This is an archive of past discussions about Jackie Evancho. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have heard some musical friends say that Jackie is not actually a soprano. It does seem to me that her singing is not quite in soprano range, mezzo perhaps? What do you all think? Jeopardyfish (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
A serious omission on this page is a recognition of the fact that while this little girl may mimic and approximate the sounds produced by real opera singers who have spent decades in practice rooms and voice lessons, she is simply not in the same category. The human voice matures somewhere in the mid-thirties. Jackie Evancho is no exception to the laws of nature, as anyone familiar with the sound of actual classically trained singing can readily hear. It is only mildly surprising that untrained ears accustomed to a diet of top-40 pop might confuse a little girl's cooing with the achievements of great singers like those mentioned in the comment above mine, which I'm sure those untrained ears I mention would never actually listen to, but I would hope that the ignorance of people who are simply uneducated on a certain subject (in this case, classically trained singing is our subject) would not be reflected in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is no place for ignorance and misinformation. The least we can ask is some acknowledgement of the difference between a little girl singing David Foster's arrangements of opera's greatest hits for a TV talent show, and a forty-year-old woman singing treasures of the Western music tradition without a microphone, using her decades of hard work and instruction as her only tool to project her voice to the back of the opera house. As it stands, this is a very silly article. And with that I yield my soap box to the next person. Jumpdafence (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I tend to disagree with the terms "mimic" and "approximate" for Jackie Evancho. While it is true that it takes many years for a voice to mature, (as a chorister I felt my voice reached its peak at the age of 55) there are many examples in legend of children astonishing adults with their musical ability. Evancho's voice is that of a child's "powered" by a prodigy with adult sensibilities. In the YouTube recording of her Houston concert, she presents 7 pieces of her current repertoire and in each her intonation is dead on (though she swoops a bit toward high notes, her phrasing is as good as I've ever heard, her tonal color and vertebrata is exceptionally tasteful, and her pronunciation is exceptionable. In short I think she can presently stand up to direct comparison with a seasoned adult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wje37fcsm (talk • contribs) 19:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Why is the English translation of the song title being used?
I did not hear one word of English sung during her performance at the semifinals. The song is on her cd and it is titled in Italian there.1archie99 (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
She sung 'Time To Say Goodbye' not 'Con Te Partiró'. There IS a difference. 'Time To Say Goodbye', you will find, is always credited to Frank Peterson in the song writing credits whilst 'Con Te Partiró' never is. This is because 'TTSG' is an adapted version of the original song 'CTP' and that adaptation was made for Sarah Brightman and Andrea Bocelli. The difference of song is simple. The first line in the chorus will be 'Time to say goodbye...' for the adapted version, whilst the original would be the Italian. Jackie used the English line, it's therefore the song that belongs to Sarah Brightman and Andrea Bocelli, not just Andrea Bocelli.
What she did for her album is neither here or there. The article is referring to her performance on AGT, not her album. The wrong song title is being used here, and Sarah Brightman should be credited, as it's her adapatation that's being used, as written by her producer, Frank Peterson. I have therefore reverted it back. You can keep changing it, but it's inaccurate. Copyright laws would give that performance's ownership partly to Frank Peterson. Because it's HIS adaptation. If his adapted parts were not in it, I would agree with you, alas, you're incorrect, because they are used. (79.67.23.61 (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC))
I see that somebody changed it back AGAIN. You're WRONG. I think people are getting confused by the fact that they think it's been edited to 'Time To Say Goodbye' to make the title English so people can read it, but that is NOT the case. That is the official title of the song that Jackie sang. She sang Sarah Brightman's (i.e. Frank Peterson's) ADAPTED version of 'Con Te Partiró', which is called 'Time To Say Goodbye'. She did not sing 'Con Te Partiró'. Look up the history of the song here on Wiki, that tells you of the adaptation, the title change, and so on. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp, is it? (79.67.23.61 (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC))
Why was the cd withdrawn from sale?
The physical cd was in short supply. I bought mine by cd download from Amazon the day after her first performance on AGT before she was announced as being one of the top 3 in the youtube quarterfinals results show. I do not feel that it was recorded as well as Hollie Steel's album which I also purchased by cd download. The volume is very loud; I have to turn the tracks down to avoid distortion. This also could be in part an effort to whip up interest in a second album which was announced to be in the works within the youtube videos.1archie99 (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I am amazed at how high the price of the first cd has gone on auction; $405 for an unopened in original packaging followed by $800 for like new. Does anyone know how many of these were sold before it was withdrawm for public sale?1archie99 (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The "week" column does not make sense to me. It is being used to give further info about the round and in one case repeats info that is in the "round" column. A "week" column if it there at all should have the number of the week(s) and/or the date of the week in it.1archie99 (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Removed controversies section
Guys, even mentioning this is giving it too much weight. Here is the quote from the cited Montreal Gazette:
"Evancho is that once-in-a-lifetime find, whose performance last week prompted more than 3 million YouTube hits, as well as such cynical comments posted to a YouTube message board as: Is Evancho lip-synching? Is she being Auto-Tuned? How the heck can a 10-year-old take on Puccini and make it sound credible? "
I believe a mention of it is reliable, as the other source states,
"In a matter of days, little Jackie has become somewhat of an internet sensation as videos of her singing on YouTube went viral and viewers split up into two camps – one that was highly impressed, and one that was highly skeptical.
Allegations that Jackie was lip-synching on last week's show have so far been unproven, and they've been denied by NBC. Yet the controversy continues, and it would have been very interesting to see what kind of ratings NBC could have pulled in last night if there was no wildcard round and if Jackie was back on stage.
It's not yet set in stone, but most likely she will be back in action next Tuesday when the semi-finals kick off. (In all probability, 12 acts will perform next week and 12 will perform a week later. If the folks at NBC were smart, they would make sure Jackie Evancho is included in next week's lineup.)"
That seems like more than enough coverage to mention it, though I believe the sentence should be reworked to include NBC's denial. (I, personally, do not believe in the slightest that she is lip-synching.) SilverserenC15:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I just feel that having such a contoversy section is giving it undue weight, especially considering that this article falls under BLP. It is like having a conspiracy section for a living writer, accusing him or her of plagiarism on the basis of some internet trolls, when there is no evidence backing them beyond disbelief. All the links you provided simply say she was not lip synching. They are not giving credence to the rumors; rather, they are giving credence to the gut reaction of "OMG, I can't believe what I'm hearing". How do you feel about my compromise [1]? --Bertrc (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the compromise is fine. I just thought the information had enough sources behind it that it should be mentioned and it didn't necessarily need it's own section. Your compromise is perfect. SilverserenC21:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Very good. It is covered well with as few words as possible. Everything on her cd which I was fortunate to purchase in mp3 format before it was withdrawn is so good; I was hoping she would sing something other than opera.1archie99 (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Everything is relative; how much more fortunate a move it would have been to purchase the cd of "Prelude to a Dream" rather than the mp3 version; the cd has fetched over $400 on e-bay.1archie99 (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
As I understand Wikipedia policy everything is relative. Certain types of links are preferable to others but only links used solely for promotion of products are not allowed. This link was used to show what I stated in the article. I stated that in the description of the citation. I cannot understand your problem. We are editing a collaborative encyclopedia. We are not editing an authoratorian manifesto.1archie99 (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Relative to a point. A forum would never, ever be counted as a reliable source, per policy. Forums have no verifiability behind them and no reliability either, as forum posters could literally be anyone and have no backing to their statements because of that. Only sources that are academic, scholarly, a small amount of primary sources (directly made by the subject), and sources from reliable publications are allowed. Forums and forum threads do not fit anywhere in there. SilverserenC01:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Where is that stated in the Wikipedia policy? am not interested in saluting your narrow opinion of policy. As Joe Friday used to say let's have the facts. Also, your deletion of cited text of an already short article BEFORE you start a discussion is contrary to good wiki policy. Your action is a surprise to me. I believe a good editor would not have reverted a second time and would have waited for a consensus to develop.1archie99 (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I have already linked you multiple times to the reliable sources guideline. It's all right there. And i'm not sure what you mean by "deletion of cited text". I haven't deleted anything. I reverted you a second time yesterday and you reverted me back. I haven't done anything else to that link since then, so i'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm going to take this to the reliable sources noticeboard. I'll throw a link over here when I have the section up. SilverserenC02:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Even ignoring that forum posts are almost always unreliable this particular post is also completely unnecessary as a source as the same info is also available in the LA Times article. Jiiimbooh (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Jiiimbooh. I did not originally put the disputed citation into the article; just thought it was worthwhile to leave it in because it actually showed via video the actual portion of the broadcast that my edit described. Because the purists only took to the discussion, not even the editor that originally put the cite in the article spoke up; only a description, not the actual event remains as a citation. Readers will have to take it on faith that the remaining edit is a true depiction. I wanted to leave all doubt behind what actully occurred. Because only the fanactics spoke that is not happening. I will now consider the matter closed.1archie99 (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Nationality and hometown in lead
I added nationality to the lead and removed hometown per mosbio. I might have said ethnicity in my edit summary, but that was wrong. Hopefully this isn't to big a deal. Thanks --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I have read where you directed me; it does not state that only the bare minimum should be there. Removing where she is from and the related citation is destructive. Not having the reference to Richland Township is confusing to those who check out the cites; Richland township rather than Pittsburgh is the lead in at least two of these cites. The article is woefully short. The hometown is important to many people. If you have been following this artist you know it is especially important to her and her hometown. Why is it important to you to remove information?1archie99 (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi 1archie99, you are correct, mosbio does not say that only the bare minimum should be there. I believe it says that nationality and why the person is notable should be included in the first sentence. Where she is from can be added to early life section, ect. I have not been following this person, but if her hometown does have some significance, maybe it can be added to the first paragraph. Also, is where she is from being contested, ect? This is more a MOS issue rather than removing information.--Threeafterthree (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Please check out discussion above regarding hometown; there is a cite within related to her hometown; I was going to add but I got involved in debates with other editors defending what was already in articles. It is ironic to me that I read at the beginning of so many articles notices encouraging people to add; then I come in contact lately with so many editors removing content and citation for flimsy reasons. Also, I think that an introductory paragraph witout a cite is not a good start. There should be a cite sourcing her origin.1archie99 (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Judging solely by the sound of her last name, I would guess that her ethnicity is most probably Ukrainian-American, but I have absolutely no confirmation of this whatsoever. She is an amazing singer. It's hard to believe that the voice could possibly come from her tiny body. Backspace (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Career - Prelude to a Dream: Vocal maturity...
