Talk:David D'Or/Archive 1

Archive 1

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. --KenWalker | Talk 07:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is certainly worthy of a B rating in all of its classes and I have changed it from Start in each but it may well be worth considering a GA or and FA nomination. I am not familiar with the Eurovision or Israel projects but presume the upgrade to at least a B is appropriate for both.--KenWalker | Talk 00:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I've followed up on it, starting with GA ... --Epeefleche (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead etc.

The first sentence should mention what he does and not use two seperate quotations for that - and the praise in the first sentence is a little unencylopedic, I think. Also, linking in quotations is to be avoided per WP:LINK. Many paragraphs of the article are short and choppy, that should be improved, and the citation style is inconsistent and citations are listed redudandtly - I'll put them together a little. Hekerui (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Combined some of the paragraphs, and de-linked within quote, per suggestions.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I formatted the citations, but can't access the "Israel-China Voice of Friendship" source. Hekerui (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Great job! Took a look at that url. I was able to access it. As with a pdf, for a zip file you need the correct software downloaded on your pc.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment—the lead section appears to use some peacock terms in describing D'Or. Yes, they are sourced, but they are still peacock terms. I believe that first and foremost, the intro should state that he is a singer, composer and songwriter, and later talk about how he's considered the most acclaimed, etc. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is light years away from being a GA. All my efforts to create an encyclopedic article out of this over-the-top walking advertisement have clearly been a waste of time. --Gilabrand (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ynhockey --Good point. Moved it out of the lead sentence, which also then allowed linkage of Israeli and singer. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Issues

There are some formatting issues such as albums not being in italics as well as a lack in detail about some aspects of his career such as the release of albums. If this page is going to reach GA status, you can't just say "In 1995 he released a new album David & Shlomo with Shlomo Bar." When in 1995 was this album released? Was there a promotional tour? It went platinum and it's not even mentioned. I found situations like this a LOT in the article. Since it is part of WikiProject Eurovision, this being the way I found out its status, I would once again emphasize that lack of detail, especially concerning his ESC entrance. The article says he entered with the song, but doesn't say how that song was chosen, or even what he placed at the contest! The article as whole seems a little choppy lacks a smooth flow. Also, concerning the genres, many of them listed are not actually genres and there seems to be a lot of overlapping. Arias and opera seem to be very similar as well as klezmer and folk music. Holy music needs to be defined; are they hymns? I feel like there is a lot of work to do before this article can be considered a GA, and frankly am surprised that it is nominated. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

At its current state it seems more of a C class article to me, so I'm surprised it's classed as a B. Afkatk (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It was rated B by an IP Adress. I'll reassess to C. Hekerui (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks as though it was rated B by Ken Walker (see above), who originally rated it and gave suggestions for bringing it up in rating. I think it should be as he rated it (B).--Ethelh (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

[1] On the Quality Scale thats a B, this article clearly is not a B, it does not have the descriptive content to be able to call itself a B. Afkatk (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we please work on getting it up to GA standards instead of bickering over what assessment rating it should have. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have searched around on the internet and cannot seem to find much information on D'Or, I also dislike within this article how it jumps from 1992 to 1995 and I feel a lack of information could be a big problem with this. Afkatk (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of the above points (though not all) have been somewhat or completely addressed now. I will put in some more work to further address. Can someone confirm (if this is correct) that albums should be italicized, but bands and songs in quote marks)? Also, I assume if the album is identified by both its Hebrew and English name, it is proper to reflect both here (and both in quote marks)? I think we now have a lot more info on his Eurovision entry. As to the types of music he sings, the article simply mirrors the articles that are quoted -- arias and opera are reflected separately, as are klezmer and folk music. Holy music is not defined in the article that mentions it, which makes it difficult to define; is the suggesion in this instance that it not be reflected?--Ethelh (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Songs are always in quotes and albums are always italicized. Translations, from what I have seen are usually italicized as well, but in parenthesis. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Per MOS:MUSIC, "In popular music, album titles should be in italics, and song and single titles should be in quotes." I will look further, but at first glance it appears as though perhaps translations should be in parentheses, but in the format of the original language.--68.173.101.114 (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is what I just said right above you, but what do you mean by "format" of the original language? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Awards Template

Hi. Is anyone aware of an awards template, that could be used at the bottom for Israeli Singer of the Year (etc.), similar to the Eurovision template? Thanks.--Ethelh (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Succession box. Afkatk (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking of something more awards-specific (which the above template is not), as we have in baseball for example. As in the below ...

