Wikipedia:Peer review/Big L/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Big L

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want Big L to be a good article. I have expanded the article quite a bit, and I'm not really sure where to go from here. Any comments are greatly appreciated!

Thanks, Michael Jester (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Jappalang
  • There is an over-reliance on primary sources (e.g. Big L's parents, friends, relatives) that results in problems such as "Despite there being witnesses to the crime,[28] Woodley was later released, and the murder case remains unsolved.[29]" The witness bit is cited to the fansite's interview with the subject's mother. That is not an objective source. The article also fails to state Time's (source 29) report that there was "insufficient evidence" to assert that a murder happened.
  • The over use of primary sources and those that are partial to the subject gives a sense of imbalance here (WP:POV). There seem not to be a shred or hint of criticism (which seems to be evident in certain publications, see below) of the subject or his work.
  • "At six years old, he became a big fan of horror movies and films such as The Godfather. At the age of 12, Coleman became a big hip hop fan and started freestyling against his own neighborhood." is sourced to www.craveonline.com/music/interviews/131904-donald-phinazee-on-the-life-of-big-l, but nothing there fits with what it is supposed to cite (no Godfather, no "freestyling").
  • Related to the above, "freestyling against his own neighborhood" is too vague and unencyclopaedic in tone; a common reader would not understand what that means, even after reading the freestyling link (which they are not supposed to do unless they want to learn more about what freestyling is). Do not expect readers to go to another article to find out what the term means; once they leave, they may never come back (is this desired in the first place). Lead or surround with an explanation, or cast the term in context such that the general gist is obvious. Aside from freestyling, there are a few jargon here that ordinary people would not understand: b/w, horrorcore.
  • The above-mentioned two failures of the sources to back up the article's contents leads one to suspect the integrity of the contents. Please double check what is written against their cited sources.
    • My apologies. I will double check the sources as soon as I get a chance. Michael Jester (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Language issues abound in the article. "He has two siblings, ..., which ...": One does not address people with "which".
    • Why? I'm not an expert on grammar. Michael Jester (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Which" is used when "asking for information specifying one or more people or things from a definite set"[1]; "who" is "used to introduce a clause giving further information about a person or people"[2]. You are identifying people here, not asking for more information about them. Jappalang (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for clearing that up for me. I always seem to have trouble with words like that. Michael Jester (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://biglonline.com/index.php?showtopic=766 and other forum postings on it reliable?
    • Gilda Terry, Big L's mother, said that biglonline.com could be called the "official Big L website". Also, the Time reference cites it.
      • The Time only cited it once and to one specific post; that one action does not mean the publication consider the entire site reliable. Similarly, an "official" fansite does not mean all information on it is reliable (the chronological timeline is research by the administrator). Jappalang (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see your point. Is it reliable enough to keep there until I find another source? Or should I just go away with it completely? Michael Jester (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would advise to abandon it and find another source. Jappalang (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://rap.about.com/od/toppicks/ss/Top50Emcees_6.htm: About.com is not a reliable source; using it depends on whether the author is regarded by the industry (not About.com itself) as an expert. So what makes Henry Adaso an expert on hip-hop or the music industry? What qualifies him to allow the audacious claim "Coleman has been widely acknowledged as one of the most talented MCs to participate in the 90's East Coast rap resurgence" to stand?
    • He has written for Vibe, AllHipHop.com, and XXL. Michael Jester (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • He might need more than that. Best to state the claim is his opinion, e.g. "Henry Adaso, a music journalist, said...". Furthermore, Adaso said, "[Big L] was one of the most auspicious storytellers in hip-hop history." There is no talk of "the 90's East Coast rap resurgence" and the title of Adaso's piece is "Top 50 MCs of Our Time (1987 - 2007)". Jappalang (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why does he need more? He's been writing professionally for well-known publications for more than a decade. Also, I took out the resurgence part. Michael Jester (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • By "need more than that", I meant that if his opinions are to be written as fact, he needs a large backing of the industry (i.e. lots of music specialists say Adaso speaks truth) or that his opinions are shared (i.e. several other respected publications also report the same things). The explicit identification of it as his opinion avoids and resolves this issue. Reading again, I see "called him the twenty-third best MC" in the article. I do not think Adaso ranked his picks; where did he state his presentation as such? If he did not rank them, then "named him as one of the top 50 MCs" is more accurate. Jappalang (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are Diggin' in the Crates Crew and Children of the Corn in the See also section? They are already discussed and linked earlier in the article.
    • I felt they were necessary because they were groups he was affiliated with. Michael Jester (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • As said, they were already mentioned and linked earlier; anyone who would be interested in them would already check out those links earlier. Putting them here is needless. Jappalang (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beware of WP:LINKVIO; I have removed two instances (one coming from the fansite). If the material were not put up at those sites by the copyright owners or with their permission, we should not link to them.
  • File:Ebonics-BigL.ogg does not seem to be complying with WP:NFCC #8. The fair use rationale claims that it "specifically discusses the song from which this sample was take"; however, there is nothing in the article that does this (critical commentary on the style, singing, or rhythm that would require hearing to gain a better understanding).

My most immediate thought is: Get more solid secondary sources for this article. From there, one can address most of the issues above. Jappalang (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments, Jappalang. It has been difficult to find secondary sources on Big L. He was a relatively underground rapper. How would I go about finding secondary sources? I've tried Google Searches and such. Michael Jester (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, Google Books has some hits (I believe the Vibe magazines are on Full view for those in the United States). Look in your local library for those publications. If primary sources are to be used, they have to be prudently used: Use them on few occasions, and cast the information in as neutral a light and as objective as possible. If it is about opinions, always identify the person who is expressing the opinion. Jappalang (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Big_L/archive1&oldid=464741270"