Quotation: Because the CD was recorded about a year and [a] half ago and her current voice no longer sounds like what it did then [due to vocal maturity...], we decided to withdraw Prelude to a Dream and will be concentrating on new material as part of her progress.
How it's possible of to speak of vocal maturity for a child who has only 11 years!!!
The above question is quite pertinent. Paid 'experts' spend large portions of, or indeed whole careers exploring such issues. In Evancho's case, I gather a seminal event was the removal of her tonsils. The removal of tonsils enlarges the resonance chamber, with associated change in voice, and a sometimes notable improvement singing quality (see p.143 of article link. Also this).
Given the commonality of tonsillectomies over the years, there is a lot of information available. The main problem is that the context of tonsillectomies is typically pathological. That is, pathology is the prompting issue (e.g. tonsilitis, vocal abnormalities etc). And post-operative monitoring and research is typically also in terms of pathology. That is, the main issues prompting further research are post-operative problems, including the need for vocal rehabilitation. Successful surgery and lack of post-operative problems typically results in a large body of potential knowledge simply not being pursued, because there's not much reason to. The end result is that there is a very large body of knowledge out there on the anatomy and physiology of the voice, and that those who know this body of knowledge well enough can put two-and-two together and come up with a sound conclusion. But there appears to be not a lot of direct, non-anecdotal information on such phenomena as tonsillectomies preceding the development of exceptionally good singing voices. This means we can find verifiable information on this phenomenon, but it's typically buried amongst other material, as an aside. Wotnow (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
After saving this comment, I will save an edit to the article which includes reference to the pertinent aspects of the above comments. I have for now worked it into the most relevant portion of the existing text. I expect that the article will grow over time, with new sections being created, and associated rearrangement of text. However, in the meantime, the article can be grown by expanding on the existing text within the current structure, and section restructuring when data suffices. In fact that's typically the easiest way to grow an article. Some bits, like the bit I've added here, are unlikely to become significant enough to ever warrant anything than a brief mention in the nearest relevant section. The tonsillectomy is significant though. Without it, Evancho would doubtless have had a good voice and come to the public's attention. But structure governs function, and some of the more astounding features of her voice likely would not have appeared at such a young age. Hence the relevance of a brief mention, with a link to another encyclopedic article for further exploration (which is very much part of how the best encyclopedias work). Wotnow (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
She needs a good teacher. Her chin/tongue/lip wobble to make a fake vibrato is not a good thing. All of her vowels sound similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.8.59 (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
At the present time, I never heard Jackie sung the version of the " Requiem " of Gabriel Fauré. She sing well the version of Andrew Lloyd Webber. It's two versions very different. Rosedessables
An image used in this article, File:Jackie Evancho.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
Looks reliable enough to me. I've formatted the reference[1] below so editors can see how it might look if and when it seems suitable to use the reference. If desired, just copy and paste the following:
<ref name=BennettDuet>{{citation |date=19 September 2011 |author=THR Staff |title=Tony Bennett and Jackie Evancho Sing 'When You Wish Upon A Star' |publisher=[[The Hollywood Reporter]] |url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tony-bennett-jackie-evancho-sing-237311 |accessdate=07 October 2011}}</ref>
I noticed today that a new release is mentioned twice within the article using the same tweet as a source. Tweets are iffy regarding reliability. See discussion Perhaps the source I questioned in my first post in this section is preferable. Contrary to the first checking out of the tweet on 9-21, this time I could not get the tweet to load on my computer.1archie99 (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Somewhat related. Buzz is being made about her being on the new Duets II album with Tony Bennett. It is not mentioned in the article and probably should not be. That track and one other is only on the Target special edition version of the cd. I don't believe it is available as download either.1archie99 (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Goodonya. I see you knocked off the Twaddle refs. Personally, I steer well clear of sites like Twaddle and Farcebook, as they contain so much informational 'noise' (as opposed to 'signal' - the analogy is from physics and astronomy, but it's about information, and so is now used by researchers in that sense) although I acknowledge they can provide leads. But the basic heuristic is: if X is based on sustainable fact, that fact will be found in a reliable source or sources - I've used it for a long time it hasn't failed me yet (if anything it worked too well for me!). Wotnow (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
A note
There are a lot of subheadings in the career section, partly caused by the fact that Evancho's career is moving so fast. I don't think this is a problem. After a couple of years, some of these can be consolidated, perhaps into time periods (2009-2010), etc. But I think it looks OK for now. Feel free to comment. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I also put back in the chart from America's Got Talent. I know it restates information given in the narrative paragraphs, but some people prefer the graphic representation, and it seems customary for reporting the results of TV contests in bios on Wikipedia. Do others generally agree or disagree? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Long(ish) response. Tables and graphs can facilitate the ingestion of large amounts of information at a glance, so are useful in a world of information bombardment, and can be a good way to portray data without the need to wade through text. Short response. Agree. Wotnow (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Another note By the way, I think the video-clip references are good. There is often useful information in such clips, including, and perhaps especially in interviews. Particularly good is the noting of where in the clip the relevant information is to be found. This becomes important with longer clips, facilitating rapid verification. Well done. Wotnow (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with all that is expressed above. Curious about the graphic adjacent to this section; looks like it might be automatic; what purpose does it serve? 1archie99 (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a bit of word-play (A note: another note) - my favourite use of language. Not automated. I had to look for a single note graphic of just the right size. While this particular use is original to me, the idea is not. The late great Spike Milligan - at his peak a master of word-play (and also a jazz trumpeter before his rise to fame as a comedian) - said once "and now, a note for music lovers" and hit a note on a xylophone. You should find it on Golden Hour of Comedy. Wotnow (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Piecing together non-apocryphal background
After saving this comment, I'll make a slight amendment to the text on the Evancho-Foster connection. In the video ref being inserted, Foster states in the introduction that Evancho sent a video in. This fits with the AirPlay ref, in which is to be seen the text of an email saying Evancho had been selected for the contest, which included the regional concert. The Gerwig article vaguely refers to Evancho meeting Foster "at one contest". It's a safe statement, but vague for our purposes unless better info is found, which it has been. Obviously Evancho met Foster at a concert: his! We have no other data to the contrary at this stage. Historical information can contain apocryphal components, as when a writer fills in the unknown with what he or she thinks may have happened etc. This gets harder to tease apart over time. In the current example, it's a matter of utilising complementary references to get the facts as accurate as reasonable. Wotnow (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
To the administrators of English Wikipedia, we have received the following email that I will include for the consideration of contributors to this article
“
After attempting to correct the pronunciation of Evancho following message was received. While I do not necessarily need to be un-blocked, I would appreciate that the pronunciation of our name be corrected from what is grossly erroneous in the current listing for “Jackie Evancho” It should be: ee-vane-ko. --
Sincerely, Joseph Evancho (Jackie’s great-grandfather)[2]
The subject's mother, who edits as User:Binlied2, removed her own maiden name (née Brand) in an edit on January 2. Since this information is not very important to this article, I deleted it to respect the family's preference. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Why such a puff piece? [Meaning this Jackie Evancho entry]
This reads as though it was assembled by the family or Evancho's management. All substantial criticism of Evancho's work is omitted or shunted off as the quirky personal prejudice of the critic.
Full disclosure, I wrote a long article suggesting that this young woman was being pushed -- disastrously, in my opinion -- to sing material for which she is not ready, an opinion shared by many professional musicians. The editor of the page, SSilvers, who writes so incisively and intelligently about Gilbert and Sullivan for Wikipedia, has denounced my article on several websites, and seems to be intent on quieting all questions of Evancho's readiness for such strenuous material (the tenor aria from "Turandot," to give only the most extreme example). He has also suggested that I am opposed to all prodigies. Not so, but I do believe in giving them time to mature before throwing them out into the ravages of the music world. I sincerely believe that Evancho is ruining her voice and that she may go the way of Charlotte Church. I dearly hope that I am wrong, but this is my concern right now.