Awards
Preceded by Assaf Amdursky David D'Or .	Israeli Singer of the Year Award (Tamuz Prize) 2001 2002 2004	Succeeded by David D'Or . .
Preceded by . David D'Or .	Israeli Best Vocal Performer Award 2001 2002 2004	Succeeded by David D'Or . .
Preceded by	Israeli Best Song Award 2002	Succeeded by

Something like that would look better, inasmuch as a) it has the yellow Awards title banner, and b) it has an appropriate width (which, actually, the template used for EV does not have, which to my graphics eye is inferior). Thoughts?--Ethelh (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like overkill and a "good width" depends on resolution. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see much point in the collapse menu. Afkatk (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree w/Afkatk as to collapse menu--I don't see a need for it to collapse. It is not as though this is an exceptionally long article. Otherwise, I like it -- more appropriate than table used for Eurovision, and no more overkill than existing table. Better presentation.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

How is it more appropriate that the one used for Eurovision? They are the same. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

OK ... so I gather that Epee and Afkatk don't like the collapse menu ... can anyone help me revise it so that it retains the title "Awards," but is not a collapse menu? Also, if we make that change, are we OK with me insterting the above in the article (just as we have the Eurovision table)? I think what this has that the EV table does not is a descriptive header ("Awards"). Tx.--Ethelh (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with just using the Succession tables by themselves? Afkatk (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's just been pointed out to me that an in-use music awards and achievements banner can be found at [2]. There is nothing wrong of course with the tables by themselves without a descriptive header, but the header adds -- in both the above example and the in-use Andrew Lloyd Webber example.--Ethelh (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hence, it can look like this:

Does that order make sense (international first), or should I put in first awarded date order (EV last)? Tx.--Ethelh (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Date ranges—agreement

I think I speak finally for everyone involved that this little edit war needs to stop, we need to come to an agreement on whether to name the 1992 section "1992-1999" or "1992-99", we need to come to an agreement quickly so this little edit war does not continue. Afkatk (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

These sections are totally arbitrary. I deleted them so someone can come up with better headings. Hekerui (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Usually a description comes after which should be added, but they are definitely needed to help the user identify when things happened. I support the full year format because when I see 99 I think year 99, not randomly take the first two digits of the first year and substitute 99 for the latter two. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There shouldn't be an edit war here. The original format in this article, 1990-99, is "normally written with two digits" under wikipedia guidelines, is consistent with the rest of the article, and is the format originally used in the article. For all those wikipedia style guideline reasons, there is no good reason for a subsequent editor to change the format that consists with what is normal in wikipedia to what would otherwise be an acceptable (if not normal) format.

First, WP:DATE is clear. It says, in relevant part, "Year ranges .... A closing CE/AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year (1881–1986).[emphasis added] The full closing year is acceptable, but abbreviating it to a single digit (1881–6) or three digits (1881–886) is not."

Second, consistency also dictates this result, as 1990-99 is the format used elsewhere within the article. As WP:DATE directs: "Format consistency. Dates in article body text should all have the same format."

Third, as WP:DATE directs, we should retain the existing format, which is 1990-99. "Retaining the existing format. If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the date format chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor"."

Fourth, this is also consistent with many English language style guides, which in fact only view the two digit approach as acceptable (for example, [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]), [9], [10], [11], [12]).

