Talk:Suzy Williams

Improving rating/assessment
After my tremendous effort in creating and refining Suzy Williams, it's rather dismaying to see it receive such a poor class rating of "C"! What can be done to improve its rating? --Dr.bobbs (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You can check out Content assessment for the criteria for a B-class rating. But first and foremost, you should really not get upset at whatever rating a single editor gave the article. It just doesn't matter much. If you really can't let it go, I suggest you contact who made the assessment and check with him what he thinks is missing in the current version of the article. Pichpich (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a very good C class article, not far from being B class, and B class is the highest you can get without a formal process. The main items: Lede is too short given the length of the article; early life is too short (or in general, the vast majority is about her career, but this is a bio not a press piece); needs more categories. Also could use an infobox. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much!

Dr.bobbs (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

"shared the stage"
"... have shared stages with Manhattan Transfer, Tom Waits, Koko Taylor, Eubie Blake, Odetta, Loudon Wainwright, Roosevelt Sykes, John P. Hammond, Tracy Nelson & Mother Earth, and The Roches among many others ..." This does not belong here. "Shared the stage" is a euphemism for being an opener, a "not notable" performer opening for a notable performer. Local cover bands use this formula to drop names of more successful musicians. Or it means that they played the same festival. It's not notable. Williams does not need this mark-of-the-amateur name-dropping. Her own accomplishments stand on their own, and it's demeaning to her to treat her like a name-dropping wannabe craving attention. I don't think that's who she is. Listing people she actually performed with, as a band member, guest, duet-partner, etc, is certainly appropriate. But please lose the "shared the stage", as its very presence indicates a lack of notability. Which would be a damn shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B121:CE2E:21BD:1B4D:1549:91F (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Good point! I have removed that sentence and rearranged the surrounding sentences. Thanks!

--Dr.bobbs (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Where to put scanned documents for [non-primary source needed]
[non-primary source needed] notes were added by User:Tony1 to many of the references. I would like to address this problem. I see that what all of these references have in common is that they all link to a photo archive for the FaceBook page of the subject of the article at Suzy-Williams-SingerSongwriter, and that all are scanned documents that I cannot find elsewhere on The Web. Most of these documents are articles from reputable newspapers and so would normally be considered to be good secondary sources under other circumstances. I would like to understand why these references are considered to be primary sources in this case, and how these scanned documents might be handled so that they could be considered to be secondary sources. Maybe I could arrange for them to be copied elsewhere and referred to from there? But where? Some relevant Web page? Uploaded to Wikicommons as images, maybe? Can I claim to own these scanned images even though I did not write or provide photos in any of the newspaper articles that were scanned? Any advice or suggestions on how best to address this problem would be greatly appreciated. --Dr.bobbs (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reference content does not have to be available on line to be accepted, as long as published. What is needed is name of publication, date, pages, and is by-lined, the author(s). David notMD (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:David notMD: I already understood that publications can be referenced simply by providing that info. However, such a citation is not very useful if that publication cannot be found online. It would be much more useful to be able to see and read that publication online. The noted publications ARE in fact available online; however, User:Tony1 has for some reason noted that they are primary sources, apparently tied in with their being published as scanned documents on FaceBook, as they are all so noted. I want to understand where they might be published so that they would be considered to be non-primary sources.
 * Also, some scanned documents published on Facebook cited are not from publications; and these are also noted as primary sources. How can these be cited as non-primary sources? I asked some questions above about arranging for these scanned documents of publications and other documents to be published elsewhere or uploaded as images -- Can this make these scanned documents into non-primary sources?--Dr.bobbs (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for references to be available on line. The criteria is that a person with access to a library system might be able to source the published document. Scanning documents to Facebook is exactly the wrong solution. Scanning same and trying to use as images also the wrong solution. In effect, properly referenced is acceptable, but providing proof the documents exist is not. Right now you have a dozen references to fix. David notMD (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks.--Dr.bobbs (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I have removed all of the links to Facebook.--Dr.bobbs (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The Lede
The LEde is supposed to be a sort of summary of the content of the article. As written, the Lede has content which is not covered in the article. Also, the Eubie Blake quote is from an unpublished letter. This must be deleted, as the citation is not a valid reference. David notMD (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Removal of the material as noted by User:David notMD will make the Lede rather short. Won't this be too short? The Lede had been lengthened on the advice of User:Pichpich. Any suggestions on what else to include in the Lede?--Dr.bobbs (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * User:David notMD: Where might the Eubie Blake letter be published so that it could become a valid reference?--Dr.bobbs (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Alternative is to add referenced content to the article so that what is in the Lede is in the article. On the EB letter, I think you are stuck. Unless this has been published in some collected letters of Eubie Blake, you have an unpublished letter from 1976. Not a reliable source according to Wikipedia, and thus cannot use the quote. David notMD (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * User:David notMD: Thank you! One last hope regarding the EB letter: I don't suppose that, if I could arrange for the letter to be published on Suzy Williams's official web page www.laughtears.com, that it might then be considered a reliable source?--Dr.bobbs (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No. What people say about themselves on their own websites, Facebook, or in interviews are not considered reliable sources. David notMD (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:David notMD: I have incorporated all your recommendations into the article. Thank you so much for all your help!
 * But now I have located a source that is not Suzy Williams's websites, Facebook, or interview which mentions the EB quote, at https://musicians.allaboutjazz.com/suzywilliams . Would that be considered to be reliable? Could I now add the EB quote back in, citing this source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.bobbs (talk • contribs) 19:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC) --Dr.bobbs (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That would work. And I see that you have cleaned up the other refs. A suggestion: put the EB quote in the body of the article rather than the lead. It is an interesting fact, but not central to the article. David notMD (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)