Is Wikipedia still trying to be objective or has it turned into a forum for puffery and publicity? Nobody wishes Evancho ill, but some sort of objectivity would seem to be in order. Tim Page - Mitegap (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I have been working on this article for a few months (many other people have also worked on it). I think it reflects the press and media coverage that Evancho has received in a neutral and balanced way. See WP:NEUTRAL and WP:WEIGHT. Many articles containing positive statements about Evancho and her work have been omitted as "puffery", to use Mr. Page's word, for example the assessment by Billboard Magazine in their "21 Under 21" feature: "Evancho's spellbinding, operatic vocals possess a power and poignancy that often moves listeners multiple times her age to tears". Of the hundreds of articles and TV features about Evancho that I have seen from major news sources, nearly all are extremely positive, and only two that I have read could be called mostly negative: both of these are included. The Tim Page article is given as much ink in this entry as any other article and is placed, I think, correctly into context. There are over 150 references used in this article, so each one only gets a sentence or two. As for Mr. Page's article, it reflects his longstanding point of view that professional careers for child prodigies are bad for the children. The article reflects that Page does not know what pieces Evancho performs. Of the 34 songs she has recorded and released since her AGT appearances, most are Christmas carols. Only a few are arias from operas or classical literature, and all of them are performed in gentle versions. Page also has always written negatively about the classical crossover genre and the artists and record companies that issue it. In his 1999 article, he calls Andrea Bocelli "a rank amateur". Frankly, after reading the press about Evancho from all sources since the beginning of her career, it seems to me that the "professional musicians" mentioned by Page who are critical of Evancho in their blogs are uniformly jealous of Evancho's success. None of them has, like Evancho, given a solo concert at Avery Fisher Hall. Page, of course, has had a very successful career as a critic, but his articles reflect his very strong prejudices against classical crossover and against the professional careers of child prodigies. He writes in his article about Evancho: "Indeed, the cult of the prodigy has always struck me as one of the most debased aspects of the music world. ... I mistrust the "cute kid" brigade...: It is exploitative and often ruinous to young artists...." He is entitled to his opinion, and we do indeed reflect it in this entry. For the record, I have no connection whatsoever to Evancho, her family or management, although I have listened to her most recent albums and saw her recent concerts at Avery Fisher Hall and Atlantic City. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Ssilvers, we shouldn't give undue weight to minority viewpoints because, as he said, the vast majority of reviews of Jackie's singing have been extremely positive. Tim, if your opinion really is "shared by many professional musicians" then you have to name them at the very least and then show why their opinions are notable enough to be included in her article. Simply saying "many professional musicians" is a very weaselly way to get a point across. Also, your last edit to the article was to change "an opponent of professional careers for child prodigies" to "an opponent of what he considers premature exploitation of child prodigies". That may not be what you are trying to say. It sounds like you are okay with the exploitation of child prodigies as long as it doesn't occur "prematurely". Lastly, you shouldn't worry so much about Jackie. What happened to Charlotte won't happen to Jackie. If her career went off track then it had more to do with her dysfunctional family and poor personal choices. If she ruined her voice then it probably had more to do with her smoking habit than her singing technique. Jackie has lots of people looking after wellbeing, both physically and emotionally. For An Angel (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Suggest we leave it here, gents. No hard feelings, but the insults were a little much to take. People take Wikipedia very seriously. As mentioned, I hope my article was absolutely wrong and that I live to toast a glorious career. Mitegap (talk)
Images; Commons category
We have experimented with the images in the article over the past few days, moving them around, trying out a new image and trying the "gallery" format. Personally, I much prefer having the images illustrate the article along the way, rather than concentrating thumbnails at the bottom in the gallery style. Also, other well-regarded performer bio articles do not use the gallery format. See Mariah Carey, Michael Jackson, David Bowie and Anna May Wong, for example. I haven't seen any FA-rated performer bios that use the gallery format. I believe that, as Evancho's career gets longer, and she gets older, we will have various images showing her at various ages and at various events that will be described in the article. These will illustrate the appropriate portions of the article that discuss her life and career during those time periods. Currently, I have tried to distribute the images to best illustrate the text that is near them, and I think this will be even clearer as she gets older, and the images evolve as described above. Just my thoughts about this. For An Angel or others, please let us know your thoughts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I have no real objection to the images being spread out, I was just proposing a possible alternative. I use a high resolution moniter to edit so it didn't looked cluttered to me but I know it won't look the same way for everyone. I have no real preference between the two styles other than to say I didn't want to see any of the files removed. Jackie's career has existed for barely a couple of years now whereas the other artists you mentioned have been around for decades. So it seems likely that we aren't going to be able to keep adding images (and text) to Jackie's article at the rate we've been adding them. Eventually we are going to have to condense everything that is there now into a short "Early career" type section otherwise the entire article will become too big to handle by the time she's in her 30's. For example, Mariah Carey's career has been around for about 10 times longer than Jackie's but her article is only about two and a half times bigger. Another option that we might consider in the future is using both styles, where we use some images spread out in the article in appropriate places and others that don't fit anywhere can be kept in a gallery, if there are enough. For An Angel (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Right. I asked that that one image be removed, not because it did not fit, but because I felt it was unattractive, and I believe that we can get a more attractive "offstage" image of JE. Also note that the file still exists, and everyone can see it at JE's Commons category, which is linked at the bottom of the article. The additional images that we accumulate on Wikipedia, but that are not in the article, can go in Jackie's Commons category, instead of continually adding them to a gallery at the bottom of the article. I know that there are articles that have a gallery, but as far as I know, none of them has passed an FA review. I agree with you that more decisions about what to put in the article, and what to just leave in the Commons category will have to be made down the road, but I think it's better to wait until the questions arise in each case. Sounds ok? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll chime in here with a suggestion. I'm not a fan of most in-article galleries, myself. What we do over at Avril Lavigne is have an "Images" link on her template, which we keep uncollapsed as a default (this allows for easy access and invites readers to pursue other articles or at least show off the other articles). The images link takes the viewer directly to a gallery (not the category) on Commons. Jackie Evancho has a page, here, ready to be made into a gallery, but which is currently a redirect to her image category. The gallery should have a brief introductory paragraph (or sentence, at the very least), and can display the best-of images, leaving out the plethora of less interesting images that an actual category will eventually fill up with. This gallery becomes a central hub of galleries for all language wikis, as well. I noticed that Template:Jackie Evancho doesn't have an images link at the top, so this would be an easy addition. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies19:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that adding an images link to her template would be super, although I'm not sure about defaulting the template as uncollapsed - that always looks kinda sloppy to me. Currently, there aren't that many images of JE on Wikipedia, and so the commscat link is working OK, but in the future, if there are lots of links in the category, the images link would be, as you say, a more useful gallery. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Classical crossover
Lots of sources agree that what Evancho does is "classical crossover". See this, this, and this, for example. Self-described makes it sound like we disagree with this description. This is not controversial and should not be presented as controversial. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
You have a good point -- I had emphasized Jackie's self-categorization due to apparent disagreement among others over whether "classical crossover" actually constitutes a categorically distinct kind of music, but I won't quarrel with Billboard's recognition (even in passing) of CC as "a genre". By the same token, however (and since Jackie and Billboard are in agreement, anyway), I'd say it's safe to omit "described as" and just call a spade a spade (so to speak): "Jackie Evancho is an American singer of classical crossover music", or something to that effect. Indeed, I'd prefer to avoid the term "child singer" -- not to diminish her prodigical qualities but, au contraire, to avoid watering them down with unfortunate abstraction. Evancho is, for example, no less a "child singer" than Justin Bieber, but her voice is clearly something more than that of "a child who sings". An alternative to calling her a "child singer" might be to describe her as a classical crossover singer "who gained worldwide recognition as a child." Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. All these points are very well-taken, but I'd suggest keeping it as simple as possible. How about "Jackie Evancho is an 11-year-old American classical crossover singer"? (I'll be sure to change it to 12 on her birthday) Then, of course, we go on to discuss her accomplishments, including the records that she set as "youngest this or that". -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Notes and additional irrelevant citations to imply motives to originally cited statements
I myself am a fan of Jackie Evancho, but I'm an even bigger fan of Wikipedia and the integrity of it's articles that it strives to maintain.
To take a particular citation pertaining to an article critical of Evancho's performance methods and promotion, such as that of journalist Tim Page, and tack on notes and additional citations of other articles that do not refer to Evancho specifically, including an article about Mr. Page's struggle with a disorder, and to justify that such is done to provide "context" for Mr. Page's originally cited comments specific to Evancho, is nothing other than non-nuetral-pov spin-doctoring for the purpose of discrediting and implying ulterior motives to viewpoints that advocates of Evancho don't agree with or don't like being revealed.
