Talk:Daniel Kobialka

Advertisement
The WP:LIVE tag looks very pretty on the article, but I don't see any danger of there being anything libelous or harmful in this article. On the contrary, the whole article is written in an advertising tone ("a desire to showcase violin music in a way it had not been before"), there is a bunch of content that is purely advertising material (like the website right in the middle of the text), and those tons of namedropping aren't exactly what we want in an encyclopedic article either, are they?

Additional problem with the article: There are virtually no sources except for his own.

I will try to do a bit of neutralizing myself and replace the tag with the one this article needs. --93.212.252.164 (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Some of this promotional stuff is really outrageous. Google does not even know this "International Nagano Winter Orchestra" aside from four identical mentions in the immediate context of Daniel Kobialka. Same thing for this "Concerto for the Zeta-Polyphonic Electronic Violin". I'll leave that in though since it appears to be his own work. Not that the article said so, much less provide sources. --93.212.252.164 (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources?
"He is currently on the faculty of the University of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio, Texas."

I cannot find any mention of his name on the faculty list of this university. Being born in 1943, he would probably be retired by now anyway. Which nicely demonstrates how nonsensical the word "currently" is in a continually developing encyclopedia like this.

Either way, we need sources for this kind of information, or it should be deleted. --93.212.252.164 (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Same thing for his claim to professorship at UC Berkeley. I cannot find anything at all on the UC Berkeley website. --93.212.252.164 (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I put that whole sentence in the past tense now. Not because I have any new information but simply - assuming that the information has been put in there in good faith - his name may not be on those websites because he would probably be retired by now. That, however, is complete guesswork on my part. If no one comes up with reliable sources within a reasonable period of time, we really should delete the whole sentence. --93.212.252.164 (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Career
The whole career part needs to be rewritten in a prose style. It will have to be reduced to encyclopedic content also. There are way too many irrelevant details in there at the moment.

Basically, the whole article could be restructured. The introductory part is way too long, for my taste. Possibly something like: Biography / Career / Company.

Not sure if I am going to get around to doing that, but wanted to make sure to bring it to your attention. --93.212.252.164 (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * O.k., I gave it a try now. I didn't really know what to do with all that namedropping. Maybe someone has an idea. Also, that discography really needs some work. The way this looks at the moment - just a bunch of titles, no links, no sources, no nothing - is really inacceptable. --93.212.252.164 (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)