Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Of Human Feelings/archive3

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC) [1].

---

Of Human Feelings

Of Human Feelings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Of Human Feelings/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Of Human Feelings/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Of Human Feelings/archive3
• Featured article candidates/Of Human Feelings/archive4
• Featured article candidates/Of Human Feelings/archive5
• Featured article candidates/Of Human Feelings/archive6

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This article has gone through two FACs, both of which were archived because of not enough feedback. Trying again, as an FAC coordinator said this may be exempt from the two-week wait ([2]). Dan56 (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources and images: I checked these out at the previous FAC, at which a few issues were resolved. All is well. Brianboulton (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Hzh

Here I'm concentrating mostly on the prose (criterion 1a) of the article. I think some sentences in the article need some minor adjustments because they don't flow well, or I had to pause and think about what the sentence meant, or perhaps the wrong choice of word is used. Below are some of the sentences I think need improving:

• "He wanted to teach his young sidemen a new improvisational and ensemble direction based on their individual tendencies and prevent them from being diminished by conventional styles." I think "approach" is a better word than "direction", and what or who "prevent them from being diminished by conventional styles"? ("Prevent" seems like the wrong word here, or it needs to be worded differently.)

Replaced w/"approach". Coleman wanted to "prevent them..."; added commas and "also" to avoid confusion, if it helps? Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• "He had been fired by jazz organist Charles Earland for how much attention his playing received from audiences," Does "how much" mean too much or too little? That is, was he fired for hogging the limelight, or not attracting enough attention? It also could mean he wasn't fitting well with other musicians, so is this sentence a POV?

Clarified; changed to "the excessive amount of attention..." Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• "It was ultimately rejected because of mechanical problems with the recording apparatus." What does "it" mean? The recording session or the recording? If the mechanical problem that was apparent during recording, then I would say the recording session was abandoned, if the problem only became apparent later, then it's the recording (and I would phrase it differently).

The "recording", revised. Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Although the players made no attempt to harmonize their radically different parts, the album's mix was generally in the middle frequency range and had compressed dynamics, which resulted in neither extremely loud nor extremely soft passages." A rather awkward sentence - recording with compressed dynamics would produced "neither extremely loud nor extremely soft passages" but that would have nothing to do with players not harmonizing. The two parts of sentence are not linked properly.

Separated the two. Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• "...did not conform to the simpler, romantic image of jazz that many of the genre's fans admire." I would use "prefer" instead of "admire", and I don't see "simpler" in the reference, that would presumeably your interpretation?

"cornpone romantic..." Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Of Human Feelings was acclaimed by contemporary music critics." I would assume "most" critics given there are some dissenting opinions?

The source says it that way, and that sentence doesn't necessarily mean by all critics. Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• "from New York's sceneless yet vital jazz" could be replaced with "of New York's jazz".

Johnson described it as such. I think it adds context and is relevant enough since its his "canonical" list, but if you still feel otherwise... Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

These sentences just need to be a bit clearer as to what they mean. It is by no means an exhaustive list, a few other sentences could also be improved with additions of words or punctuation, or the elimination of unnecessary words. Hzh (talk)

Revisions in response. Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Instead of replying to each point separately, this is more of a general comment but refers to the some of the edits above. I do think you should be more careful about what is an opinion and what is a fact. The wording of "sceneless yet vital jazz" is more of an opinion, unless you put it in quote, it would read like you are presenting it as a fact. Similarly what you wrote on how Tacuma was fired; this is presented as a fact, but is that also the view of Charles Earland the one who did the firing? He might have thought that Tacuma wasn't playing as part of a group. We should avoid being unfair to Charles Earland unless he had also confirmed it to be true. When it is possibly an opinion, then it should be presented as as such (using words like "according to XYZ" etc. or use quotation marks) This also applies to "prevent them from being diminished by conventional styles" which would presumably be Coleman's opinion. Being "diminished" is possibly a POV, I would phrased it as something like "free from some of the normal constraints of..." (or whatever you think works better). Also when the source states an opinion like "cornpone romantic" style, either put it quotes or if you are rephrasing, make sure it actually means the same thing. I don't read "cornpone" as necessarily meaning simpler, more folksy (you may think folksy means simpler, but you are introducing you own interpretation).