This should not be permitted lest it is done for every single other citation, of both negative and positive viewpoint, to give background to the cited reference's author's possible motives for statements or compositions they have written pertaining to Evancho. Gillwill2000 (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Page's article includes material regarding Evancho's parents that violates WP:BLP. It is purely an expression of Page's longstanding prejudice that professional careers for child prodigies are bad for the children. Pursuant to WP:BLP, we cannot whitewash this. If we do not include these notes, then we must remove Page's comment altogether. I am not implying an ulterior motive to Page. I am stating that he has one. The article also reflects Page's factual mistakes about what pieces Evancho performs. In this article, he implies that Evancho is being exploited by her parents, and he compares her with JonBenet Ramsey. He also has always written negatively about the classical crossover genre and the artists and record companies that issue it. In his 1999 article, he calls Andrea Bocelli "a rank amateur". The article is a lazy, offensive and tasteless attack on Evancho's parents by a critic who has neither bothered to look into the facts of the situation nor listened to the repertoire that he is criticizing, but who is simply repeating the general prejudices that he has expressed on other occasions. Evancho's Wikipedia article reflects the press and media coverage that Evancho has received in a neutral and balanced way. See WP:NEUTRAL, WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE. Many sources containing positive statements about Evancho and her work have been omitted as redundant or because other sources were more prestigious. Of the hundreds of articles and TV features about Evancho that I have seen from news and entertainment sources, nearly all are positive; of the few sources that could be called negative, all are mentioned in this article. The materials in the footnote are needed to place the reference correctly into context. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
“I am not implying an ulterior motive to Page. I am stating that he has one”
You are advancing a personal position and trying to incorporate it into this Wikipedia article as objective information of an encyclopedic status.
“Page's longstanding prejudice that professional careers for child prodigies are bad for the children”
That is your unverified conjecture that his comments reflect prejudice. The “footnoted” citation of another article authored by Tim Page does not serve as verification of prejudice any more than multiple laudatory articles about Evancho repeatedly cited from selected publications in her hometown serve as definitive indication of unwarranted favorable partiality to her.
“The article is a lazy, offensive and tasteless attack on Evancho's parents “
This again is your own unverified conjecture and furthermore, there is no “material regarding Evancho's parents” from Tim Page that is noted in this Jackie Evancho Wikipedia article. The one and only mention of Jackie's parents in Tim Page's referenced article is actually an explicit declaration regarding abuse\exploitation that states:
'“In no way am I suggesting that Jackie's parents have indulged in this -- how should I know?”
The only statement extracted from Tim Page's entire piece and noted in the Jackie Evancho Wikipedia article is that she:
“has many years of work ahead of her before she becomes any sort of musician”
None of the justifications for qualifying that statement with additional “context” are relevant and serve only to put forth a non-neutral personal viewpoint disguised as objective information of encyclopedic quality.
”If we do not include these notes, then we must remove Page's comment altogether.”
You state "we" but the manner in which you address this issue, including in the history of edits, suggests that you believe that this Wikipedia entry of Jackie Evancho is your personal article, of which you alone are the arbiter of what is or isn't permitted within it.
This attack-the-messenger tactic of singling out a particular critical publication piece and it's author for immaterial characterization, that isn't applied to other cited references, not only diminishes the prestige and credibility of the Wikipedia article's subject but is a corruption of Wikipedia itself as an upstanding, reliable source of information.
Gillwill2000 (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Ssilvers, but I happen to agree with GillWill2000. Page's memoir about growing up with Asperger's is not relevant to his opinion about Jackie's talent. Neither is the fact that he has shown a pattern of criticizing other child prodigy's. We wouldn't add a "footnote" to a positive review if the reviewer is known to be a fan of child prodigy's. It makes just as little sense to qualify Page's opinions just because they happen to be negative. The Standard Examiner article is a good article but it shouldn't be used as a counter-argument to Page's claims about prodigies in general, especially since none of them are in this article. There is no doubt that Page is biased against people like Jackie but his comments should just stand on their own. Pointing out Page's bias will make Wikipedia biased and that violates WP:NPOV which states, "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." That Page's opinion is in the minority is a reason to not give his opinion prominence, but it shouldn't be qualified with extra footnotes to "put it into context". When an article is written properly, it should be impossible to tell the position of the editor who wrote it. For An Angel (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, I disagree that you two are reading WP:NPOV correctly, and you seem to be ignoring WP:BLP, but I'm outvoted. I think that, without the explanation, we are citing a writer with an agenda and failing to present sources that put his comments into WP:BALANCE. Nevertheless, I have removed the material from the footnote. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I think we need to be careful when using Page and his opinions. I have looked at the articles he has been involved with and I would consider them to be often offensive and boarderline libellous. Although it is important to get a neutral balance, refraining from defamatory, and potentially libellous remarks is essential. -- CassiantoTalk09:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The only quote from Page in this article is that she "has many years of work ahead of her before she becomes any sort of musician". How is that defamatory or violate BLP? For An Angel (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It is the link to the article, not the quote itself, that is, IMO, a possible violation of BLP. You may recall, by the way, that when we first discussed this article with this writer himself, you agreed (or at least did not object) at that time to the compromise that was made in this footnote information. I recognize, of course, that you are entitled to change your mind or evolve in your thinking. But I think that the implications in the article concerning Evancho's parents (like Marc Antony's implications about the conspirators) are designed to skirt the defamation laws and, in a fair reading of the article, violate the BLP rules. Also, I don't think that your analogy above between this writer's prejudiced agenda, and the hypothetical bias of "a fan" of child prodigies. No one is writing articles in the Washington Post to unfairly praise the parents of child prodigies. This writer's unhappy childhood experiences and stated biases have IMO made him unfit to comment in this area, and if his comments are linked to, then our neutrality rules demand that they his prior views on the subject be noted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I objected to Tim's suggestion that his opinions should be given more weight, but I don't remember agreeing to the footnote information that was added. I even said that I would be okay with not including his opinions at all, since the number of people who appear to agree with him is so vanishingly small, but you argued to keep them. I think if we are going include his opinions, we should not just accurately summarize them and but express them without saying what we think of his opinions as a "footnote". A Wikipedia article shouldn't say something to the effect of "This is what Tim Page had to say, but you should take what he says with a grain of salt because he happens to be prejudiced against child prodigies because of his own unhappy childhood. If you want to read what a "professional" had to say who happens to disagree with him then read this other article." IMHO, an encyclopedically written article should say only "This is what Tim Page had to say" and end right there. Everything else after that is pov pushing.
As far as comparing her to JonBenet Ramsey, I still think it's a reach to say that just by saying Jackie reminds him of JonBenet it makes his article a violation BLP. I really don't think he meant to say that he believes Jackie is going to end up being murdered by her parents or anyone else if she continues down this road of childhood superstardom. He compared her to Ramsey because the way Jackie is being promoted reminds him of a child beauty pageant. Ramsey is probably the most famous child beauty pageant contestant (whose fame just happens to come from her being murdered) and that's why he used her name. He could have easily compared Jackie to Honey Boo Boo and still meant the same thing (not that I would agree with either comparison of course).