Stephen's POV, which differs from mine, WP:DATE, and a multitude of style guides, is simply of no greater weight than if he had a different view as to where quote marks should be inserted. We do have standards other than POV, and they are clear.--Ethelh (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right, they all must be the same. So depending on what we decide here, make sure that all of them are in the same format after the change. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well since we have established both ways are an acceptable format, can we please collaboratively come to a decision. Afkatk (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

We have established that one approach (1990-99) is the normal Wikipedia approach. It is also the approach that is consistent with the rest of the article. It is also the "existing" approach. Under WP:DATE it is innapropriate for the two of you to change it as you have sought to do. I suggest that we abide by WP:DATE, and in doing so have the article be in accord with great number of style guides that suggest that this approach is in fact the only appropriate one.--Ethelh (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Once we reach consensus, I will make the change. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well considering, both ways are acceptable they are both the appropriate ones, I only suggest 1992-1999 for the reason that it is the most commonly used format on Wikipedia, and I know that the format usually comes with a little followed headline, I don't think it would be that hard to come up with a little added headline, to be honest.Afkatk (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You are either failing to read what I wrote, or ignoring it. It is clearly not acceptable under WP:DATE to change the existing, normal approach that is consistent with the rest of the article. That is what you are proposing. This is not a matter of revising WP:DATE -- if you wish to do that, the proper place is on the talk page for WP:DATE. If we have consensus that I have quoted WP:DATE accurately above (and I've not heard any voice to the contrary), and that the "existing" approach which you are seeking to change is 1990-99, then the answer is clear. This isn't the proper forum to decide by consensus whether to follow WP:DATE ... that is our guideline, until and unless changed. If the two of you were to decided by consensus to ALL CAP the article, that would not make it proper to do so. The most common approach in the world of editing and copyrighting is, as reflected, the 1990-99 one -- and in fact, is often as has been reflected mandated. I'm really somewhat surprised by your disinclination to follow WP:DATE, and its clear language as to existing language and consistent language. It's like someone interpreting "you can make a right turn, unless there is a person in the crosswalk" to mean "you can make a right turn." You're simply failing to read or respond to what has been written above.--Ethelh (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

How about not heating up? Also, 1992-1999 is not a telling title. Why is this a relevant time span? It's his early career, so name the section "Early career". This is a useful title. Hekerui (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure MOSNUM recommends 1992–99. The en dash is a must, and the double closing digits simply easier to read. Tony (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

@Hekerui. Usually with the time span there is a colon and then a description like "1992–99: The first albums" or something to that effect. I didn't add a description because there is still so much to add to each section and I'm not sure how many sections we may have by the end since some may be split. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems pretty straightforward to me ... I agree here with Tony1, Ethel, and a reluctant Afkatk with whom I had discussed this in a side conversation already --[13]. Stephen -- are you OK with us proceeding on that basis? I also agree with Stephen that this would look best if the year ranges had some more descriptive language in the title, in addition to the date ranges ... even if it is as simple as "1990-99; Early Years" and "2000-present; Singer of the Year & Eurovision Contestant" ... or something like that. That section is big enough that a break splitting it into two would be a helpful respite for the reader.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not reluctant I'm just giving some feedback on a possible add, I do think that a full format would be more appropriate as it is the most common use on Wikipedia, we are going on a collaborative decision and I don't see why stating my opinion on what we should do is being reluctant. Afkatk (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if the "it is the most [commonly used]" format argument applies. However, if one format has already been in use, there is no reason to change it to the other format without good reason. Stay consistent with the rest of the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest waiting until there is more information on his career, since it is still a little lacking, before adding the descriptions to the year ranges because we don't know how many sections we will need. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we have much of the career information that we will have, and certainly the more significant information for those years. Suggestions as to what the headers might read? For example: 1) 1992-99; The Early Years; and 2) 2000-present; Singer of the Year and Eurovision contestant? That mirrors the sort of approach I see taken elsewhere in high-rated bios.--68.173.101.114 (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of six WikiProject banners

The generous application of Wikiprojects makes it out to be that D'Or had actual influence in all of these disciplines. Roots music? Rock music? Opera? What was his last roots rock album? When was he cast in an opera? Just being able to perform things doesn't mean you're involved with them. He is a pop singer. Allmusic uses two descriptors: classical crossover/operatic pop and adult contemporary. These are enough. Hekerui (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

D'Or has been noted in articles as having actively performed in the genres that you just deleted. That is abundantly clear from the D'Or article here, which included appropriate supporting citations.

The article and the citations support the notion that he has performed these genres in his career, not -- as you put it, that he is "able to perform" in the genres.

The six categories that you deleted are as follows:

• WP Rock music
• WP Roots music/Article Scope
• WikiProject Opera
• Composers
• WP Judaism
• WikiProject Jewish culture

I could restate the entire article to you, to show where your deletions are unwarranted in each case, but let's just not waste time and instead look at one or two wikiprojects that you overzealously deleted, and look at one or two references in the article itself that warrant inclusion of those categories.