A second point is that the prose should read well. The change to "The players made no attempt to harmonize their radically different parts" as a single sentence made it seem isolated from the previous and following sentences, which can be remedied by simply inserting "however" in the sentence or slight rephrasing. Short sentences can work well, but you should be careful how to word them. Hzh (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Changes. I understand the critics' characterizations and wording those better ("corny" is synonymous with cornpone, so replaced that), but what reason is there to doubt that's the reason Earland fired Tacuma? Wouldn't prefacing it with an "according to" just open a Pandora's box for having to do it in most every other sentence? Do we need every party mentioned to confirm each sentence they're mentioned in? And what is the difference between "diminished" and "normal constraints" as far as POV is concerned? The source citing it uses "...their potential ... warped in order to fill conventional molds", so wouldn't "diminished" be more faithful to "warped"? Dan56 (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

In general, an opinion should be presented only as opinion, not as fact, particularly when it might be perceived as negative and involves another person. I tried to look for sources for Tacuma's firing, apart from the source you quoted (which appears to be based on interview with Tacuma, therefore likely to be Tacuma's own spin on the event), another source I can find says "Tacuma suspects that it was his spotlight-stealing stage presence that got him fired" (I highlighted "suspects"). You see the problem here? It is apparently one person's opinion and suspicion putting a positive spin on his own dismissal, but somehow it is presented as fact here, a clear violation of wiki guidelines. Unless there are more sources from other people's account that can support this assertion, it should not be be presented as a fact.

There is also the general problem with the use of words. "Normal constraints" is close enough to suggest the "conventional molds" in the source quote, but becoming "diminished" is a subjective judgment you interpreted from "warped". Please don't think that I'm saying that my wordings are the most suitable ones, if anything you should find your own way of saying it, I'm simply saying that it can be improved on. As to some of your revisions, I would say that if in doubt (for example, with words like cornpone that may be interpreted as pejorative), put the possibly objectionable wordings into quotation marks which is a simple way of sidestepping the issue. Hzh (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Revision, replaced "diminished" with "influenced by" (more neutral), and qualified Tacuma sentence. Dan56 (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

• I don't think the Background section gives us enough background, or perhaps not the right background. We don't ever really get an idea who Ornette Coleman even is. Obviously, much of that's going to be contained in his article, but jumping in with both feet here is tough for an outside reader to the topic.

The background was taken from sources that dealt with the article's topic, i.e. Of Human Feelings, following the principle expressed in WP:STICKTOSOURCE: "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic...". Coleman is not the topic to such a degree (who Ornette Coleman even is would be relevant at his article), at least as far as the sources were concerned. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

A survey of other FA album titles reveals that background sections arrayed more or less like this are the rule. I'm not thrilled with it personally, but that's how consensus works. I still think the first sentence is weak, though. You may want to try wording it with "in" instead of "by", and by using more active verb constructions. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Reworded with "in". Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• The gloss of harmolodics comes two sentences after its use, and makes the passage somewhat more confusing than ideal.

What do you mean by "the gloss of harmolodics"? The complexity? It is a background on the album, and every source that deals with this topic glaringly brings it up. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Because "harmolodics" is likely to be an unfamiliar term to the reader, and it is one central to the article, you need to include a gloss, a brief explanation of the term. You do that, but the way the paragraph is ordered, the reader encounters the term, then reads through content that doesn't provide a definition before getting a concise explanation, which isn't ideal. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Rearranged to have the line starting "according to his theory" ahead. Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Prime Time have sufficient independent notability to warrant at least a redlink?

I didn't think FA articles would have those. Still, I'd think an appropriate link for "Prime Time" would be a redirect to Ornette Coleman since its his ensemble, but then again "Ornette Coleman" is already linked multiple times in the article. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I misinterpreted the text. Does Prime Time exist independent of Coleman ("...Prime Time, an electric quartet whom he introduced..." made me think that it did)? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Only credited for his work ([3]). Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• "They comprised guitarists..." In American English usage, which should be controlling here, bands are singular entities even if they're composite nouns. R.E.M. is... U2 is... Prime Time should be referred to as "it" here, I think.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• The level of detail on Tacuma in particular feels like it belongs in a different article than this one (one on Prime Time, perhaps, or even his). I have a hard time seeing how it serves as background to this album or the later text.

Same response, the sources dictated it for the most part. After all, he was the one quoted in the Mandel book rather than the other players. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• The caption for the Jamaaladeen Tacuma pic needs to be reworded; this isn't NPOV, and "challenged and enthused" sounds peacocky to my ear besides.