In the end, if his article really does violate BLP then it shouldn't be linked to or used in any way, with or without footnotes. We wouldn't allow defamatory statements in a Wikipedia article even if it was clarified with footnotes to warn the reader that those statements are defamatory, so why should we be allowed to link to them? For An Angel (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Forget the Jon-Benet reference for a moment. Let me focus on the statements in the article that imply that Evancho's parents are abusing their child, even though he admits that he has not looked into the facts at all. He says: "...what if childhood itself is stolen away?" Then calls Evancho's career "this premature and unwarranted exposure", before continuing: "Why not let her ... work with adults who will love her ... the cult of the prodigy has always struck me as one of the most debased aspects of the music world. ... the "cute kid" brigade ... is exploitative and often ruinous to young artists." Then he quotes Yo-Yo Ma as follows, implying that what Ma says pertains to Evancho, since this article is about Evancho: "I hear parents telling their kids that they, too, can be famous soloists. ... That, to me, is the worst thing you can do to a child. ... if you just push them to be stars, and tell them they'll become rich and famous -- or, worse, if you try to live through them -- that is damaging." Then, Page, knowing exactly how to hide behind the libel laws, gives the following disclaimer: "In no way am I suggesting that Jackie's parents have indulged in this -- how should I know?". So, he thinks it is OK to accuse the parents of abuse, just as long as you don't actually look into the facts. If you don't think that WP:NEUTRAL allows us to include some footnote material to explain the writer's bias to the reader (we don't have to say that he had an unhappy experience himself), or to offer a more balanced view like in the Standard Examiner article, then I drop my objection to deleting the quote altogether - but then he or his proxies who inserted the link to his article in the first place would likely object. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
[left]I still think you're misinterpreting what he's saying. Many of his complaints in that article are directed towards child prodigies in general and not about Jackie specifically. He is saying that he doesn't want Jackie to go down the path that many other prodigies have gone down. You forgot to mention the part where he also quotes Yo-Yo Ma as saying "If you lead them toward music, teach them that it is beautiful, and help them learn, say, 'Oh, you love music, well, let's work on this piece together and I'll show you something,' then that's very different", but you don't believe he was implying that what he quotes here pertained to the Evanchos? I don't think he was implying that anything Ma said in his quote was about the Evanchos specifically. There's no reason to even think that Page believes Ma knows the Evanchos. He was using Ma's quote to outline the different ways that prodigies can be brought up and saying that Jackie's parents should resist the temptation to "push" her into becoming a star which I think we can all agree with. If he believes that Jackie is not already working with adults who love her and who nurture her talent then he is simply wrong but he isn't actually accusing her parents of abuse. Unless the footnoted material is explicitly about Page's biases then I don't think we should use them as a way to "warn" readers that the Page is biased because that would seem to violate OR and POV. For An Angel (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you're failing to see the problem here: He is hiding behind *general* statements in order to make accusations about Evancho's parents, because he knows that he can't get sued for making merely general statements. He is quoting Yo-Yo Ma in an article about Evancho to imply *misleadingly* that Ma is talking about Evancho. Otherwise, why would he bother with this quote in an article about Evancho. That's the point: the article is a piece of misdirection that you are buying into. No, Page is not giving kindly advice to her parents, he is accusing them of doing these awful things, but in a way that is designed to avoid liability for libel. As I said above, it's like the rhetorical device that Marc Antony uses about the conspirators in Julius Caesar - he calls them "honourable men" whose killing of Caesar must have been for a good reason. But the crowd understands what he means. We are not required by WP:NEUTRAL to ignore what people are saying simply because they are a little bit crafty about how they express it. But, I am repeating myself. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anybody was talking about suing Mr. Page. And I still think you are reading things that aren't there. Page wasn't even implying that Ma was talking about Evancho. He quoted Ma because Ma was talking about child prodigies and put the quote in the article about Jackie because Jackie herself is a child prodigy. I always thought that your reason for wanting the footnote was because you wanted to warn readers of Page's bias against prodigies. But if you really do believe that Page is accusing Jackie's parents of child abuse then I don't see how *any* kind of footnote can justify linking to the article. For An Angel (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
"I don't think I want to act full time," she told the Desert Post Weekly in January. "I think I might like to do something with a Disney special or make a movie once in a while that would give me enough time to sing and record, but that's about it."
with the "Desert Post Weekly" link pointing directly to Jackie's Wikipedia article. If you were trying to use that link as a ref for the quote, it's unnecessary and circular. The quote is already sourced to where it appeared originally and the Yahoo article appears to just get the quote from this Wikipedia article. For An Angel (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. You should not make lots of stubby little paragraphs in the Lead section. The lead should not have more than four paragraphs, and I think it is most sensible for the last three paragraphs to be organized basically in chronological order, like the article. If something is a highlight of Evancho's career, we mention it in the lead, and then in the body of the article, we expand on it, if there is more that should be said, and give references. You don't need to repeat the references in the Lead - when readers first come to the article, we don't want them have to wade through text that is bristling with superscripted numbers - if they want more detail and the refs, they keep reading and get them further down. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The lead section is supposed to act as a broad overview of the article upon which it speaks of. I don't think it matters that her charitable interests are mixed with her career. It is not usual to exceed 4 paragraphs so a certain amount of mixing is inevitable. Also, the 2012 information is, if anything, best suited at the end as it should run in a chronological order. --CassiantoTalk11:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Chefs for seals/Humane society/Environmental interests
Transferred from my talk page:
The additional information below had no citation and was placed with the references: "At the 2010 National Christmas tree lighting, Evancho mentioned protecting the Earth, and in her interview with On the Shore magazine on December 15, 2011 (before her Atlantic City concert), Evancho expressed aspirations to use her celebrity to help animals and the environment." In my opinion, this should be placed in the main article and it's source cited. I haven't found that source yet, but I'm sure it's out there. -- Gillwill2000 (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. The Christmas tree lighting is already referenced in the article, and you can hear Evancho say this in the video on line. It was broadcast on TV, so it was "published", even though not in print. On the Shore magazine is a newspaper in Atlantic City, and this interview was the main feature of the December 15, 2011 paper, so this IS the citation. I do not think that either of these need to be in the main text, as they are similar to other things that we say in the article; so I think it makes the most sense for them to be in this footnote, which just amplifies what is said in the text. The organization of this animal/environmental info is a bit confusing now, because you objected to the Humane Society ambassador info being next to the Chefs for Seals event description, about Evancho singing to help seals. Based on your objection, I moved the ambassador info lower. But it makes more sense to me to keep all that together. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see where I expressed any objection to the Humane Society ambassador info's placement with Chefs for Seals event. If that seemed evident by one of my edits, please clarify. I did however think it was not of good form to have Jackie's charitable activity\best mannered information, (subjects more informative of personal activities or as to her character) intermixed with that information of her professional music activity in the same paragraph, such as is the case now in the last paragraph with the 2012 touring info added on at the end. I thought the touring information better suited along with other information relating to her
professional activities so noted in the preceding two paragraphs.Gillwill2000 (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I see what you mean now. I have put the Humane Society info back together with the Chefs for Seals performance, because they are related, and it makes sense to keep all the pro-environmental statements together. This is a more sensible order for presentation of the information. The music performances section includes lots of charity performances, whereas the section below is for reviews and other "reputation" information. I think this is pretty typical of the biography articles that have been promoted to WP:Featured Article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Catholic
The cited reference says "The family, who have a strong Catholic faith...." I had changed this to "is Catholic", and someone changed it. I'd be happy for you to change it back to "is Catholic". -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, how you had it the first time is less ambiguous. Unless, it's a legitimate stance that just because her family is Catholic it doesn't mean she herself independently ascribes to that faith. Maybe it should be noted "Her family is Catholic." I just don't think "has been raised Catholic" is clear.Gillwill2000 (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Jackie Contributing "Dream With Me" Lyrics
This is not specified in the citation #103, and #104 now just links to target.com. I believe the fact is that she composed notes of her thoughts which were submitted to a songwriter who composed lyrics of them. She acknowledged this in an interview, the recording of which exists on YouTube under "Jackie Evancho on The Today Show with Kathie Lee & Hoda June 17, 2011" however it is probably a copyright-violating upload, otherwise it could be cited then noted in the main article that she "received songwriting credit for" or "contributed to the songwriting of" or something along those lines, but I believe it is inaccurate to state that she "contributed lyrics."
Gillwill2000 (talk) 04:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
She has a songwriting credit for the title song, "Dream With Me", in the album's liner notes and at all the publishing sites (Hal Leonard, etc). Foster asked Evancho to write the lyrics. She stalled, and so he asked her to write down "dreamy thoughts". Foster's ex-wife, Linda Thompson, then wove these together into the final lyrics. So, Evancho did in fact "contribute" some of the lyrics. And, as far as the sources are concerned, Evancho is a co-lyricist. I added a ref to the liner notes, which, like most online sources, credits all three as the "songwriters". -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
That they had to be woven into lyrics is evidence that they were not lyrics to begin with and therefore it is inaccurate to attribute Jackie's written ideas to contributed lyrics. She herself acknowledges in the interview I referred to above that she was asked to write lyrics and couldn't do it.
"David Foster wrote a little tune, or composed a little tune and he asked me to write lyrics to it and I just couldn't write lyrics, so he asked me if I wanted to, uh if you wanted to write down ideas that you thought were dreamy, I wrote down several, he sent it to a , uh, lyricist and then came up with that song."
