Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
I'm also having a little trouble seeing it - there are some positive reviews, but if you feel that's unbalanced you can always add other reviews that you feel after more representative of critics' views at the time. Otherwise, I'm not really seeing any promotional language that sets off warning bells for me. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I felt that the article didn't have the specific "flow" between sentences that link ideas together. It felt choppy in some areas when reading it over. Matt574 (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
So it had neutral wording but you felt that it needed copyediting? It would be a good idea to read though Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to understand why we were confused with what you said earlier.
But if it just needed a basic copyedit to link the different statements together, it's best to keep those statements in the article unless you have a good reason for removing them entirely.
Material should only really be removed if it doesn't meet specific Wikipedia policies - if that's the case, you explain your reasoning in the edit summary so others can understand why you removed that material. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I read through the article and in particular, I read the "Words to Watch" section in the Manual of Style. It says to avoid using words like "said" when writing about something that someone stated. Using pronouns would be more useful for biography articles or world events. Matt574 (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ah ok! Well the manual of style is something we should ideally stick to, but it's not a hard rule like policies and guidelines. You can change words for more neutral ones if you feel it's appropriate - so it's case of swapping words for better ones, rather than getting rid of it entirely. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think I got everything. I tried to make it more flowing and explicit. I'm not aware of any point-of-view issues, though that doesn't mean there aren't any. The article is mostly focused on Cole, but that's where the sources are focused. I'd be happy to work from other sources if there were more of them, though I generally prefer to work from books and journal articles. I stuck pretty close to the sources and read them closely and circumferentially in full context, not just at the point of a mention. MONTENSEM (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
"Said" provides guidance for not repeating that word relentlessly. I have now replaced the second iteration with a more specific alternative. MONTENSEM (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