Those words are attributed to a source, and do plainly summarize what's verified, basically reiterating what's cited (Mandel book, p. 162) and stated (using the same two words) in the last paragraph of the "background" section. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

But as the caption, those words are out of the context of the cited passage. That entirely aside, I'm not sure that this caption adequately contextualizes the picture nor meets the succinctness requirement of WP:CAP. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

But wouldn't it fulfill WP:CAP#Some criteria for a good caption points 3, 4, and 5, particularly since the relevance of Tacuma in the section where the image is placed is his take on harmolodics? Like in the example image at the aforementioned link, neither "popularized" nor "first billboard campaign" are evident in the image, but the context given with those details establishes the relevance and IMHO draws readers to it. Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• "...brisk and unflashy music..." And right here, if nothing else, is why I have to oppose. I know there's an art to rephrasing source material to avoid close paraphrasing and to avoid just piling on direct quote after quote. But Mandel didn't use either of those words. He calls the album "snappy" and "unpretentious" but I'm not comfortable with that sort of thesaurus-wrangling with an attributed opinion, especially in an arts context. I have not spotchecked otherwise.

You're opposing because I replaced two words that basically mean the same thing? I don't see why you just don't recommend I quote his actual words instead, or offer a better revision like the above reviewer had. I'd like to hear something from Hzh about this line. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am. In part because I'm not convinced they do mean the same thing, especially in the context of musical critique and analysis, particularly the "snappy"/"brisk" pairing. I understand that this article previously caught a lot of heat at FAC for close paraphrasing. I understand that you worked to avoid the use of similar phrase choices, rightly, in response to that, and that's its probably frustrating to then have a reviewer turn around and object to the revision. But I still do think it's a problem. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'll use the actual words in quotes then? Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Trio Records deserve at least a redlink?

I never encountered requests for redlinks LOL. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It happens. The linking goal for FA is generally to have links to all the articles which would be valuable to serve as links, whether those articles exist yet or not. Ideally, of course, there's at least a stub at all those targets, but especially as you get into articles further and further outside the most popular topics, sometimes they're red. I was asked to redlink boletocrocin at my first FA (instead, I made a stub to turn the link blue). Back on topic, there are a lot of false positives for Trio Records, so I'm having some trouble determining if they're notable enough for an article, but, if so, they should probably be redlinked. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

according to Discogs, its a label under the Trio Corporation, which in turn was renamed Kenwood Corporation, so I guess a piped link there would be appropriate. Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• To someone not immediately familiar with US chart complexities, it's odd to say that it had no commercial success, then turn around and say it was 15 on a relevant-sounding chart on which it stayed for 26 weeks.

A jazz chart? During the '80s? Even if, it's still not a hit parade. Just a genre/component chart. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Our hit parade article is a mess, and is perhaps destined for a slow merge to record chart, which isn't much better. I understand what you mean here, but a reader not familiar with the charting system might not be (and sure isn't getting any help from those other articles). Perhaps make explicit that, despite its genre performance, it failed to place on the mainstream chart? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Made a piped link, [[hit parade|pop charts]], since "hit parade" is what the source uses, but "pop charts" offers more clarity. Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Does White need to be capitalized here? I don't think so, but someone else may want to double-check me on this one.

I just saw it as an adjective capitalized at White American; it'd make sense this way tho rather than lower case when it's not referring to race/ethnicity, I think? Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Even that article doesn't seem internally consistent. I honestly don't know what the "right" answer is here, and can't seem to ferret any guidance out of the manual of style. I wouldn't consider this actionable, but it would be nice to confirm one way or the other. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• The line about the album going out of print seems out of place in the paragraph about his live performances. Any idea when it went out of print? Was it ever re-issued? The structure of the article implies it was out of print by sometime in the 1980s, which would make its presence on a 1998 list of albums for novice jazz listeners (not that that might not be the case, to be sure...).

