Draft talk:Teija Niku

Teija Niku

Thanks for your contributions to Teija Niku. I should let you know that there are some aspects of it that still need to be brought up to Wikipedia's standards. Firstly, there is a list of sources at the end of the article, but there is no way a reader can relate a particular part of the article to the source that supports it. There should be inline footnotes that tie the statements in the article to the source that supports them. If you need help with that, check out Help:Referencing for beginners. Secondly, the tone of some parts of the article needs to be more neutral. For instance, the lead says "...an excellent sense of melody and an inventive arranger. As a performer, she is distinguished by unique lyrical style of playing the accordion." If that is what a respected reviewer said then it should be quoted and cited to the review - but if it is just your opinion then it does not belong here. Similarly, in the body it says "Teija has long dreamed of creating an album featured by numerous guest musicians..." but encyclopaedias typically don't document peoples' dreams, just the facts. The article as it stands is a great start, and with a little more work it can be much better. Good luck!--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz First of all, Wikipedia has no standards - it has only guidances and reccomendations, There should be inline footnotes that tie the statements in the article to the source that supports them - not required. Learn when to add inline footnotes. NPOV has noting to do with your the tone of some parts of the article needs to be more neutral. No one in the article document peoples' dreams, please read carefully the text before thowing disqualifications. Thank you--Bocin kolega (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Teija Niku moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Teija Niku, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DMySon (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@DMySon Please be more specific. Which sources are not independent or not verifiable and why?--Bocin kolega (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bocin kolega: I have not checked them all, but an example is the entire first section on "Education and Career" has only a single source, which is the subject's own web site. Wikipeida references should be what independent sources say about the subject, not what they say about themselves. Yet I still cannot see how the material on that source supports any of the statements made in that section. That same source is used three times, including being the only support for most of the awards and honours.There are also problems with the way that reference is set up: it is an archive of www.teijaniku.com/biography.html but the reference states it is an archive of www.aallotarmusic.com/previous-shows.--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz, Thank you for the well explanation. I believe Bocin kolega now got the answer. DMySon (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@DMySon You are forgetting two very important things: Wikipedia rules are not written in stone and, if the rules prevents us from writing a good article, then we have to ignore the rules. When writing a biography the biographer is supposed to talk to the person the biography is about and such input is a valid one especially if it's about their personal life and data. I do not know who wrote the www.teijaniku.com/biography.html - she or someone else for it was not recorded there. Your claim not what they say about themselves inherently introduces the bias ie. you do not believe that person and therefore you are violating the NPOV - one of the five Wikipedia pillars. If Teija says I'm born in 1982, finished this and that school etc., and whatever she says is not questioned by anyone then it's a valid input here. Moreover, some biograpical data found in www.teijaniku.com/biography.html cannot be found anywhere else nor the same data are questioned by anyone anywhere. The work is in progress and all visible text deficiencies will be subsequently fixed.--Bocin kolega (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Response to comments

• Comment: I don't see anything there that would make this person inherently notable per WP:MUSICBIO; if such notability is being asserted, please specify clearly on what grounds, and what evidence supports such a claim.
  Meanwhile general WP:GNG notability requires significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources. Of the sources cited, only the Kaleva is secondary, but covers the event rather than the person.
  -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Response Notable per WP:MUSICBIO: 2. Two albums Finsko Pajdusko, Memento on country's national music chart (The Best Albums of the Year on the Helsingin Sanomat newspaper) then 7. She become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; 8. She Has won or been nominated for a major music award in Finland (Konsta Jilha, Kultainen Harmonikka Competition, etc) and 9.She won first, second or third place in a major music competition in Finland etc.

• Comment: Suggested improvements:
  1) We don't refer to people by first name only; please change to full name, last name only, or personal pronoun. - Done
  2) The 'External links' section should contain only a modest number of links, typically official website or similar, and perhaps one or two others; no social medial links are allowed, per WP:ELNO. No social media links are given, about modesty - makes no sense to me
  3) Years should only be wikilinked if they are particularly relevant to the context, and not routinely. Meanwhile, meaningful links could/should be added to terms which are not necessarily obvious to non-expert readers; eg. two- and five-row-accordion, etc.
  4) Some names of compositions and publications are already italicised; for consistency, the remaining ones should be also. Done
  5) Please dial down the promo/peacock language, eg. terms like 'expert', 'excellent', 'unique', etc. makes no sense, these are appreciations coming from references
  6) Several Finnish names have been misspelled (I already corrected Haapavesi), and need to be checked. -'Not true
  -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Declined Submission by Maximilian

This reviewer failed to justify his reasons for declining submission. See details here--Bocin kolega (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Yet another declined submission by Missvain

This reviewer failed to justify his reasons for declining submission. Bocin kolega (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)