You deleted D'Or from the composers category. This, despite the fact that -- as just a glance at the article reveals (let alone looking at the linked CD song lists) -- he composed,among a myriad of other pieces, his 2004 Eurovision entry. And his 2007 40-minute ten-movement "peace cantata," "Halelu--Songs of David," composition for solo voices, chorus, and orchestra, which was a collaborative effort of D’Or and American composer/conductor David Eaton.

Also, D'Or clearly sings roots music (which covers folk music), as mentioned in the article with appropriate citations, and clearly sings Jewish prayers as recently as his last CD (which consists entirely of Jewish preayers) and in his most recent concert -- which included his rendition of the traditional Hebrew melody "Avinu Malkeinu" at New York's Apollo Theater in Harlem on April 28, 2009, with three New York gospel choirs. Yet you deleted those categories as well.

And of course as to opera, the article clearly states in more that one place that he is known for singing it, including recording a CD that included a medley of pop, classical, and opera -- David D’Or & the Philharmonic released on April 1, 2003.

As far as the level of his influence is concerned in each category, that is a proper issue for the "importance" criteria of the Wikiproject.

But I think its wrong for you to delete the categories when the press and the CDs themselves clearly indicate that they are appropriate for inclusion. This holds for all indicated categories.

But how about this -- why not restore the categories that you have deleted, and let people who work on those categories decide?--Ethelh (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally I would not add the first four because it seems like overkill, but if you think that page will somehow benefit from the help of these wikiprojects then why not. As for the last two, WP Judaism is mostly for articles on Judaism: a temple, a rabbi, etc, not some random person who is Jewish. He is also not Jewish culture which I would classify as a genre of music, a cultural event, and so on. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree with Stephen's above comment. I also agree with his suggestion that Ethel is wrong to seek to include WikiProject Jewish culture -- though I come to that view for a different reason. If either of you were to actually click on WikiProject Jewish culture, you would see why. As to Wikiproject Judaism, I think that given the combination of him being Jewish and part of his performance repertoire/CDs consisting of Jewish prayers suggests that inclusion might well make sense (it is only in this that I diverge from Stephen).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment from an Opera Project member: There are two issues here, one is categories and one is projects. I'm not sure if you're talking about both or just projects. There seems to be some confusion here about the difference between a category and a project.

Categories go in the article itself and are used to help readers to find sets of related articles – either on a particular topic, or as is the case with most biographical articles, on subjects who are all members of a particular set; e.g. Israeli singers. Issues can arise with the application of categories of which the subject may not be a member, or is only marginally a member.

Project banners go on the talk pages and are not meant as navigation aids or to indicate that a singer has "influence on" an area. Nor are they there to indicate every genre which the singer might perform. That's for categories. The banners are to indicate that an article falls securely within the scope of a particular project. Normally this means that the project would actively "look after" the article, and be a place where readers or editors of the article could ask questions, get expert help etc. on the subject.

I'll just speak about WikiProject Opera, of which I'm a member. For a singer to fall within our scope, he/she would have to have a career where they sing/sang regularly in operas in opera houses. We also look after articles about singers whose main career is singing in oratorio, e.g. Handel's Messaiah and classical choral works, e.g. Beethoven's 9th (such as Edward Lloyd) or recitals of purely classical music, e.g. lieder, art song (such as Conchita Badía). This does not describe David D'Or. He is classically trained, and performs some arias and pieces of classical music in his concerts and recordings, but that is not his main career. See for example [14]. You can't go by what the press says. They will often call anyone who includes opera arias in their concerts or recordings "an opera singer", e.g. Katherine Jenkins, Charlotte Church, Josh Groban, Russell Watson, etc., although they have never in their lives performed in an opera in an opera house. Operatic pop, crossover, and "adult contemporary" singers do not fall within the scope of our project. A reverse example would be Renée Fleming. She does sometimes perform jazz songs and originally trained in both jazz and classical singing. But she is primarily an opera singer, and as such WikiProject Jazz doesn't look after her article. Another one is José Carreras whose concerts now include songs from musicals and folk songs. He has even sung in full length recordings (but not stage performances) of West Side Story and South Pacific. But his primary career and the one in which he achieved distinction was as an opera singer. His article would not be bannered by either WikiProject Roots music or WikiProject Musical Theatre.