Just one line, not exclusively about live performances. Not exactly a reliable source, but no reissue listed at Discogs. A music critic wouldn't necessarily be aware of whether its in print or not. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I still think the line interrupts the logical order of the paragraph. I'm not sure where to move it to, because I don't have a good sense of when the album went out of print (nor does the article, other than the relative "later"). And, actually, I think this album's release history may be more complicated that the article covers. Allmusic lists a 1990 Mango Records LP that seems distinct from the 1982 Antilles Records LP/CD/cassette release (not certain whether the original release formats are worth noting, but if that "1982" CD in WorldCat really was a 1982 CD, it's one of the "Big Bang" of early CD releases). Also, while it's hardly a reliable source, Amazon lists a 1998 PolyGram "import" CD, about which I really have no other information. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust ALlmusic on that; this search showed that catalogue #/edition only at their site, when you would normally find catalogs like Schwann Catalog or rare vinyl sites verify them. I search the ASIN from Amazon.com's listing, and got back this import from 1995, so nothing seems consistent. I moved the "out of print" line forward. Does it flow better that way? Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Did the songs from this album get played on the international tour with Prime Time? It's not clear whether they played this material or unrelated music.

What international tour with Prime Time? Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

"Coleman did not record another album for six years and instead performed internationally with Prime Time." Is that not what this means? Or were they literally just playing privately elsewhere in the world? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Not specified by the source, which says "...Prime Time was working regularly on both sides of the Atlantic" before going into a lengthy commentary on how Coleman abandoned his previous dress and appearance for flashier suits or something. Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• "...slick style..." Not NPOV.

Removed "slick". Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• "...intricate, vacillating compositions..." Too much an opinion without direct attribution.

I could see how "intricate" would be an opinion, but alternating or fluctuating seems concrete enough. Removed the former. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not really what vacillating means though. I mean, yes, it has "fluctuate, oscillate" as a meaning, but the dictionary I have at hand gives its most common meaning as "alternate or waver between different opinions or actions; be indecisive". Like with my earlier complaint about the adjectives attributed to Mandel, you just cannot safely hit musical descriptions with a thesaurus. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The source's exact words that I tried to paraphrase were "complex vertical structures". Would it be a copyvio issue if I just use those, since it's an actual phrase in music theory? (Merriam). Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• You cite publisher locations for some periodicals, but not for the book sources. That should probably be one way or the other.

I only included the location for periodicals without the city/location in the title per Template:Citation (as opposed to something like New York Times). Never had the issue brought up for books before. added locations for publishers w/out location in name. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The goal's really consistency. Publication locations are optional, but once you're a Jet, you're a Jet all the way. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• ISBNs should probably be updated to properly-formatted ISBN13s; luckily, the converter makes that 30 seconds worth of work.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: Structure, NPOV (including treatment of sources), and a handful of minor issues. Hzh's prose concerns are also applicable; I tried to avoid duplication. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Revisions in response. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Second series of revisions. Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: The recently archived FAC is still open on the article's talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe this has been dealt with (tks Maralia). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's been a few weeks since my last response (as I mentioned at your talk page here). Does your oppose stand? If so, why? Any response? Dan56 (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: Squeamish Orange hasn't responded back here after I commented at his talk page on the 16th. Hasn't edited since the 13th ([4]), so they may be busy outside of Wikipedia. Dan56 (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Strong support: shame that "Sleep Talk" audio clip is only 21 seconds. (If it was me, of course, I'd probably have linked to the full album on YT tut tut.) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Support. Yes! Rothorpe (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Support a great balance of information on all aspects of the album. The sourcing is immaculate. Great work! —JennKR | ☎ 13:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Statements of support without explicitly saying why the article satisfies the FA criteria are of little value in judging whether a consensus for promotion has been achieved. Graham Colm (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