As to your statement: "as far as the sources are concerned, Evancho is a co-lyricist" (the record company that distributes and promotes her album says she's a lyricist), please let it not be true that the level of integrity for this article consists of: if factual information that you personally witness being presented exists (by no less than the subject of the article herself), but cannot be cited, and inaccurate data exists about the subject from a source that can be cited, you will go for publishing the inaccurate information, and attribute that information's validity to that the source of the false information is allowed to be cited.Gillwill2000 (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Please read WP:V and also look up the word "contribute". Why so much drama over this detail? I think it is more accurate to say that she contributed to the lyrics than to say that she is one of the "songwriters", which to many readers would imply that she helped to write the tune as well as the lyrics. Your continued accusations and insults about integrity, poor writing, etc. are highly offensive and not necessary. I have produced lots of good work for this encyclopedia, and I ask you again to be civil in your discussions here. I really urge you to read WP:CIVIL, as well as WP:V, as these are important to this community. If you think you can improve something, then suggest improvements. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Gillwill, I urge you with the utmost velocity to retract your uncivil comments and retract the rubbish you seem to be spouting in relation to Ssilvers contributions. I have known and worked with this editor for a good few years and we have produced some of Wikipedia's finest works on the back of our collaborations with each other. You seem to be focusing on minor or trivial detail and it is not achieving anything. As far as I can tell, your contributions to this article are relatively minor and very much recent. I think it bad taste and thoroughly discourteous of you to assume Ssilvers' integrity is in question. -- CassiantoTalk18:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I also am concerned about these attacks against the integrity of Ssilvers; I have worked with him on articles on Wikipedia for years, and have always found him to be an editor of honesty and integrity who works incredibly hard to improve articles that already exist or bring his great knowledge to articles which he has created. I think, bearing all this in mind, that he deserves to be treated with civility rather than attacked. Jack1956 (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Gillwill, I think that your most recent change, "contributed to the lyrics", is an excellent change. I also want to say that your questions and suggestions on this article and the other Evancho-related articles are very welcome. In some cases, I think they have improved the articles and have, at least, prompted a thoughtful consideration of some issues. I would like to continue collaborating with you, and I only ask that you try to keep your comments and edit summaries free of insults, accusations and condescension. As I said elsewhere, I think the most pressing thing that someone could do to help out with this article, is to check the links to see if any have gone dead, and try to look for an updated link. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Proposed New Section
I think it's worth consideration to have a new section, similar to what some other performers have: “Philanthropy”, “Supported Causes” or something like that in which the Celebrity Fight Night, Humane-Society, Sharkey Foundation, Prelude to a Dream CD auctions, the school board talk, and similar activities for a cause are noted together. I can see where these are applicable to existing sections pertaining to “Reception & Reputation” and “Other Musical Performances”, but in my opinion, the informative value of these activities would be better served standing out in their own section instead of within the two others.Gillwill2000 (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea, but this is a perfect time for WP:BOLD. Just do it well, with plenty of sources and such. There should be no problem with it.--intelati/talk01:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that this idea may be a little premature. Evancho is just 12 years old, and the things that she says on one occasion are not necessarily going to be interests that she sustains. She has mentioned in interviews many times her interest in animals and the environment, so I have footnoted this information; but other causes that she has mentioned may have been transient ideas. Let's see what she supports when she grows up and then consider a separate section at that time. Currently, the "Other music performances" section is largely a section about charitable and special performances. Today's addition: "Evancho supports the preservation of music, art and physical education programs in the public schools and spoke on this issue before her home town's school board in 2012" is not of encyclopedic interest -- she went with her parents, on one occasion, to an open town meeting at her school, and she and her father spoke in favor of restoring some funding for these programs at her old school that her younger siblings still attend. This was, I am sure, an expression of a sincere opinion, but every word that she utters in public is not of encyclopedic interest. The article grows longer with every performance. I would suggest that we restrict the discussion to her public performances and other major activities, and mention only the most important and sustained "supported causes" that she discusses on more than one occasion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with Ssilvers here. This is a little girl of 12 who has a tremendous gift but who is still a little girl of 12, so we do not have to record her every pronouncement and opinion. I think the balance of the article is about right and does not need a new section on her Philanthropy or anything else. Let her get a bit older and then we may have something encyclopedic and of genuine interest to add. Jack1956 (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think Gillwill2000 was talking about adding unencyclopedic information to the article but rather taking related information already in the article that's spread out in many sections and organizing it into its own section. If content is not encyclopedic then it shouldn't be in the article whether it's in one section or many sections. For An Angel (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that Gillwill is talking about is moving information about charity performances from the "other" performances section to a dedicated section about philanthropy and causes. Sorry to combine two unrelated points in my message above - I have now moved the discussion about Evancho's comments before the school board below. As to the question here, I am saying that I don't think, at this time, that it is necessary to create a new section, but that someday in the future that might be useful. I would like to see instances of WP:Featured articles where this is done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not think creating a new section for such minor detail is necessary. Being 12 years old and relatively new in the business, JE is certainly no Paul McCartney or Barbara Streisand so her supportive views are not going to be notable enough to justify creating a separate section dedicated to a few Philanthropic comments made at her former school. Ssilvers is right in saying that this is subject to change in the future, and therefore may need some extension (and possibly a separate section). But certainly not now. -- CassiantoTalk19:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, For An Angel. Do you feel strongly that there should be such a separate section at this point? You haven't clearly said what your opinion is, or what you feel are the key factors in creating a separate section, as opposed to leaving this info together with the "other music" section. As I said above, I think it is a little premature. GillWill listed these four items: Celebrity Fight Night, Humane-Society, Sharkey Foundation, Prelude to a Dream CD auctions. 1) Evancho performed at CN two years in a row, but I would say that this was a favor to Foster, or vice-versa. In any case, for Evancho, it was mostly a performing opportunity. Check our interview of Evancho with Foster at CFN, which consisted of "hello" and nodding in the affirmative. Indeed she was happy to be there with David and Yolanda. 2) Humane Society, I agree, is an important interest of hers. 3) Sharkey Foundation seems to have been a one-shot situation, and, again, I think it was mostly a performing opportunity for her. 4) The auctions of PTAD to support local animal shelters have, indeed, been a charitable activity that Evancho and her family support, but it has been a very limited one. So, I think that, eventually, it may be a good idea to create a new section such as GillWill suggests, but I think it is premature. Even if/when we do so, I would still leave the CFN and Sharkey mentions in the "other music" section, because these seem to have been primarily publicity/performing opportunites for Evancho. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
School board info
For an Angel, I suggest that we delete the new sentence that Gillwill added yesterday: "Evancho supports the preservation of music, art and physical education programs in the public schools and spoke on this issue before her home town's school board in 2012". I believe that this is not, of encyclopedic interest. Evancho went with her parents, on one occasion, to an open town meeting at her school, and she and her father spoke in favor of restoring some funding for these programs at her old school that her younger siblings still attend. Unless you disagree, I will remove it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Ssilvers, thank you for your comments. The inclusion of the school board appearance is a separate issue than what I was addressing above. However, regarding it: although I don't agree that the significance or veracity of someone's viewpoint correlates to how many times they express it, nonetheless, if the addition of the school-board talk information is considered of minor importance and non-encyclopedic, then I concur that it should be removed. But, in the same standard, other insignificant non-encyclopedic information should likewise be deleted from the article as well.Gillwill2000 (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
It is always difficult, in a substantial Wikipedia article, to draw the line regarding which facts are important enough to discuss and which are not. Having added much of the content in this article, and having read it carefully many, many times, and also having done extensive research on Evancho's life and career, I believe that all of the information in this article (other than the one that I mentioned above) is important to an understanding of Evancho's life and career, and that it currently represents the most important information about her that is of interest to readers. If you disagree that any of it is important enough to be included in the article, mention it, and we can try to reach a consensus on each point. Perhaps I have overlooked something that you can bring to my attention. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Ssilvers, I acknowledge your substantial contribution to this article, as well as to many other articles, and agree that matters of significant impact to the content of the this article should be put forth for discussion on this Talk page. However, I do not believe it is within spirit of Wikipedia for a single contributor to assume precedence over other contributors and compel them to consultation prior to each contribution they make. - Gillwill2000 (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I am not compelling you (or anyone) to do anything. If you are confident that a change is for the best, you can make the change without raising it for discussion on the talk page. My experience is that it may save time for major changes to be discussed first, and that it is polite when you know that there are active editors on a page who will respond promptly to discussions. So I encourage discussion first, but I cannot compel it. See WP:BRD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Gillwill, you have got Ssilvers all wrong. He is not a single contributor assuming precedence over other contributors, but a contributer who is willing to help others and who has excellent knowledge on what makes a great encyclopedic article. As stated above, not every edit has to be scrutinised and talked to death on the talk page, but major changes and important information which comes to light should be discussed first, especially on an article of a living person and on an article as active as JE. -- CassiantoTalk19:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes! Evancho made a point of discussing her pets in nearly all of her early interviews, and in many of them more recently, describing the pets in detail on national television and other interviews repeatedly. She was obviously much saddened by the death of her pet duck, Mo-mo (sp?). More recently, she has kept her dog Maggie with her in *all* her travels and described Maggie to several interviewers. She always has her photo take with Maggie when meeting fans, and many of her images on the internet are with this dog. Some of her official photo shoots have been with one or more of the family dogs; some of her charity shoots and videos have been with cats and dogs. The question, in writing a biography about someone, is not whether the fact is important to some lofty or generally important idea, but whether it is important *to the subject* and can be verified. The importance of Evancho's pets *to her* is unquestionably more important than the topic of school funding for non-core subjects, which is verifiable, but which she has only mentioned once in public, and in that case, she was agreeing with her father's opinion expressed before the school board. As I said above, key factors, in line drawing in this area, are whether the interest was sustained (that is mentioned more than once by Evancho) and how prominent the mention was. For example, a mention on the Tonight show trumps a mention in the local Patch newspaper. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The statement: "The family has numerous pets" is not indicative of the importance of them to Jackie any more than stating that the family has numerous musical instruments, a large stamp collection, CD collection, or things of that nature. If her interest in pets is notable enough the be included in the article then that interest should be specified, beyond just noting her family's possession of them.Gillwill2000 (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