Now after that long-winded commentary, the short answer is: No, David D'Or does not fall within the Opera Project's scope and should not have our banner on it. I'd also suggest removing the WikiProject Classical music banner. They do not look after articles on either classical singers or composers. It should be replaced with the banner for WikiProject Composers, assuming compositon forms a significant aspect of D'Or's career. If it does, I'm surprised the article does not have a separate section listing his compositions. Voceditenore (talk) 08:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this replacement makes sense, I did it. Hekerui (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If Voceditenore will forgive a short version: Basically, what WikiProjects an article belongs in depends on which WikiProjects feel there's enough material on the person to justify them taking on the maintenance work. D'Or primarily works in other fields, however - indeed, "opera" has zero discussion in this article, merely appearing in a couple lists of genres he has sung music from. This article just does not need experts on opera, so WikiProject Opera - already rather stretched - must politely decline to take this article on. Obviously, we wish the article itself well, but we can be no real help in maintaining it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

All good so far. Thanks to the Opera WikiProject people for weighing in. I think (as mentioned before) that the people in a WikiProject are best situated to make this call. This is of course especially true as those who are in the project, and are also familiar with D'Or's relevant work. So -- Opera is out. Other comments below:

• WP Rock music -- Waiting to hear from WP member, but in the absence of response will include per above.
• WP Roots music/Article Scope --One WP editor has mentioned that he doesn't think it belongs in roots (which surprised me, frankly--the case seems very strong for me that much of his music is roots/Jewish/Israeli/Yeminite/Klezmer), so for now let's not include roots (pending more input from other roots WP members).
• WikiProject Opera -- No.
• Composers -- D'Or (as is evident from looking at his songs online) writes a great deal of his songs, and also as is evident in the article some of his more important songs, so I agree with including him in Composers (unless we hear to the contrary from the WP) ... but for now, that sounds right.
• WP Judaism -- I think this should go in, per discussion above, but will wait to hear if others respond.
• WikiProject Jewish culture -- I checked and accept Epee's comment suggesting that we not include WP Jewish culture, and he is correct, so obviously we won't include that.

• New removal -- WikiProject Classical music -- per Voceditenore. Others on the WP page have agreed with him as to its removal, and we can therefore defer to them and keep it out as he suggested.--Ethelh (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

People whose compositions are primarily popular material (like singer-songwriters) are not normally covered by WikiProject Composers. If there's a reasonable claim that D'Or has composed what we might term art music to a notable degree, the banner might be appropriate. While he has clearly written some music of that type, I don't see that much of it. If composition per se is a significant part of his work, I would expect the article to devote more space to, for example, discussing the style and critical commentary of his compositions, and for there to be more mention about things like his education related to composing. I would also expect a list of compositions. To give a possibly-appropriate comparison, Andrew Lloyd Webber, who has apparently written two works that are arguably art music, is not bannered for the Composers project. We also don't banner Billy Joel despite his art music compositions.) Magic♪piano 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:David D'Or/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Looks like I'm restarting a GA review for David D'or. There's some superficial problems I'll get to in the next hours. And there's some heavier suggestions... yeah. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 00:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

OK this is great stuff. I'm a fan of countertenors- & David D'Or (henceforth I'll use DDO for that article reference) is new to me. You seem to have an enthusiastic group of 5 recent editors- correct? Next question: Just wondering-Are we all native English-speakers? Please give me a head-count on both of these numbers.

• Tx. Yes, I at least am a native English speaker.--Ethelh (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Now I see your group got serious & made a ton of changes in the last 2 months, forming about 50% of the (under #500) edits. One criteria of GA is 'Stability', & DDO shows an operating stability. This is a wonderful start with tons of detail. The sense of excitement around the artist comes through nicely. The main issue for me is, this enthusiasm needs tempering. This is the typical issue for newer arts articles.

