Talk:Matthew Whitaker (pianist)

Discussion during review at Articles for Creation

@Wilwyg: After you've taken a look at WP:MUSICBIO, it will be helpful if you state here which of the notability criteria are being met by the subject of your draft. I also note that all of your references are in the form of "bare URLs". This practice runs afoul of our guidelines at WP:CITE, because it requires readers to leave Wikipedia if they want to learn essential bibliographic detail such as who wrote an article or where and when it was published. You can avoid this problem by using the {{cite web}} template. I'll re-format one of your references using that template, which will serve as a guide for you when re-doing the others. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.

The article definitely satisfies numbers 1 and 12. He has been on national and local TV, and he's been written about in major statewide newspapers. Moreover, the documentary about him has played around the world. What are we missing?

Thanks.

USA TODAY article added

I've added another national publication to the list of references. Matthew has been written about in multiple outlets and has appeared on television multiple times, so I am hopeful that he now meets the notability criteria.

@Wilwyg: I've moved your posting here, because this is the best place to hold the discussion. As for the newly-referenced article, it is misleading to say that it is a "USA Today" article. It isn't. It's local coverage from Bergen County's The Record, a paper that happens to be one of more than a hundred local papers that are part of USA Today's aggregation service. The article can just as easily be read at http://therecord.northjersey.com (front page of the April 16, 2017 issue). NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It's published by USA Today. Why does it matter who wrote it first? Sorry, but this is a distinction without a difference.

@Wilwyg: There is very much of a difference. Nobody here "wrote it first" or "wrote it second". The article was not written by anyone at USA Today and the editors at USA Today exercised no editorial discretion in deciding to post this article as part of its aggregation service. We can't say it was written or published by USA Today any more than we would say that Google was the author or publisher of any article in the January 5, 1918 issue of the Arcadia Journal simply because a copy of that issue is hosted here. Nor would we say that YouTube was the record label that issued all of the music being hosted on that site. The article that you added was written and published by the Bergen County Record, not by USA Today, and the existence of an aggregation service doesn't change that fact. But I see that another editor has been doing a good deal of work in polishing up your draft and I assume this means that they intend to accept it for publication. So, there seems little reason to debate this point. If you do have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you mean the editors exercised no discretion? They chose to publish it on their website.

@Wilwgy:Why are you arguing with NewYorkActuary when you could be finishing the draft? There are issues that need to be addressed. I left a specific message on your talk page. And you're wrong about USA Today - an editor at the Bergen Record chose to publish it. The USA Today Network represents the properties that Gannett owns. It's like a digital wire service, with the parent company aggregating content on their website. Because, why not? It's edited, vetted, and meets journalistic standards, and it allows Gannett to market locally. (It's also available to other Gannett papers, such as the Detroit Free Press, where, by the way, the article also ran, and would be a more compelling argument as to its validity.)

I don't have time to finish the article and I'm not going to accept it in its current form. JSFarman (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

That's interesting background, Julie, but as you yourself point out, an editor chose to publish it, and, economic benefits and incentives notwithstanding, re-publishishing entails a human editorial choice, and so is categorically different from an automated URL aggregator like Google. In any event, thanks for your feedback and thoughts. I will clean up the article, per your recommendation. I have very little experience with this, but I hope I'll get it right. Cheers.

You need to cite the awards, etc.

Wilwgy - I removed the awards and other uncited information from the article. If you want to include them, you need to add citations. Thanks for persevering. I know this was a long process. Julie JSFarman (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Images

Got to see Whitaker play with Jon Batiste for a Juneteenth concert/voter registration drive a couple days ago. Added a couple images to the article, but @Wilwyg and JSFarman: feel free to remove/replace. Other options in the category here: commons:Category:Photographs taken by Rhododendrites - Jon Batiste and Matthew Whitaker on Juneteenth 2020. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites ^talk That must have been fantastic. I can't wait to see live music again. The photos are great! Thank you for adding them. JSFarman (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

2023

I just saw a fantastic story on ABC News about Matthew. His story keeps getting better. JSFarman (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Re above. I was such an asshole. I hope I have chilled since since.JSFarman (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)