Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bix Beiderbecke/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:47, 30 September 2010.

Bix Beiderbecke

 * Nominator(s): Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have been encouraged to do so by several editors who have praised its content. I am a significant contributor to the article and an expert on the subject and so able to work with other editors in making any necessary changes. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no links to dab pages, but the external link to http://www.thejazzhalloffame.com/ is dead and several links to jazz.com are timing out. Ucucha 15:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you tell me what dab pages are? Also, I'm having no problem with Jazz.com links on my end, but it does seem as if the International Jazz Hall of Fame has gone offline. I could delete that altogether, although there is an additional link in the footnote that corroborates the induction. I'm happy to leave it up to the editors here whether that particular source is sufficient. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Dab pages are disambiguation pages. A link, say, on John Smith takes you to a list of people named John Smith. Suppose the Smith you want is the mathematician. You "disambiguate" by piping the link thus: John Smith, which now takes you where you want to go. This is not a problem in this article, but this information might be useful next time round. I'll do a full sources review in a couple of days, and comment on the other issue then. Brianboulton (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thank you. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The former problems have disappeared, but there is now a dead external link to http://bixbeiderbecke.com/bixdisco/bixdiscoicoverpage.html/ Ucucha 02:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Link fixed. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Great article, well sourced, great pictures, Margo&Gladys has done outstanding work with the article. C T J F 8 3  chat 22:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment webrefs at the bottom are incomplete with publisher and accessdate missing in some cases  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  01:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Image licensing review:
 * File:Bix Beiderbecke 1924.jpg has no copyright tag (although there is every possibility it may be PD-US-not renewed
 * Done. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Bix Beiderbecke and Rhythm Jugglers.jpg fails WP:NFCC as it is decorative and not the subject of critical commentary, and it would not reduce readers' understanding of the article if it were removed
 * Image removed. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no proof that the Greater Astoria Historical Society agreed to release File:Bix Beiderbecke plaque.jpg under CC-BY-SA; an email needs to be sent to OTRS.
 * Image removed. I hope this adequately addresses your concerns. Can you tell me whether there is any reason the following images could not be inserted into the entry: File:Wolverine orchestra 1924.jpg; File:ParlR1838B.jpg; and File:Young Bix Beiderbecke.jpg? The latter was deleted during the Good Article review because an editor claimed its historical context was disputed; while this was once true, it is no longer true, and ample documentation from a recent source is available to cite. Thanks for your help. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose pending resolution of the above. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some people may argue that we need proof that File:Wolverine orchestra 1924.jpg was first published without a copyright notice. I could not make any argument against including the other two. I've struck my oppose; there are no further copyright issues. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I added the image of an eight-year-old Beiderbecke, with citation. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources issues
 * Who publishes the "Bixography Discussion Group", and why is this a reliable encyclopedic source?
 * The Bixography Discussion Group is published by Albert Haim, a Beiderbecke researcher. It is a discussion board used by a number of Beiderbecke scholars and contains information that can be very useful in understanding the subject. I think you'll find that I don't use the website as a definitive source of information about Beiderbecke, but as an example of how certain information has been disputed and argued about (e.g., notes 17 and 23). Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In the first ref that mentions the Bixography Discussion Group, I added an explanation of what the forum is, who established it and when. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unresolved. Albert Haim and this Bixography discussion group are listed several times in the notes and references, but not as an author of a reliable source outside of that internet discussion group.  If Haim is an expert, that needs to be established per WP:SPS policy; otherwise, reviewers Supporting this nom should indicate why they think these internet postings meet crit. 1c of WP:WIAFA for high quality sources, indeed, whether it even is a reliable source.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concern. I do believe that Haim is an established expert—here is an example of one of his third-party publications—but I do not use him or his site as a source for facts about Beiderbecke's life. Instead, I use the Bixography Discussion Group as evidence that those facts are often disputed and debated by fans and scholars. I don't believe I ever cite the forum as the sole evidence for anything (with the possible exception of note 125). In note 27, I cite Haim as the first person to publish (either online or in print) Beiderbecke's arrest report. Such an acknowledgment is only fair to Haim, of course, and the information was corroborated in future print publications. Its appearance first on Haim's forum, however, lends the site some authority, I think, although, again, I do not cite it concerning the facts of Beiderbecke's life. Does this speak to your concern or am I misunderstanding the standards that need to be applied here? These references to the forum can easily be excised, but I think they will leave the article poorer for their absence. Thanks. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree you have used restraint in sourcing the internet discussion group, but Haim still needs to meet WP:SPS. Could you clarify what the IAJRC is? Is it peer-reviewed?  Fact checking?  Oversight? Has Haim published elsewhere, in peer-reviewed journals or mainstream sources?  We need to satisfy WP:SPS. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * IAJRC is the International Association of Jazz Record Collectors; I doubt it is peer reviewed or fact-checked and I am not going to go to bat for Haim as a scholar. Not at all. His website is, for better and sometimes for worse, enormously influential among Bix fans and scholars, but in this instance, it's easiest to just remove those citations. I kept the mention of the arrest report. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There are problems with your usage of footnotes (as distinct from citations). Some are too vague to be useful as a means of checking sources, e.g. "See Ferguson", "For more about Gennett, see Kennedy" etc. Others, e.g. 49 and 85, are longish narratives without citations. In other cases footnotes refer to unlisted sources, or provide bare links to unlisted sources. There has to be a consistency in the way in which references are formatted, and in particular a publisher must be shown in every case.
