Shoemaker's Holiday is a user from Scotland. He currently has more than 200 featured content credits, here and on Commons. The "more than" is because some of my earliest work isn't included in this number, as I was not very careful about keeping a list at the time, and, as I have improved greatly since then, I haven't bothered to try to document my earliest work.
(List mostly complete. These are things I nominated, so there's a mixture of things where I did extensive restoration work with things I just saw, liked, and nominated, and things where I did substantial research to find (and possibly restored as well).)
Most of these I edited and restored, or did other significant work on, however, not all. I was a major player in revitalising the featured sound process, and wanted to make sure there was always something to vote on, so I occasionally nominated something just to keep the candidate list interesting when I didn't have time to search out new content from free libraries or do a restoration.
The earliest surviving recording of music (that was intended as a recording, anyway - very recent work has begun on things from before the phonograph that were never intended to be played back - but can be anyway, and has succeeded in extracting some earlier work). Recorded on a paraffin cylinder in June 29, 1888 by George Gouraud for the press conference mentioned above. However, unlike The Lost Chord, it is severely degraded from repeated playback.
Lillian Russell's only recording, from 1912. During the production of Twirly Whirly, composer John Stromberg delayed giving her her solo for several days, saying it wasn't ready. When he committed suicide a few days before the first rehearsal, the sheet music for "Come Down Ma Evenin' Star" was found in his pocket. It became Lillian Russell's signature song.
The hit song from the 1899 musical Florodora, which played a major role in developing the. A circa 1908 Edison Records recording by the "Edison Sextette" (Ada Jones, George S. Lenox, Corinne Morgan, Grace Nelson, Bob Roberts and Frank C. Stanley).
A 1913 recording of "The Lost Chord" sung by Reed Miller. The lyrics are by Christian mystic poet Adelaide Anne Procter, and were set to music by Arthur Sullivan at the bedside of his dying brother, Fred Sullivan. "The Lost Chord" proved immediately successful and remains one of the most enduring of Sullivan's non-operatic compositions.
Navarra (Danza Espagnole), Op. 33, by Pablo de Sarasate. Performed by Roxana Pavel Goldstein and Elias Goldstein (violins) with the Depaul Symphony (Chicago) conducted by Cliff Colnot. Composed in 1889.
This was a procedural nomination: Only one movement, (Spring, 1) was already a featured sound. This is a rather cack-handed way to handle multi-part works, so I suggested we just promote the whole thing. Others agreed with me.
I shot some stuff at the Festival but using my domestic camcorder, so the quality is far from brilliant. As an example I have put up on YouTube Tomasz Kamieniak playing Liszt/Wagner - what do you think? --Smerus (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
OK I will sort out some peices you might use over the next few days - best regards, --Smerus (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
There are now a number of video clips from the festival up at www.youtube.com/smerus. If you think any of these might have suitable tracks, let me know. I am not an expert on extracting sound tracks from videos, but I assume it can be done. The items split into two for Youtube can of course be rejoined.--Smerus (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
There is quite a bit of interesting stuff at this year's festival, I think, and I am investing in a better camcorder.--Smerus (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
This article consists of a very brief lead, followed by pages and pages of cherrypicked quotes advocating for a fringe viewpoint, completely unchallenged by any mainstream view. This violates most content policies and guidelines related to NPOV. For instance, WP:POVFORK:
Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article. There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but it is a common fault of many articles. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead).
Samples of other policy and guideline statements
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
While proper attribution of a perspective to a source satisfies the minimal requirements of Wikipedia's neutral point of view, there is an additional editorial responsibility for including only those quotes and perspectives which further the aim of creating a verifiable and neutral Wikipedia article. Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. What is more, just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article. The sourced contribution must simply aid in the verifiable and neutral presentation of the subject.
For example, in the article about Bigfoot, a verifiably attributed and accurate quote might take the following form:
The Bigfoot Field Researchers Association has stated, "Scientists from various disciplines put the most compelling sasquatch evidence to the test. Collectively their conclusions are ground-breaking. There is now scientific proof for the existence of a giant primate species in North America — a species fitting the descriptions of sasquatches (bigfoots)."
Including such a controversial quote needs to be carefully contextualized as a particular point-of-view. Simply including such a statement in the lead or in a section on scientific evaluation of bigfoot claims is potentially misleading, non-neutral, and lacking in verifiability. The quote should only be included if it can be contextualized in a verifiable and neutral sense as a point-of-view of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Association and not necessarily a factual statement. The consensus of editors may even be to not include the quote at all.
Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future). For example, lists of atheists doesn't include every individual with a Wikipedia article who happens to be an atheist, because not all of them are notable for their atheism. However, it might well include Sigmund Freud. See also Wikipedia:Notability (people). Lists may include people who are notable for a single event or activity and therefore do not have their own article, if they are of particular importance in the context of this event or activity.
Indeed, it is fairly blatant: Citation templates allow quotes to be put in references; instead, they're put in the article. A category would allow for everyone to be linked, and the quotes could be discussed in their articles.
However, it's proven remarkably resistant to deletion. I tried it back in May, others have tried before. Is there anything that can be done about it? Rewriting, changing to a cat, or at least putting the quotes of into the references section?
* Hallo Shoemaker's Holiday. I agree very much with your critisism abbout the List. Wouldn't it be feasible to install a category instead, move quotes to wikiquote and and downsitze the article to a short fork explaining the basic types of sceptics?
Considering the Consensus itself, I personally miss a timeline related deveopement of the different Consensus (plural), the differences between the historical IPCC reports and as well different assessments and critisisms and the internal setup and the way its dealing with conflicts. What is mentioned in IPCC is not at all sufficient.
* One could point out that IPCC as an international organization of the UN to sample and summarize the best of class scientific opinion, a consensus (its there, its bad, something has to be done urgently) was real 1997 and was incorporated in the Kyoto protocol. The IPCC as an international organization of the UN to sample and summarize the best of class scientific opinion on AGW has been broadly acknowledged 2001. No complaints so far. Now were in 2009 and Lord May asks for a supernatural power to make People true believers and actors on global warming. Hasnt the IPCC workded properly? Is the consensus Bogus? Or should one try to give it a sort of real life perspective? I mean one could consider major controversies, started later as the Hockeystick (2003 ff), the cosmic ray issue got a boost with Veizer and Shavivin 2003, Bjørn Lomborg (sceptical alredy in 2001) founded the Copenhagen Consensus in 2004. Ann Henderson-Sellers essay about real life in the IPCC came up in 2008 and voices like (Pielke, in some respect hans von Storch) who doubt the suitability of global climate model based consensus as useable tool for local governments. The wayy here a big divide between true believers and heretics is build up is senseless. I mean, even the French Academy of Sciences has blundered, which doesnt mean it has been abolished then. :) --Polentario (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
^Tovey, Donald Francis, Essays in Musical Analysis: Chamber Music, Oxford University Press, 1944, p. 124.
^The lead contains some information about the mainstream view, but phrased in ways to emphasise the climate change denialists. For instance:
Climate scientists agree that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. Within this general agreement, some individual scientists disagree with the scientific consensus that most of this warming is attributable to human activities.
However, the main part of this article is just lists of quotes, and, after that weak framing leads into the IPCC views, no more of the mainstream view ever appears.