At least they're getting back to me. The only editor opposing hasnt returned since my changes in response to their issues raised, which I think I addressed. Should I ask message of those who supported to elaborate on their support? Dan56 (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Just seen this, I'll elaborate on my two points. The article is comprehensive and achieves a balance through all its sections, tricky to do with album articles as they can have a tendency to place too much weight on a particular area. From what I can see the sourcing is brilliant and the lead is summarised as to reflect the content of the whole article (again often a problematic area with such album entries). I take criterias 3 (media) and 4 (length) as already established as satisfactory. —JennKR | ☎ 02:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Support Having read through the article a few times, I say it clearly fulfills the FAC criteria. It's well written, concentrated with information yet concise, focused, neutral and really well sourced. Always enjoy reading through your articles Dan. Et3rnal 18:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Support Article is well written and sourced. A good read as well. TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I am concerned that canvassing might become a problem here. This has posted on at least three user pages by the nominator: "Hi. Would you be interested in voicing your support (or oppose/comment) at the FAC page for the article Of Human Feelings? I've gotten supports, but an FAC delegate noted that comments should include mentions as to how the article fits FAC criteria. If you're not interested, feel free to ignore this message and happy holidays!" Graham Colm (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You're making this type difficult. First there isn't enough consensus because of one editor's claim that the article may be compromised by inappropriate paraphrasing, which is said by another reviewer in the second FAC to not be an issue. Then not enough time is given for potential reviewers to respond upon a holiday break, so that FAC is closed. Here, I tried soliciting reviewers even more to avoid that issue; you said the supports weren't elaborate enough so I revised my invitation to this nomination, and now you're questioning the neutrality of the messages? Could you elaborate on your comment? How is that canvassing? Dan56 (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Its a borderline canvass because you explicitly ask for them to mention how the article meets the FAC criteria, which is leading at best. You also intimate that despite some support !votes, the delegate is making it difficult for you because the only person who has actually reviewed the article opposed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You are making it difficult. ANd you're suggesting those who supported didn't review anything because they didn't point any issues out. Gee wonder why they'd support an article and not cite any issues here? I've since asked for more comments, since I'm scared to death of a little inactivity once again spoiling this process ([5], [6], [7], [8]) Dan56 (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dan, are you suggesting that the article is beyond reproach? Would you like me to provide a detailed review? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Where in my last comment did I say anything remotely close to "the article is beyond reproach"? Dan56 (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Although I would appreciate you pointing out something I could fix or improve upon. Otherwise, what's the point of this process. There's been nothing to do here for atleast a week. Dan56 (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from GabeMc

Lead

• "According to him, Of Human Feelings was the first digitally recorded album in the United States."

Why are we using his personal opinion for this bold claim in the first paragraph of the lead, and why didn't any "reviewers" catch this clunker? Further, if this is true then it should be easy to verifiy with secondary sources, and if its not true then why include the bit anyway?

Well, it received coverage from multiple sources who thought it was notable enough to mention. I'm assuming the qualifier is there because it'd be hard to prove, which doesn't make it a "clunker". If you don't think it's notable enough, I'll remove it. Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Kinda like, "According to Coleman, the day before Thanksgiving is the busiest shopping day of the year in the US." If its at all true and notable, then you should be able to source it without using Coleman as a source. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not using Coleman as the source (citing an interview or his own words), those third party sources (the authors) are. It's one of the first things they say when they start discussing the album. MOS:LEAD says importance is based on sources. Would revising it to "Coleman claimed it was..." be more acceptable? Dan56 (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If you do not understand that you should not be making bold claims about the album's legacy that are directly attributed to Coleman, then you don't seem to know the difference between primary and secondary sources. This is far too bold a claim to come directly from him, especially in the lead. If its true then just state the fact, if its dubious then get it out of the lead. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The album explores jazz-funk music and continues Coleman's harmolodic approach to improvisation with Prime Time, whom he first introduced on his 1975 album Dancing in Your Head."(emphasis added)

This is a new paragraph, so it needs a new noun.

You mean replace "the album"? Why? Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

When you begin a new paragraph, you should use the proper noun again, and not use pronouns across paragraphs. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Jazz critics suggested that Coleman applied free jazz principles from his music during the 1960s to elements of funk."

This is awkward, IMO. I think you are trying to say that he combined elements of 1960s funk with free jazz. I also don't see any reason to qualify this as the opinion of Jazz critics. You could just state it as fact, since I assume its not contentious.

Cool, but don't be surprised if I change it back if and when the next reviewer nitpicks it. Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Not if the prose is excellent they won't. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• "After he changed his management, Coleman signed with Island Records, and Of Human Feelings was released in 1982 by its subsidiary label Antilles Records."

"After he changed his management" sounds like a transitional sentence, but it comes out of nowhere, which is jarring. Consider: "Following a change in management", or similar.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• "It was well received by critics, who found the music expressive and praised Coleman's harmolodic approach."

That's a terribly awkward misuse of a coordinating conjunction. Consider: "It was well received by critics, who praised the album's expressive music and Coleman's harmolodic approach", or similar. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Coleman's dispute with his managers over its royalties led him to enlist his son Denardo as manager, which inspired Coleman to perform live again in public during the 1980s."

1) The first its is awkward, IMO. Why not the album's, or similar? 2) You use his, its, him, and his within 13 words; there must be a smoother way to phrase that.

