Talk:Don Mock

Resubmission notes

Substantial revision since the April 2026 decline. Independent in-depth coverage now includes a four-page signed profile in Earshot Jazz (June 2025), a 19-page feature in Just Jazz Guitar (2013), and a Jazzwise book review (2010). Editorial mentions appear in Premier Guitar (2016), Guitar Interactive (2020), Vintage Guitar (2022), Ultimate Guitar (2024, where Zakk Wylde named the subject among top underrated guitarists), and Guitar Player (2025). The hydroplane racing section is supported by Kent Reporter, Auburn Reporter, and H1 Unlimited articles. If declined, specific feedback on which sources are considered insufficient would be appreciated. Bluesengineer (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Seems adequate to me. But not an area I know/edit. @Cmajorftw? RememberOrwell (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@RememberOrwell

Thank you! I hope to be on the right track. Bluesengineer (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources, some of which are reliable, but there still isn't much significant coverage from those; I think there's a good chance this person is notable, but I don't think the article clearly demonstrates that. WikipediholicRat (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @WikipediholicRatWikipediholicRat, thanks for reviewing Draft:Don Mock. I'd like to ask for a clarification so I can improve it properly rather than guess.

The decline cites the specific criteria for music, but the draft's case has always rested on WP:GNG rather than WP:NMUSICIAN, since the coverage spans two separate fields (guitar pedagogy and hydroplane restoration).

Would you be willing to say specifically whether these two sources count as significant coverage in your assessment?

— Paul de Barros, "Don Mock (1950–2025)", Earshot Jazz, June 2025, pp. 3 and 17: a signed obituary by an established jazz critic, entirely about the subject.

— Gianfranco Continenza, "Don Mock", Just Jazz Guitar No. 76, August 2013, pp. 105–123: a 19-page print feature combining interview, biography and analysis.

If these two don't qualify, knowing which requirement they fail would help me a great deal. Thanks for your time. ~2026-45331-51 (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

They are, in fact, significant coverage. There's no formula to deciding whether a source is reliable, but generally one indicator usage by other sources. An important quote from WP:RS is this one:

“ In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. ”

I looked for information about a fact checking team in both of those sources and couldn't find anything. They provide significant coverage, but they don't seem reliable. WikipediholicRat (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Bluesengineer (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification @WikipediholicRat, and for confirming that both sources provide significant coverage.

On reliability, WP:RS asks for sources with "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and directs us to weigh the author, the publication and the context together. The passage you quote is comparative guidance on degrees of reliability rather than a requirement that a publication document a fact-checking department — few specialist magazines or local newspapers do.

On the author: Paul de Barros has written for DownBeat and The Seattle Times since 1982 and was the Times' pop music editor from 2010 to 2016. He is the author of Jackson Street After Hours (2nd ed., University of Washington Press) and a biography of Marian McPartland (University of South Carolina Press, 2012), and received the Jazz Journalists Association's Lifetime Achievement in Jazz Journalism award in 2025. He has taught jazz history at the University of Washington and Cornish College of the Arts. That is an established subject-matter expert writing in his field.

Just Jazz Guitar was an edited quarterly published for 22 years (1994–2016) under editor Ed Benson, distributed internationally.

If you'd still prefer an outside opinion on either source, I'm happy to take them to WP:RSN — I'd rather get this settled properly than keep guessing. Thanks again for engaging with the specifics. Bluesengineer (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah; that's fair. I gave my own personal opinion, but would like to see what others have to say. WikipediholicRat (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Posted at WP:RSN#Earshot Jazz and Just Jazz Guitar (Draft:Don Mock). Thanks for the suggestion. @WikipediholicRat: Bluesengineer (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Avgeekamfot: Thanks for reviewing the draft. The decline used the standard template, so I'm not sure which part of it applies here, and I'd like to know before deciding whether to continue.

The case rests on WP:GNG rather than WP:NMUSICIAN. The principal source is a signed obituary by Paul de Barros — a jazz critic with a long record at DownBeat and The Seattle Times — in Earshot Jazz (June 2025), which is entirely about the subject. Billboard (22 January 1977) and the Los Angeles Times (17 December 1991) both identify Mock as one of the three instructors the Guitar Institute of Technology opened with. The reliability of the sources was discussed at WP:RSN without objection.

Could you say which of the three requirements — significant coverage, reliability, or independence — you found lacking, and in which sources? And in your view, is this a draft worth continuing to work on?

If possible, any thoughts from @WikipediholicRat:?

To conclude, guys, to be honest, this is getting very complicated. I never imagined encountering so many difficulties, and I think the time has come to stop. It is certainly a niche field—one that perhaps requires reviewers with greater expertise in this area. I’m not criticizing you, but had you dedicated yourselves to studying jazz/fusion guitar, you wouldn't have questioned the legitimacy of a Wikipedia article on Don Mock. That's all! Regards. Bluesengineer (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I would approve it at this point. WikipediholicRat (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I think at this point it would be solidly B-class; this isn't a GAN, its an AfC draft, and asking any more would be asking for it to be a GA. WikipediholicRat (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

@WikipediholicRat: Thank you — that's very helpful to hear. Would you be willing to review it yourself? Of course, i hadn't resubmitted after the last decline, but I'm happy to do so if that would help. Bluesengineer (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I'll ask some Wikipedians I know if that would be fine. WikipediholicRat (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look at this again — much appreciated. Bluesengineer (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

AFC comments

• This version has been substantially reduced. Concert listings, database entries and self-published blogs have been removed, and several citations replaced with stronger sources: Billboard (22 January 1977) and the Los Angeles Times (17 December 1991) both identify Mock as one of the three guitar instructors GIT opened with. The Just Jazz Guitar feature is used only for factual detail, not for notability — its author studied with Mock and later recorded with him, so it is not independent. The reliability of that source and of Earshot Jazz was discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard without objection. Bluesengineer (talk) 09:23, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

• While there are a lot of citations, there isn't much significant coverage. WikipediholicRat (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2026 (UTC)}}

Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing and accepting Don Mock. It took a long road to get there, and I'm grateful you took the time to look at it carefully. Much appreciated. Bluesengineer (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2026 (UTC)