How would you phrase it? Why don't you read the articles and watch the interviews on the subject and see if you can come up with a better concise description. The Jay Leno interview was one of the best. In the WSJ interview in December, she indicated that the family had decided to reduce the number of outdoor pets and to stick with the (four) dogs, cats and other indoor pets. She continues to state that playing with her pets is one of her pastimes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
[Left] Ssilvers, thank you, but I wanted to give you the first opportunity since, from my perspective, it appears the trend is to automatically dispute any contribution I make or suggest to the main article that is more than the very menial, like just finding dead links for you. Nevertheless, I am aware of those interviews and will attempt to come up with something more descriptive, if we contributors can't find a better way to communicate that importance or interest, then the statement about having pets should be omitted as not notable. For the time being I have included that interest in the least verbose manner.----- As an aside, in just reading that section, I believe it's worth consideration to move this to the Lead or elsewhere as these interests are not specific to her Early Years, though it's positioning is probably of minor significance overall.Gillwill2000 (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I think your change to the statement is good, but I deleted the word "numerous", since the ducks and crabs died, so I don't think it is necessary to try to quantify the number of pets. I disagree that the statement can be omitted. As I have stated above, Evancho has indicated repeatedly the importance of her pets to her; but it is not so crucial that it should be mentioned in the Lead section. The Lead section is a summary of only the most important information discussed in the body of the article. Please read WP:LEAD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ssilvers. I thought only that if the interest in pets could not be written in a way attributed to Jackie that "The family has numerous pets" statement should be omitted as what that signifies on it's own is not notable, just like putting in "The family has several lawn mowers" is not of any notability just because Jackie enjoys cutting the grass. :) I agree at not putting in "numerous", and that was my initial intention, but left it on due to you keeping it there when you put back the prior statement, just 10 days ago. (using "playing with" might even be better than "tending to" if remaining pets are lower maintenance domestic kind) Regarding moving the "interests statement I mentioned the Lead "or elsewhere." This was just in regards to that her interests noted were not confined to the "Early Years" which for this article appears to be the period until her AGT performance. I agree it's not crucial.Gillwill2000 (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thank you to Gillwill for finding and correcting errors in the article, such as replacing dead links and fixing a broken link by adding in a missing </ref> tag. I appreciate your sharp eye in spotting these. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Ssilvers, your welcome, and I believe that your revisions to my revisions of the “Early Life” section improved the readability quality of it even more. That an article and it's sections are inviting to read, I believe, is of utmost importance. Related to this, I think we should try to avoid the placement of citations in between words in the middle of a sentence unless other means to present that information and cite it have been exhausted, because I believe this is a distraction that disrupts the flow of reading. I realize that, often, it may be unavoidable, but to whatever extent that can be improve upon, restructuring the writing, finding another reference that covers the whole sentence, etc... I will try to contribute to.Gillwill2000 (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree. By the way (just in case you wondered), in some cases, we have two citations that both confirm the same fact(s), but it is not unusual for entertainment news links go dead. So I think it is good to include a second one (when the news is fresh) so that if one goes dead, we don't have to necessarily scramble to find a new one. Of course, we don't want a string of 5 redundant citations, but I think it's OK to keep a second one in these cases. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Dead links
If you see a dead link, often the article has simply been moved somewhere else. The first thing to do is to search Google for the title of the article, and sometimes it will come right up. If not, and if you can't figure out how to update the link, just put {{dl}} next to it, and it will give me this sign:[dead link] Then I can see if I can find an update. That's better than removing the link and all the places it is used first, as it's hard to put it all back if I find an updated link. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I disagreed with your deletion of the summary of Evancho's concert tours and have reverted per WP:BRD. We need to summarize the important concert appearances on Evancho's tours. See WP:Summary style. In addition, any refs that are deleted must be *carefully* compared with the refs in the concert tours article to make sure that we are not losing any that ought to be ported over there. This article gets far more traffic than the tours article, so if you remove anything from here, you are essentially saying that most people do not need to see it. Please explain why you wish to remove each mention of a concert or other material, giving your argument as to why it is not important to readers of this article. Then we can try to reach a consensus per WP:BRD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see where any other performer on Wikipedia has every single one of their concerts itemized in a paragraph format in their main article. Imagine if this was done for Lady Gaga's upcoming events and what the results of that would be: in my opinion, a very cluttered, convoluted collection of information, that is, yes, information, but not presented to the reader in a productive manner. This holds true as well for listing Evancho's 18 and counting upcoming concerts, and to this article, also mindful of the tendency to include reviewer blurbs inside the article, when any exist, for nearly every one of her performances. I also believe that the characterization of these concerts as “important” is very subjective and to the broad audience of Wikipedia readers, these particulars are of little significance (for the main article) in gaining information about the subject, but nonetheless, to the extent such individual items of data are considered notable, I believe that presenting such an enumeration of items in this manner will actually discourage most viewers of the article from reading the information and thereby defeat the purpose of the editor's intent that it be conveyed to them. At best, a more conspicuous link to the more reader-friendly Songs of the Silver Screen Tour list should be included somewhere within the section, perhaps at the end, although that too is unconventional among performer's articles as well, or like with Gaga, a "Concert Tours" section with links to the lists.Gillwill2000 (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that, sometime in the future, the details of Evancho's touring will need to be streamlined more per WP:Summary style, especially as she gets older and continues to tour. However, I am not sure that it is too much *for now*. I am quite sure that it should not all be chopped out. As I noted above, this article gets far more traffic than the Jackie Evancho tours article, and so anything moved there is essentially lost to the majority of readers. Can others kindly review the touring information in the "Dream With Me" and "Songs from the Silver Screen" sections and comment, please, on whether any of it should be trimmed at this time? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
How about leaving the paragraphs intact, but remove the mention of the cities? There is some useful information in the paragraphs, and I think that's how it is often done in other articles. Cresix (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Gillwill, please stop edit warring. Use the WP:BRD procedure - if you make an edit and other editors disagree, they revert. Then, you know that your change is opposed, and you should discuss it on the talk page. FYI, I do not intended to add specific mentions of each tour stop as they occur. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Ssilvers, your revert after my edit today [18:41, 30 September 2012] put back each concert thus far and you stated in the History comment "at least until the tour is over" Please stop WP:OWNing. One only need look at this Talk page and the History page and your very unWP:Welcome"You will not be permitted to..." comment of hostility that you initiated upon my earliest edit here, and the subsequent practice of disputing nearly every one of my contributions. I am not making improper edits, but if you have a personal problem with me making contributions and want to obstruct me from making further edits to this article then please go forward with a request to one of the Admins to have me blocked or banned! Gillwill2000 (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
As an outsider looking in from the sidelines, I see no evidence of OWNership coming from Ssilvers. Gillwill's failure to understand and comply with WP:BRD is the cause of this. It's very easy to accuse people of OWNership, but ironically, it is you Gillwill who is displaying this because of your persistent warring. Incidentally, the tours needed to be streamlined and I think removing the cities was an effective method. -- CassiantoTalk04:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Cassianto, your admission that the removal of the city names for each concert was an effective method of streamlining the tours information is an acknowledgment that my edits (that Ssilvers disputed) removing cities was not an improper edit. Making my own edits of the article is not “warring”, that is just a manipulative term designed to discourage myself and others from participating in contributing to this article. It is my opinion that Ssilvers has an undue emotional attachment to the subject that is enhanced by interaction with a family member of the subject at her fan club site which includes matters pertaining to this article and includes expressed disdain toward other contributors to it, and thereby causes overlooking standards of quality and collaboration that are applied in editing articles of other subjects. Once again I point to the very hostile “You will not be permitted to...” response ( 06:47, 9 September 2012) in the Revision History to my initial edit to this article and ongoing persistent dispute of almost every contribution I make to the article, invoking the claim of WP:BRD to disguise WP:OWN. - Gillwill2000 (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I deny your continued accusations. I have no relationship whatsoever with this subject, her family or management. I follow Evancho's career and keep an eye out for news that would be appropriate to develop this article. I have commented on her fan club forum, in the past, as have hundreds or thousands of other people. If someone responded to my comment on that forum, it was an entirely public exchange. I have no personal or financial interest in this subject other than that I like her singing, particularly her album "Dream With Me", and I think that she is unusual in having a successful career at such an early age. But I have over 90,000 edits on Wikipedia, and I have successfully shepherded through quite a few WP:Featured Articles and a couple dozen WP:Good Articles. I have created hundreds of articles in this encyclopedia, and I have edited thousands more. You, on the other hand, have not; most of your "contributions" to this encyclopedia thus far have been your rants on this talk page and your deletion of content and references from this article. You seem to be a fairly good reader, and it is good to have a pair of fresh eyes here, but your edits are largely clumsy hatchet jobs. Even where I have agreed with you, I have had to clean up the formatting after each of your edits. That's fine, and to be expected from inexperienced editors. But do not kid yourself: you have contributed very little to this article or this encyclopedia and have spent paragraphs and paragraphs here attacking me and ranting about matters that are unrelated to article improvement. Why don't you call an end to your insults, accusations and paranoid BS. If you have any further comments of interest to make about this encyclopedia article, please make them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not taking a position on the "ownership" argument, but Gillwill2000, you need to immediately stop personalizing this discussion by accusing someone, without evidence, of "interaction with a family member of the subject at her fan club site". And please don't retort that you didn't direct that comment at a specific editor with your "enhanced by" comment; it's very clear to anyone reading your comments what you meant. You stepped over the line with that comment, and you need to back off now. Feel free to discuss the article but stop commenting on editors. If the content dispute cannot be resolved here, there are standard methods of dispute resolution that you can follow, but that does not include unfounded accusations about an editor. Cresix (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
"You will not be permitted to...” defined the editing of this article as a personal matter and one only need read the issue of “Irrelevant citations to imply motives...” discussion in this talk page to see further manifestations of that from Ssilvers. However, I will give Ssilvers his victory and let him WP:OWN this Jackie Evancho article since it's obviously something very dear and personal to his heart. I am very aware of the entrenchment attitude of many of Evancho's most fanatical followers and how they like to take it upon themselves to control her public image and promotion of her work in the way they determine is best, and this includes trying to squash any other participation that doesn't fit their mold, and corrupting the integrity and prestige of Wikipedia articles in the process be damned.