Didn't want it to be redundant with the "album" in the previous sentence. Done. 2) Revised as "After a dispute with his managers over the album's [[royalties]], Coleman enlist his son Denardo as manager, which inspired him to perform live again in public during the 1980s." Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Why did firing his manager "inspire him to play live again"? Its confusing; I suggest re-writing that one from scratch. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

He enlisted his son to manage him and was inspired. How is it confusing? Dan56 (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, what was inspirational about hiring his son? The two parts do not connect well, and I see this issue throughout the article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• http://www.robertchristgau.com is not a WP:RS.

• Comment - At a glance, it seems this writer does not understand how to avoid close paraphrasing. Many of the passages in this article are dangerously close to copyvios. I suggest that an extensive sourcing review be conducted on this article.

• From the source: "He wanted to encourage them to create a group direction based on their own individual proclivities before their potential was warped in order to fill conventional molds."

From the article: "He wanted to teach his young sidemen a new improvisational and ensemble approach, based on their individual tendencies, and also prevent them from being influenced by conventional styles."

• The "Sleep Talk" file fails NFCC#8. The file is not at all discussed in the accompanying text. I wonder how this was missed by the "reviewers", because its been made very clear to me that if we aren't engaging in serious critical commentary about a sound file then it should not be included. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC) GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Further sources comment: When I did the sources review at the previous FAC, because close paraphrasing had been a major issue at the article's first FAC I paid specific attention to this aspect and carried out various spotchecks. I didn't find anything I considered untoward – but of course spotchecking is by its nature not exhaustive, and opinions differ as to what is acceptable. Nevertheless, I would be surprised if this remains a major issue with the article, and I do believe that the nominator has done his best to deal with this problem. On another point raised by GabeMc, I got the impression when source-reviewing other music articles that Christgau websites were accepted as reliable sources – is this not the case? Brianboulton (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That may well be Brian, but that site looks to me like a self-published blog. I wouldn't use it in an FA. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Brianboulton, I'm curious. Many of the possible copyvio/close paraphrases are from 30-year-old magazines. Did you really dig these up to make sure Dan isn't plagiarizing large chunks of text? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Gary Giddins hailed it as another landmark album from Coleman and his fullest realization of harmolodics, with compositions that are clearly expressed and occasionally timeless. Giddins said that its discordant keys radically transmute conventional polyphony and may be the most challenging for listeners," This bit is cited to a 32-year-old edition of Esquire. Was this sourced checked for plagiarism, because this passage does not sound like Dan's voice to me. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Kofi Natambu of the Detroit Metro Times said that Coleman's synergetic approach displays expressive immediacy rather than superficial technical flair". That sounds like another close paraphrase, but the source is a 32-year-old newspaper. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Close paraphrase. - From the article: "offers listeners enough release from tension to confound the duality of the mind and body."

From the source: "the way this music confounds mind-body dualism should provide all the release from tension" ~ Christgau

Brianboulton, the difference between the original and Dan's version is minimal, and this would not get passed a High School teacher, IMO. There are 15 words in the original text-string, and Dan used 7 of them. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've said my piece, there is no need to draw further cases to my attention. I am not Dan's advocate. I did not read the whole article, I did not check every reference, nor did I ever imply that I had. You are digging deeper, and finding other examples that you find questionable – fair enough, bring them forward, let Dan answer them. Brianboulton (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"dualism" is a different word than "duality", but I placed quotation marks around "release from tension" and changed "confounds" to "surprise". I hope you don't expect me to find another phrase/word for "mind-body dualism". Dan56 (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

