Hey, thanks to y'all and to the more than 33 other constructive editors we made it to a Good Article promotion 4-months and 27-days after the GA nom! We made it through a tag-team gauntlet of two GA reviewers, with one having the final decision in the affirmative. Out of personal pride, Pdebee is going to continue to spit shine things behind the scenes. Natalie.Desautels was the power lifter, but you'all helped push the train while she pulled it.

@Robvanvee, GrammarFascist, MusikAnimal, and Vipinhari: @Casliber, Robert McClenon, Collect, and Anne Delong:@Collect, Jerome Kohl, Mathglot, and Bgwhite:@StarryGrandma, DESiegel, Jerome Kohl, Mathglot, BlueMoonset, and Sainsf:

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I never edited this article, not sure why I got pinged. But congrats, anyway! — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:MusikAnimal, ...just goes to show that ...to err is human ; kindly excuse. Btw, I visited your user page and it looks fabulous! Kind regards, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Final review.

@Natalie.Desautels, Checkingfax, Corinne, and Sainsf: Dear friends,
As promised, I had another good look at the whole article again today and, since it was in such a good shape, I took the liberty of applying six edits during the last hour. Since most of them were minor copy edits, I decided to apply the changes directly myself rather than cause more work for Natalie. However, please have a look and, by all means, feel free to revert any of them, or improve on them further, as you deem appropriate.
There was one final issue that I left alone, because I wanted to bring it to your attention first: when I reached the section on Paco de Lucía, I was suddenly surprised to be taken back to the 1970s. After looking at the structure of the whole article once more, I realized that this impression was caused by the World tours section appearing too early in the article. I daresay that, if this section were relocated further down into the article—perhaps just before the Personal life section?—then the chronology of the article would flow better; after all, the World tours section begins with the sentence: "Laucke's career spans over 50 years, with concert and television appearances in 25 countries." and this suggested to me that it might be best to relocate this text towards the end of the article, since it sounds like we're bringing his career to a conclusive summary. However, since such a relocation implies minor surgery to the structure of the article, I thought it best to leave it for Natalie to make a final decision on the matter. If you agree with the proposal, then I am obviously happy to apply said surgery myself to save you the task, but would only do so with your blessing; so, thank you for letting me know.
So, in conclusion, I am happy to have completed this unfinished task on my part, and want to thank you once again for your kind indulgence with the delay of my final contributions, caused by my Wiki-break.
With kindest regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 20:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax, Corinne, and Sainsf: Dear Pdebee.. That is just so kind! ...and I love all the edits you did ...really. I think you made a really good point regarding the World tours section appearing too early in the article and I'll wait to have user:Checkingfax's opinion; I do think he will concur. I have just taken the pleasure to send to your talk page my heartfelt appreciation and thanks for your very tasteful edits, as well as for your keen eye and the nice tying together of sentences from short stubby ones. kindest regards, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Natalie.Desautels, Checkingfax, Corinne, and Sainsf: Dear Natalie,

Thank you very much for your very prompt reply. I am glad you approve of the latest tweaks, mentioned above, and am grateful for your kind words, as ever.

Of course, it is absolutely fine to defer to Checkingfax's opinion on the matter I raised above, about relocating the World tours section further down into the article. If/when we are all in agreement, then I would be happy to apply the change, since you've all been so busy of late; besides, you're still very busy munching your way down this huge stack of croissants of yours, Natalie... Seriousness aside (this is catching...), I'll remain on standby, waiting for your confirmation and ready to apply said minor surgery whenever you give me the nod.

With kindest regards for now;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 21:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Patrick (with cc to Corinne and Natalie.Desautels). Just do it. Corinne, if she will be so kind, will do any fine tuning to fill in any divots. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Natalie.Desautels, Checkingfax, Corinne, and Sainsf: Dear friends,

 Done! Very many thanks for your prompt reply and approval, Checkingfax. I hope you'll all conclude that this latest change has improved the chronological flow. Thank you for allowing this to happen, even after GA...

Well, this has been good fun, dear team; we should do it again!

With kindest regards to you all for now;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 21:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Patrick (with cc to Corinne, Natalie.Desautels, and Sainsf). Now that you mention it ... I recently nom'd Caitlyn Jenner for GA promotion review. If y'all would be so kind as to rake through her article while we await its movement to the top of the GA review queue, that would be much appreciated. CJ is an important and controversial article that gets an estimated 6,540,639 page views annually. I will caution you that it is a 1RR page which means you may only revert twice before you have crossed the bright line. The editing group over there is fairly chill on edits unless you change she to he or Caitlyn to Bruce. Those issues have already been flogged. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Checkingfax (with cc to Corinne, Natalie.Desautels, and Sainsf);

Thank you very much for your kind invitation and vote of confidence. For now, I will add this to my list of 'Next projects', and will give it some priority when I emerge from the present Wiki-break. Unfortunately, I have several non-Wiki projects lined up for the next few weeks and probably won't be back in full Wiki mode until early May, at the earliest. However, I will take a look at the article in the very near future and, if I conclude that I can make some level of contribution, then I will let you know for sure.

Until then, please keep well; I'll be in touch again soon.

With kind regards for now;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 22:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Thank you. I will excercise caution using this tool. I read this interesting article thoroughly and will write my suggestions soon. warm regards, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Checkingfax; I will take the pleasure to give it a thourough read later today. Meanwhile, I found seven potential wikilinks going into this article and so I linked them up. So if you click What links here on the left sidebar, we have a few more inbound wikilinks. ...not much but more later. best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Natalie.Desautels. Be careful with the semi-automated portion of that tool. Look carefully at the diffs of what it is proposing to change. I tried running it on Planned Parenthood and 25% of the semi-automated edits put a wikilink to PP in the middle of a long URL within a reference. This is a total FUBAR. For PP, the are over 500 hits, so it is going to be tedious to implement, and especially to double check each one to prevent reference pollution. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)