So go ahead an undo all my edits and put in all the voluminous minutia that is important only to her most obsessive fans and not to the general Wikipedia readership. Go ahead and clutter up the whole main article with countless mentions of every single singing or promotional appearance she ever made or will make in her entire life and include as many quoted blurbs from reviewers for each of those appearances as you can find; and why not just throw in all the names of her pets too, Moomy, Boo-boo, Pookey and whatever you've previously mentioned and all the other intimate details of her and her pets and family life that you are privy too and consider more notable than is considered for any other performer featured in a Wikipedia article.---Cresix, if you find my vehement objection to how the editing of this document is conducted so astonishing and how out of line I am after considering all that has transpired, then go ahead and just ban me from Wikipedia. I won't miss it anymore because, sadly, it appears Wikipedia's going to be allowed to devolve into a mere agenda based blogger site dressed up as a reliable encyclopedia. - Gillwill2000 (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Gillwill2000, consider this a warning. Back off from phrases such as "obviously something very dear and personal to his heart" and "fanatical followers". And I can't "ban" you; even an admin can't ban you; but I can't even block you because I'm not an admin. I'm a relatively uninvolved editor (I've made very few edits). But I can assure you that an admin will be involved if you continue this personalization. You have the potential to make some significant contributions to this article, but if you can't do it without personal attacks then you need to spend your time elsewhere. Cresix (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Isn't it odd that everything the article has to say about her musicianship is positive, that most such praise does not come from the classically trained, and that whatever bit may indeed be written by the literate seems to consist of phrases taken out of context (e.g., that SFGate review)?
The NY Times article linked to above is already cited in Evancho's article. The third link above is a blog that is not a WP:Reliable source, and the quality of it, I think, speaks for itself. The LA Times article is by Marcia Adair, whose opinions about Evancho are cited elsewhere in the article. I believe that the discussion of the reception of Evancho, her albums and her tour performances represents a good balance of the actual reception that she has received in WP:Reliable sources. I have read nearly all of the major-media articles about Evancho: the great majority are positive, and of the few articles that could be called negative, most are cited to in this article. Also, I think that the statement above is simply wrong: the positive statements made about Evancho's technique or musicianship are either from conductors, opera company administrators, voice teachers or credentialled critics. [Added later: Evancho's entry omits lots of sources filled with effusive praise, such as this one, this one and this one, and it generally avoids the praise that has repeatedly and universally been bestowed by people who are interviewing Evancho live or about to present a performance of hers]. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I have checked the references to both the NY Times article and to the other piece by Marcia Adair. Contrary to the statement above, Adair's opinions are never referred to in the article. As for the NY Times - a statement that can be interpreted as mixed or mildly positive has been cherry-picked from an article whose overall judgement is very different:
"Ms. Evancho is a child. You wouldn’t insult a child, would you?
Of course not. So children, Ms. Evancho included: cover your ears and eyes.
Precocity is a shock, a fascination and a curse. Ms. Evancho has an unusual talent, but an undeveloped one. She ::has a clear and sometimes moving tone, but with almost no muscle beneath it, and with only the faintest capacity ::for interpretation."
The Times reviewer, Jon Caramanica, did not even know where he was. As a correction at the bottom of the review notes, the first version of the review stated that the concert took place at Alice Tully Hall when, in fact, it took place at Avery Fisher Hall. His article contained other factual errors, including misattributing the author of a song. Norman Lebrecht noted that Caramanica is not a classical music reviewer and asked why, given that Evancho topped the classical charts in 2011, no classical music critic reported on the concert. See "Why did no classical critic review Jackie’s Avery Fisher debut?",Slipped Disc, Arts Journal, November 9, 2011. Caramanica criticized such irrelevancies as the non-Evancho introductory selections played by the orchestra, and even criticized the age of the audience at Avery Fisher Hall (the same age as one would typically find at Avery Fisher for such concerts). Plus, the concert was a sell-out, according to the box office, notwithstanding Caramanica's pointed mention of a few seats where the ticket-holders did not show up. [Later edit: In July 2012, the "Public Editor" of the Times, Arthur Brisbane, discussed the review in an article about readers' objections to certain reviews. He wrote that readers "especially object when a critic tramples on the dignity of an artist or performer, as occasionally happens. ... Last November, a number of readers protested a dismissive review of the 11-year-old singing prodigy Jackie Evancho, with one calling it 'the journalistic equivalent of a drive-by shooting.'"] So I don't think it's important or useful to note that Caramanica thinks that "Precocity is a shock, a fascination and a curse". The article now contains the most balanced quote from the article, where he says that he liked the 2nd half of the concert more than the first. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Tomcat7 comments
Ok, skipping the large discussion above I will start to review the article.
"She attended Eden Hall Upper Elementary School from 2009 to 2010,[9] but since she began to tour and record, she is cyber schooled.[8][10] " - a bit boring prose, eg three times "she". How about something like "Initially attending ..., Evancho is now cyber-schooled..."--Tomcat(7)18:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I will also skip the prose for now. A major issue is the excessive usage of in-line citations. Apart from the lead there is nearly no sentence without a citation. However, the article curiously have material unreferenced, eg "She also appeared briefly as an extra in the 2010 film She's Out of My League. Her first featured television appearance was in the episode "Back To Max" of the final season of the Disney Channel series Wizards of Waverly Place (2011) singing "America the Beautiful" in Tribeca Prep's "Spirit of America Play" and asking Mr. Laritate if her performance was sufficient to "work off" detention."--Tomcat(7)18:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The information in this article is frequently challenged, and Evancho is a living person, so it is necessary to reference it all (please see this). I have now referenced "She's Out of My League" and "Back to Max". -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Another issue is the reliability of many sources. I see Youtube, blogs, amazon, walmart, etc. Also many deadlinks and inconsistent reference style.--Tomcat(7)18:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I have removed all of the YouTube sources. References to commercial sources like Amazon and Walmart are used only to show the details of the album's sales, such as release dates. I believe that each of these is permitted by WP:RS for the purposes cited. However, feel free to point out any that you think are inappropriate, and we can discuss them. I have also updated some dead links. Of course, updating dead links is an ongoing process, as links age. If you see any more dead links, please let me know, and I will update them. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The prose is in cases essay-like and biased. You use many redundant, weasely words, some of which I removed for clarification. The article contains information that does not belong into a biography about the singer. For example you include album reviews or commentaries.--Tomcat(7)18:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with your deletion of the words "ever" or "in history". These were not just 2010 or 2011 records; the words are needed to clarify that the record was an all-time record. If you see any WP:WEASEL words, please point them out. What is your objection to the inclusion of major reviews of this artist? If you look at FAs of artists, I think you will see reviews of their work are included. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
"inspiring anthems " - meaningless to me.
Changed to "inspirational" anthems. Maybe that's redundant, because the type of songs that are referred to as "anthems" and are probably all supposed to be "inspriational" (tending to arouse inspiration; inspiring). I suppose it could be just "anthems". -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I will promote this article. The references may need a clean-up and Moxy's comment should be regarded. Overall I believe it meets the criteria. Regards.--Tomcat(7)20:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Moxy, can you be more specific as to which ELs you don't think should be included, and why. Also, which ones do you think are problematic per WP:ELPOINTS? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Lets look at them one by one - (noting all that bad) - So let keep in mind WP:ELNO#1 = "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." and WP:ELOFFICIAL = " Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website". Moxy (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
OK. Give me a little time and I will look at all of these. If you don't mind, let's avoid the bolding, and I'll just indent my responses so you can find them easily. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
This is one of Evancho's most important video interviews, which focuses on her development and vocal health, so I think it fits better here than in the historical discussion above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Photos of Evancho - Can we not upload this to wikicommons? - if not they are nice
I agree, these are wonderful photos. They are copyrighted photos, so we cannot upload them, we can only link to them.
This is probably Evancho's first public appearance and the first available video of her singing, so I think it is of historical interest. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
This shows the 9-year-old Evancho singing in front of an audience of 45,000 people. I think it is of historical interest. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
This is the only performance video included of Evancho's breakthrough series of performances on America's Got Talent. This version of the video appears to be the only "official" version, as NBC does not carry the video on their site. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
b (citations to reliable sources): 