• Understood. I think that the article has been expanded largely due to the back and forth discussion, and though some issues were debated at length it appears that as to most issues there is consensus (or at the least, grudging forebearance).--Ethelh (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

BALANCE

• The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see also NPOV-Bias which states:

"Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives... Editorial bias toward one POV should be... repaired."

In this case I feel DDO takes an implicitly partisan, non-impartial POV, promoting a wholesale preference for this artist without offering any variety of perspectives. I do like countertenor, but I could almost feel trapped with a recruiter here. WP is not the place for a Fansite. The multiple-banners issues (above) might also evidence 'fansite' orientation (btw compser and songwriter are considered distinct careers in the USA today. cf Danny Elfman). Gently back away from the star... We want a general article. I'd want a more objective tone overall- specifically, balancing every various view with criticism. Example: "Steak is most delicious and good for you." vs "Steak, most popular in higher latitudes, is implicated in several health problems connected to fat and protein over-consumption". It's the only way. This makes for balance.

DDO tends to put the man on a pedestal, everything's sugar. Nothing indicates variety or balance in POV.

• I found one review where the reviewer termed his voice bombastic, and put that in. I will take another look for reviews and the like that are negative in tone. I believe that the article reflects what is available on the web in an impartial, non-POV manner. His performance at Eurovision is an example of him not being everyone's "best", and that is reported prominently. Beyond what is reported, and reflecting it accurately, there is little we can do if there are not more negative reviews/events to report.--Ethelh (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I searched through google for other reviews of D'Or, to see if I could find any that provide a more critical view, and could not find any. I'm not sure what more we can do than reflect what the reviewers say which is out there for attribution. I believe that the article does reflect fairly, with proper citations, the views of reviewers, etc., and that is what the article is supposed to do. I will keep an eye out for more "balanced" reviews, etc., though.--Ethelh (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

DAY 2: I found one criticism, about the weight of the voice. This is what this article needs 100% more of (&that suggestion's literal). But this opinion is unsourced- or WP:OR. This is the most interesting part of the article, about the man's unique as well as unusual instrument. This ought to be our most well-rounded section, selecting notable opinions for widest variety.

I know that can be hard, it takes a bit of training. But think of yourselves as outsiders. Let our POV flow inside the article. Search for critics of this work or this voice- critics who describe tendencies vs limitations, artistic vs. commercial aspects, ambitions vs failures, etc.; even perhaps peripheral aspects- ie.: Does D'Or (or his management) associate any graphic-art or videos with this music? Is that art comparably original, powerful, or is it comparably weak, or even exploitative? Where are this acts' Achilles' heels? Allegedly everyone *must* have these to be human.

I found one review where the reviewer termed his voice bombastic, and put that in. I've added some citations to this section. Will keep my eye out for any more to round it out further. As mentioned, I've searched for critics (other than blogs), and other than his elimination in the EV contest have not found much along those lines. Have not found material on limitations/failures (other than his noting the failure of the Army experience to improve his music/art or videos/originality/Achilles heel. If there are critics along these lines, they appear not to be on the web from reliable sources.--Ethelh (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Next, are there other, notable personal (or 'humanizing') aspects? You have many quotes from the subject. Others' descriptions would tend to be more balancing- more human, well-rounded, less narrow or egoistic. Criticism is a discipline in itself, and there's so many ways to go here. But broad balance is essential for a GA.

Agreed. I think that the weaving in of his father's illness and death, and the impact on the EV contest (implicitly) and his later songs (shirat rabim) is such an instance. Also his having to go to the army. I looked for more and did not see it.--Ethelh (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"What is available on the web" could indicate what his record company pays for. If it is indeed the case he has relatively no critics, that would be notable enough to mention. I tend to think this is an artifact of nationalism. I'd search the non-Israeli press, even including non-English, b/c 'Balance' is core GA criteria. Otoh the fact that you dont find material online... This tends to support questions being raised about this article's community- that it's deceptively narrow- as well as questions about the subject's notability. D'Or seems to work a small overseas pop market. Prove that wrong.

The balance encountered "online" should not affect GA criteria. The balance needs to be there implicitly as I suggest; or explicity, as an admission that the press tends to be unanimous in unqualified praise. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.

BANNERS

For Balance alone the GA will have to wait (more below). Another automatic fail might be:

• There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid.

I see at least one banner. Whassup with that banner?

