User talk:Jack Sebastian/Desiree Bassett

FA style examples

Mariah Carey, Aaliyah, Ayumi Hamasaki and Selena

- Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Most of these were extrapolated from Bassett's website:

• interview in Southern Fried Magazine
• WTNH article
• Norwich Bulletin
• pdf of Southington Observer article
• interview in Guitar International
• radio interview on KFNS
• Hartford Magazine pdf
• Guitar Player
• Gibson.com
• Hartford Courant
• Green Arrow Radio

...and a few I found on my own (there are many):

• More from Green Arrow Radio
• The End Zone
• Indiegrrl.com

Caveat

It would appear that an article for this artist has been attempted before (1), by MF14. After adding about 20 edits in a user sub-page, the page was uploaded to Mainspace, where it was tagged at 21:43 on December 4, 2009 by Hersfold, citing CSD:A7 ("Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject").

I think that came about because - judging from the user sub-page, most of the content was culled from a single article and there were a dearth of inline citations. I think that by properly referencing and expanding the article, it would stand a better chance of surviving. Once done, I think I'll involve Hersfold in the evaluation process before uploading to Mainspace. I don't want my redux of the article speedily deleted. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Working on the DYK

In order to attract new eyes to the article once it hits Mainspace (1700+ words makes it eligible for DYK), I'm considering a couple of DYK hooks:

• ...that seventeen-year-old rock guitarist Desireé Bassett has been called "the future of rock and roll"? (88 characters)
• ...that seventeen-year-old rock guitarist Desireé Bassett is only the second person to sit in on a set with the band Living Colour? (108 characters)
• ...that rock guitarist Desireé Bassett has released two studio-produced CDs - all before she turned seventeen? (93 characters)

-Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Addtl Sourcing Needed

Hi there! Interesting article about someone I've never heard of. :) Reading it over, I'd probably tag it for needing additional sourcing...there's more than one statement where I think a citation is needed, especially as this is a BLP. I'd recommend either sourcing those statements or omitting them for now...otherwise particularly bold editors may choose to remove them. Doniago (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Could I trouble you to tag that info needing citing, Doniago? I've read most of the major stuff on the subject, and might have written without adding citation when necessary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jack...I tagged the two sections that at a glance I felt really needed more sourcing. I generally prefer doing that to inserting a whole bunch of CN tags. If you need me to be more specific I can do so, but, again, that wouldn't be my preference. Doniago (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Finished sourcing that which you felt needed it. take another look? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Notes as I read

Taking notes as I read so my bullet points should be mostly in order throughout the article. Mind you I seriously need MOAR COFFEE (I've been awake for about 20 minutes) so if I don't make sense, poke me and I'll try to clarify. I remind you that I'm mostly a text dork so sourcing problems are something I'm going to mostly miss. I'm all about the flow, yo.

Specifics

• Check your blockquotes code throughout; some of them are indented funny. I don't know if that's normal.

I'm not using block quotes, I am using c-quotes instead; I am not sure how to affect the indent on them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think you need the parentheticals denoting her age when you've noted the year in which events happened. To me, it looks cluttered and people can always just do the math. I've seen edits adding such parentheticals get removed from other BLPs. Again, probably subjective and I don't work on many BLPs so it may be fine. Personally, I would pick either her age or the year and go with that.

 Done - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Typo under "future of rock" heading; you have a period after "In 2005" instead of a comma. Actually whole sentence is having a weird semantics problem. You say "In 2005" at the beginning and end of that bit. Looks like you edited the sentence and meant to delete something somewhere but forgot.

 Done - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• "and the XY Eli Band among others." I think that should be "amongst" but 1) that may be just me and 2) it might not be that big a deal.

 Done - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• "During this time, Bassett first recorded five different songs" Ditch the word "first" as it doesn't seem to have a "second," "next," or "then" following it. Unless you meant that this was her first recording session, in which case you need a rephrase to be more specific about that.

 Done - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Bassett also personally designed the artwork, created and sold several hundred copies of the CD." Something awkward here... I'm tying "personally" to each clause in the commas and it comes off oddly (she personally sold several hundred copies). That makes no sense at all does it?

 Done

• Might need a source for the 13th birthday paragraph; upstaging the headliner might come off as POV without one.

 Done - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• "legendary rockers Living Colour" legendary might come off as POV. Likewise for the bit about the screaming fans not believing their eyes and ears. I didn't read the source so this may actually be fine.

 Done - I specifically cited the screaming fans, as it would have been pov without it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• I totally see what you meant about the Peavey Amps endorsement but the sentence was awkward for me. I think it was the way "offered directly" tied in to the first and second part. I think I'd swap it around like "garnering her an endorsement with Peavey Amps offered directly by Mr. and Mrs. Peavey." Or something.

 Done

• "[ Schecter Guitar Research," You got a runaway bracket there.

 Done - I think someone else got it (probably Doniago, as he was cite-tagging the article as per my request). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Bassett admits that her first CD wasn't "exactly perfect" Change the word "admits," it sounds POV as is (like the writer didn't think it was perfect and Bassett is confirming this. Same sentence needs "in" just before "2009" at the end.

 Done

• "Since the Woodstock event, Bassett's popularity began to increase in the mainstream news media, including television and radio spots and interviews. She then formed the independent label, "Desiree Bassett LLC" with her father." Someone is going to source tag that, particularly the mainstream media stuff.

 Done

• "Bassett admits that performing for older fans" I'd say change admits to "says" for the same reasons the one two points up. Not as critical and may be fine.

 Done

• "of Blogspot's The End Zone" Because I have a blog on Blogspot this sounds weird to me. Like Blogspot is a magazine and End Zone is some article on it. I think "of the blog The End Zone" would be fine. Who cares where they host their blog.

 Done

General thoughts

Overall this kid sounds fascinating but that might be a problem. It's nothing specific I can provide a quote for but it wouldn't surprise me if someone tagged the article for sounding like a fan page. I don't actually think it sounds like a fan page, myself, but it rings a bit like it was mostly written by someone who IS a fan, if you see the difference there. Someone more nitpicky about that may have an issue with it. Doniago's point about more sources may help with that but I didn't spot many specifics that I felt like I'd place a fact tag on.

All of that said, for the most part I think it's pretty tightly woven together. Probably about 90% of my specifics list is stuff you could have gone live with and let others tweak in the way that we do around here.

Off to set up my caffeine IV. I can poke again in 30 minutes (ish) if you need me to be more clear or anything. Seriously, nice work dude. Millahnna (mouse)talk 16:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed the individual points you've thoughtfully (and caffeine-deprivedly) offered, Millahnna. As for the tone of the article seeming like a fan page, I get that. I simply took over the article after MF14's version was speedily deleted (no sources, etc.) Everywhere where i catch the fannish stuf, i sanitize it. If you catch more, please let me know. The fanboy stuff is better left to her site, not her article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I can't really lay my finger on it, but there's sort of an overall tone that I can see now came from MF14's version. I'll take another look with fresh eyeballs in a few hours (either here or in the article space if you take it live before then) and see if I can't pinpoint something more specific. Personally, I think you could probably take it live now; I've seen existing and longstanding BLPs when I'm doing recent changes that aren't nearly as well put together or as obviously notable. Millahnna (mouse)talk 18:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I was going to take it live tomorrow - I am waiting to hear back from Dan Bassett, who's going to proof the article for chronological accuracy (a nagging concern of mine) and send a free-use image suitable for use. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)