 * I'm confused about what's vague about "See Ferguson." The article mentions a certain kind of magazine article (as opposed to specific information in a magazine article). The note suggests that the reader see Ferguson (meaning see Ferguson for an example of such a magazine article). In the references list, then, under "Ferguson," is the information one would need to consult such an article. That doesn't seem vague to me. Same with "For more about Gennett, see Kennedy." The whole book is about Gennett and Beiderbecke, more or less, so I think that pointing readers toward that book is helpful. I can't argue with your description of notes 49 and 85; is there a prohibition against this sort of extra-curricular information? I'm happy to delete it, but I thought it might be interesting or helpful. Am I right that the only footnotes that refer to unlisted sources are footnotes that link to websites? I'm happy to list those websites and find publishers for them as well. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I added websites to the References section. If you or someone else were able to address my questions above, I'd be grateful. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be better if those particular footnotes (currently numbers 4 to 7) read "For example see..." hamiltonstone (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * None of the refs from 102 onward has publisher information.
 * As I wrote above. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Publisher locations are missing from several books
 * I will do my best to correct that. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no publisher called "Oxford". This should be written as "Oxford University Press".
 * Done. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Few things.
 * I love how you go into detail on historians' disagreeing on details in his life. It makes for a nice read. It's not a complaint by any means, I just wanted to mention that.
 * "played a gangster hangout" - for some reason that phrase stood out at me. Was it a speakeasy? (it was during the prohibition era, after all). IDK, just that wording seemed awkward
 * Changed to "speakeasy." Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Beiderbecke apparently hung out with them" - "hung out" seems too colloquial.
 * Changed to "spent time with." Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * When did his drinking start?
 * Excellent question. I'm not sure that it's a hundred percent clear when his drinking started. However, the headmaster at Lake Forest informed Mr. and Mrs. Beiderbecke that their son had been drinking and bringing liquor onto campus. So his vice dates back at least to high school. I revised to reflect that fact. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Other than those three things, I really enjoyed reading the article, as a jazz musician myself. Support. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support and comment Great read, but the job didn't last long... it wasn't copacetic  grates as too informal, especially when wasn't is followed by copacetic!  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  17:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not certain the (well written) FUR on the lead image is as watertight as it first appears. You do realise that anything published prior to 1923 is PD, right? Are you certain there are no pre-1923 published pictures floating about? J Milburn (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, please ping for review of his/her image oppose.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I pinged Stifle. Regarding Milburn's comment -- to be honest I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't actually fix the 1924 photograph; somebody else (thankfully) did. And I don't have any experience or expertise in dealing with this media or with copyright concerns. So I'm not sure what an FUR is or how to determine whether it's airtight. There are pre-1923 photographs of Beiderbecke -- I suggested one above. But none are of him as a professional musician. His career actually began in 1924. So any help or further explanation would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have revised the FUR on the image to make it more explicit. Accepting the point that his musical career did not begin until 1924, I don't see a free-use way in which one could show the subject of the article either as an adult or as a musician - not to mention the fact that this particular image is explicitly discussed in the article text - so I would be content with it as it now stands. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I think its ready to promote now. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 00:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Comment. I'd like to support, but I would also like to hear other reviewers comments on what would seem a (potentially) key issue. What do the following articles have in common: Madonna (entertainer), The Kinks, Uncle Tupelo, and Bedřich Smetana? Answer: they are all FAs about composers / performers... and they all have an audio sample of their subject's work. Obviously copyright can't be preventing this, or some of those samples couldn't possibly be available: so why do we not have a sample of Beiderbecke's music? I'm not sure we would get an article on a visual artist through FAC without an example of their work illustrated; should we do so for a musician? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (I've opened a thread on this at FAC talk, as it might be the better place to discuss). hamiltonstone (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know the logistics of loading up such a sample, but I love the idea and would highly recommend we use a clip of Beiderbecke's solo in "Singin' the Blues." Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * With some help from a friend, I figured out the logistics and have uploaded an 18-second clip of Beiderbecke's solo on "Singin' the Blues" and placed it in an appropriate spot in the Beiderbecke entry. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Brilliant - complete with careful fair use rationale and copyright tag. This is exactly what I hoped for. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've now added three sound clips altogether, which I think give the range of his career and styles. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.