DAY 2: I see the banner over 'Professional career' was removed and you got an opinion from WP:WikiProject Eurovision. Please consider my other criticisms in this new material as well. 03:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• The editor who placed the banner deleted it, indicating that he was satisfied with the edits made in response to the banner.--Ethelh (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well Written

Now for the "last shoe" to drop: It needs to be Well Written (ie., conforming to our modern English style manual) , in English prose. The spelling looks alright, but neologisms are always problematic. Where did you find "machoistic " defined? [Check around for examples for the correct usage; Blogs don't count, NY Times does.]

• That was a phrase DDO used, not arrived at by the editors.--Ethelh (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That usage _needs_ to be made clear... if you keep it. But I wouldn't- It's not an English usage & only creates questions- about DDO, about our English... Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.

More importantly, I feel DDO is too long by half. It's detail-heavy. At times DDO even turns into a list. Encyclopedic, good; But difficult to enjoy reading... bad. Open it up. This will let it flow more conversationally. I expect you could chop 20% and not even notice, and I think it will be a better article at half the length.

• It is longer and heavily detailed as a direct response to the banner that you mention and suggestions by editors. To see the "chopped by 20%" version, you would only have to go back to the version of 2 months ago.--Ethelh (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this desirable to you? Do *you* prefer one version? The banner was about a WikiProject qualification. I'm more about encyclopedic readability. Which comes first? Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.

I'm referring to what appeared to be the consensus of opinion of the editors, to which I deferred, not just to the banner, as mentioned above. I had a different view, but deferred to the consensus, and it now appears that your view was as mine ... but this is certainly confusing for me as an editor.--Ethelh (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

DAY 2: Please review WP:Cruft in the light of "...too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole."

Allow what is truly notable to have more impact by removing what is less-notable. The fact he is married and a parent may be notable elsewhere, but is it needed here? The references can speak to these minor details.

• I checked a few FA bios, and it appears somewhat standard to mention if the person is married, and if they have children (actually even more detail ... the childrens' names ... is often input). Furthermore, his wife (as mentioned is now his manager, which seems relevant.--Ethelh (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's rarely what, but how. I tend not to object to any one detail, but rather the overall effect. My "here" is literal, referring to this odd section. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.

But most importantly: Refrain from aggrandizing the subject (NPOV). A re-write with simply this this in mind should make DDO more suitably encyclopedic and more readable.

OK: I like what DDO is telling me, but I won't say this is well-written today. I'd simply say no; and then we can continue to work on this. Maybe y'all can work on another article elsewhere for the experience. Because it's not the mechanics so much as the intent that makes it awkward. And I suspect your group already knew this isn't ready for GA. So don't push it. Still, I see y'all are crazy motivated. So I can wait 72 hours "On Hold" to see if you have a more balanced, less PR-driven version ready to drop, then I'm inclined to drop this GA round to reconsider a few things:

• Holds should be applied if the changes needed are minor and can be reasonably expected to be completed within a week or so.

Honestly, minor changes I can fix myself. I suggest one full revision, minimum. I'm only wanting to consider all the possibilities; so I'll review that Hold after 72 hours. Time is the best reviewer, there can be no hurry.

I feel this article is coming along very well; while the point of GA is to make the article better. Thus I'm hoping ALL of these observations will be able to help the article.

Thank you for reading this far ;-) Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 06:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaving on retreat for a month this week and won't weigh back in until August. For now, balance is improving when you avoid the PR-based material. DO NOT limit yourself to on-line verifiable material- GA are 'broad'.

Of course Editors can contradict other Editors. We seek to balance. Numbers should not become distracting. DDO sometimes reads as if extra detail were inserted in an attempt to bulk-up the article, in response to the banner. But how is this appropriate: "The basketball game attracted 13.7% of Israeli TV viewers"? How is that figure even notable? This is just the most glaring example of overall tone. Again, please address WP:Cruft#Usage. Is a revert desirable to you? Or can the article be made generally *readable* yet also longer, incorporating relevant detail conversationally?

To answer this, Please read other encyclopedias- a highly-readable form. Try composing DDO to read out loud, to make conversation from it. You'll see "mentioning" family detail is not as useful as 'incorporating' that same detail- incorporated into perhaps (family-)management issues. Much more successful is the charged story about Palestinian-phobia- as it's relative to DDO's concert-giving. Now it offers one excellent opportunity to build related details around- as does the too-short section on the instrument.

