User talk:Pzicari

CS1 error on Kate Barnes[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Kate Barnes, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hi Pzicari! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! As a retired newspaper editor I find the work congenial, but the intricacies of wiki style will require some effort to learn. I hope to contribute as time allows in the future. Pzicari (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Barnes moved to draftspace[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Kate Barnes. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and you may have a possible Conflict of Interest. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Justi yaya 00:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pzicari! I've moved the page to draft space. Wikipedia articles need multiple reliable secondary sources providing significant coverage to the subject, there are none that I can see in the references. You seem to have a conflict of interest (COI) with the subject based on your edit summaries too. COI editors are expected to submit pages through the Articles for Creation process and not publish articles directly.

If you have any questions or think I made a mistake, please ping me. Justi yaya 00:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justiyaya, thank you for reviewing Kate Barnes, but I think your analysis is mistaken. First, there is no conflict of interest as I understand the expression. I have never met Barnes and communicated with her only twice -- first, to get her to acquiesce in having an article posted and second to have her check it and send a picture. This would not be necessary in an arms-length report, but I am well acquainted with a number of trans people in Ohio and find they are all sensitive about how they're depicted. When someone edited the article to insert "under the name Peter Barnes" in several places, I removed the phrases and added a note appealing to future editors to avoid undue emphasis on Barnes' status.

Second, there are four essential arms-length references in the article, though they are not conventional journal articles.

-- Barnes' books themselves are ample proof of her significance, as the effort involved in identifying and locating a single tune, getting permission where required, transposing it and formatting it for print is significant, and Barnes did this more than 1,200 times. The books have become an essential source for dance bands in the genre, but tracking down the sales data would be original research.

-- The lifetime achievement award from the Country Dance and Song Society is important and its accompanying description is reliable. The CDSS is a significant arts organization, particularly in New England but also across the United States for people interested in folk music.

-- The Julie Vallimont interview in an established podcast at CDSS. Again, CDSS is a serious organization even if it's not an academic institution or news organ. The interview is transcripted.

-- The "5 Things" interview is hosted by members of the folk music/dance community, but I think it's unreasonable to ask that every publication be done by strangers. You'd accept a mathematician written up by another mathematician, no?

As a professional musician, Barnes has worked nearly 50 years without collecting a file of clippings. Why? I have several theories. Working in entertainment, Barnes would most likely be written up in popular publications, newspapers and magazines. In the 1990s, when her books started coming out, newspaper/magazine features (and newspapers) were imploding; those editors who assign features at all now look for ideas likely to produce large traffic online (like rock music) and ignore those that are merely interesting. Barnes plays in bands; typically the band gets the headline and putting oneself forward might be seen as disloyal. Dance communities, further, seem to be somewhat insular; while they accept new people, they don't promote themselves. I think this might be because newcomers usually disrupt country/contra/square dances until they learn the customs and maneuvers.

Please contact me if you can't accept my reasoning. I will be away for a while, so you could also ping Nancy Darling. I would have liked to re-publish the article in the meantime, but I can't figure that out. I hope it will be OK'd soon and again, thank you for taking the time to read it. Pzicari (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pzicari! Chiming in here as an editor who has familiarity with the contra/folk community. The WP:BASIC guideline is what reviewers like Justiyaya are using to evaluate notability. It requires that each source contributing to notability have all of the following: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

Going through the four sources you list: The books she has authored are not independent because she authored them. The CDSS sources may count, but only as one because they're both from the same organization. And the "5 Things" interview looks like too informal of an operation to pass muster as a reliable source — it lacks editorial oversight, a fact-checking operation, and the other hallmarks we would want to see.

Given all this, it looks like there's perhaps one of the required two or more notability-contributing sources here, so I would guess it's more likely than not that the next reviewer will make the same call Justiyaya did and decline the draft. You could try to seek out better sources (a newspaper profile of Barnes, in particular, would be compelling, even if it's just from e.g. The Recorder), but I'm not sure such sources exist. Regarding I think it's unreasonable to ask that every publication be done by strangers, when it comes to notability-qualifying sources, independence is what we ask, and the requirement is strict (the rules were written less with people like Barnes in mind and more with self-promotional entrepreneurs, but they apply to everyone). There are only a small handful of contra dance callers with articles, some of which probably ought to be deleted (Ralph Page is one I wrote that provides an example of the level of sourcing needed), and even some of the most popular contemporary callers like Will Mentor probably do not yet qualify for an article. Unless a caller has achieved a level of renown that has gotten them noticed beyond just the immediate folk world, it is unlikely it'll be possible to create an article on them.

Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 21:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for taking the time to explain. I do think that by adhering to the gold standard of conventional edited publications, Wikipedia may be denying users access to information they might want without guaranteeing the independence and accuracy of content that is sought. After all, Fox News and the Epoch Times employ editors and are independent -- of reality itself, imho. Meanwhile the "mainstream" media have cut far back on the editors they used to rely on. But I will see what I can do about a formal printed article. Pzicari (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's an imperfect standard but the best one we have. FWIW, the Epoch Times and Fox News are both deemed unreliable sources here. Sdkb ^talk 16:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]