Please review Composer and justify use of that link. Remove material aggrandizing to the subject. Meanwhile it appears you are trying for a lot, all by yourself- including these continuous reviews. Please address the appearance of sock-puppetry in the DDO discussion and elsewhere. I suggest what this article needs is a community- but such things take time. Thanks, Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.

PS- It's not inappropriate to thank a reviewer, for their time if nothing else works for you... Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 22:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--Ethelh (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Birth Date

I changed the birth year to 1965, as written in the Hebrew article and some websites. Uri Even-Chen (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Unless people object, I'll set this up for automated archiving of all pages after 21 days of inactivity.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Vocal Range

It says here that D'or's vocal range contains four octaves at least. On the other hand it says that his highest note (in head voice) is g5. Does it mean that his lowest note is g1? I find it really hard to believe it since I heard him speak and sing, and g1 is way bellow his capacities. It's a note most Bassos (even basso profundos) can't reach. Three octaves sounds more believable. AdamChapman (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Since classical tenors are not required to go below G2, three octaves sounds just right. But, alas, Wikipedia is rife with vocal range inflation. I am getting sick and tired of maintaining that Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, great singer that he was, did not have a six-octave range. And I am losing the battle to people who quote sites that copied the initial and unsubstantiated claim from Wikipedia as evidence. Sigh. elpincha (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Assessment

I am granting this article B-class following a request at WT:EURO. It may not yet be good enough for GA, but the existing content is generally well sourced and in good enough quality to meet the B-Class criteria. GA candidates are generally B-class. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point, there are so many broken links and clean-up issues, that I have re-assessed this as C-class. Also, the Lead is pretty short for a B-class article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on David D'Or. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100106224547/http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22860762-2682,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22860762-2682,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090609155208/http://www.star-radio.net:80/eurovision2004.htm to http://www.star-radio.net/eurovision2004.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080813004307/http://www20.sbs.com.au/podcasting/index.php?action=feeddetails&feedid=12&catid=8 to http://www20.sbs.com.au/podcasting/index.php?action=feeddetails&feedid=12&catid=8
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080705041624/http://www.shlomobar.com/history_in.html to http://www.shlomobar.com/history_in.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090101044729/http://daviddor.com:80/e_disc_4.htm to http://daviddor.com/e_disc_4.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.daviddor.com/e_disc_8.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on David D'Or. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080920165523/http://www.ajn.com.au//news/news.asp?pgID=5012 to http://ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=5012
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080829010029/http://www.ajn.com.au//news/news.asp?pgID=4636 to http://ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=4636
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080813004307/http://www20.sbs.com.au/podcasting/index.php?action=feeddetails&feedid=12&catid=8 to http://www20.sbs.com.au/podcasting/index.php?action=feeddetails&feedid=12&catid=8
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080917205927/http://www.radioindigo.fm:80/08arch_notes.htm to http://www.radioindigo.fm/08arch_notes.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090101045006/http://daviddor.com:80/e_disc_3.htm to http://daviddor.com/e_disc_3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090101044512/http://daviddor.com:80/e_disc_5.htm to http://daviddor.com/e_disc_5.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110707203340/http://babaganewz.com/teachers/pdfs/SOH13.pdf to http://www.babaganewz.com/teachers/pdfs/SOH13.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090101044517/http://daviddor.com:80/e_disc_6.htm to http://daviddor.com/e_disc_6.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090423112221/http://www.daviddor.com:80/e_intro.htm to http://www.daviddor.com/e_intro.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090501134015/http://www.thejewishweek.com:80/viewArticle/c36_a15586/News/New_York.html to http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c36_a15586/News/New_York.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090501134015/http://www.thejewishweek.com:80/viewArticle/c36_a15586/News/New_York.html to http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c36_a15586/News/New_York.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David D'Or. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110927103328/http://www.windowsmedia.com/Mediaguide/Templates/Biography.aspx?p_id=P%20%20%20651564 to http://www.windowsmedia.com/Mediaguide/Templates/Biography.aspx?p_id=P%20%20%20651564

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)