a) He's one of the pioneers of rock criticism and one of the most important music critics around. Everything from Christgau's website is simply an archive of past published articles/reviews that can be traced back to either one of two types of sources--a newspaper or magazine (The Village Voice, Rolling Stone, Creem, etc.) he wrote for and was published in, or one of his Consumer Guide series of books (all of which were published by a legitimate company like Macmillan or Da Capo Press). I've never heard of his site being questioned as a reliable source by anyone before. b) I can dig up whatever source you need me to ASAP. They weren't that hard to find to begin with, since this is a pretty obscure jazz album, and typing "Of Human Feelings" w/"Ornette" in GoogleBooks doesn't lead to an overwhelming amount of relevant results. Dan56 (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The file was approved of in the second FAC. And why is the age of the newspaper article relevant? "It sounds like"? Dan56 (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, whoever approved the audio file did not do so correctly. You cannot use non-free files to dress-up an article, it must be the subject of serious critical commentary. My point about the 32 year old sources is that there are hard to locate for spot checks, so that you could in theory copy-paste large chunks of text (I'm not saying that you did that) without anyone ever knowing. No offense, but "his approach displays expressive immediacy rather than superficial technical flair'", does not sound like your voice, like at all. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Brian approved it here. I drew up the text at my talk pagehere for the entire Detroit Metro Times review. Let me know if anything should be fixed for this particular case. Dan56 (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless things have changes significantly, Brian made a mistake. Is there any critical commentary in the article specifically regarding "Sleep Talk"? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't make a mistake: I relied on WP:SAMPLE, which allows for short clips of longer musical works to be used for illustrative purposes. There is, of course, the question of relevance; the clip is from a different Coleman song. The argument in the fair use rationale is: "Illustrates Ornette Coleman's alto saxophone phrasing and one of the songs' melodies, two main points of appraisal for music critics in their reception of the album. The particular passage sampled from the song also highlights Jamaaladeen Tacuma's bass playing, which is mentioned in the section." This is pretty marginal, but I thought just about allowable. I don't think the article would suffer if the file was withdrawn. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected, Brian, and I apologize for my poor choice of words. I guess in four yeas at FAC I can honestly say that not once have anyone taken that approach with any of my non-free files, but that's Wikipedia sometimes. As I've always been taught, the non-free sample needed to be adjacent to critical commentary specifically describing in prose what was in the sample. Take a look at the thrashing I took at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pink Floyd/archive2 FAC over non-free samples. Granted, I wanted to use images not sound files, but the principle is the same. Well, it will be nice to have this to reference, and maybe I'll call on you next time people are really picky about my non-free samples. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The principle is not quite the same, as you can't present small fractions of visual images as "samples", so be careful how you use this provision. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the image's were of a reduced non-commercial size, so I assume its nearly the same principle. After all, the point is to use a version that does not compete with the copyright holder, and there is no potential to enlarge a reduced image to a size that could possibly compete with a professional quality image, but I hear you. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - There are enough close-paraphrases for me to oppose this promotion. Dan not only has an issue with close-paraphrasing, he also has a problem with putting strong opinions in the voice of Wikipedia. There are far too many problems with this nom to justify any more effort on my part. Many passages cited to old magazines strike me as plagiarism, but since these sources are difficult to spot-check I'm not sure they will all get fixed. The non-free file fails NFCC#8; no attempt is made to critically analyze the sound sample. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Dude, I just offered you one of those sources in its entirety, which you didn't address. I seriously doubt you checked enough sources to come to that conclusion. Perhaps you should excuse yourself if you're going to sabotage this nomination because you're not getting your way in on-going conflicts between you and I at Are You Experienced. Dan56 (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll strike my oppose since we are in another unrelated dispute (unwatching). GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I really appreciate that. I'm truly trying to get this article up to snuff, and I'm willing to go through whatever source is desired. Dan56 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Further comments

Comment

• Jazz journalist Todd S. Jenkins felt that it was more successful than Body Meta, even though Coleman's simple, repetitive compositions were less accessible - Surely 'simple, repetitive' music is more accesable? Ceoil (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree, but it's Jenkins' opinion: "...basic, repetitive compositions took getting used to.". Dan56 (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment on source & moving on

On the "discordant keys radically transmute conventional polyphony" possibly being plagiarized, the original has "The clashing keys require the biggest leap in faith, as they give strange dimensions to old-fashioned polyphony." I don't see how "keys" or "polyphony" could be changed, or any need to do so.

What seems to be needed (this is the third time this article has been listed here in a short period of time, and the only real objectors appear to have dropped out of the process), is for someone to go through all of the comments – vague and specific – and list those that have not yet been addressed. EddieHugh (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

EddieHugh, the real issue here is that none of the editors who supported the article's promotion actually provided a review. The only two reviews this time around did not yield supports. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• From the article: "focus on Coleman's playing"
• From the source: "focus on Coleman's alto". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Replaced "focus" w/ "concentrate". Dan56 (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain

I must oppose the promotion of this article due to concerns about plagiarism. Reading through the previous comments and Dan56's responses, I get the impression that he simply lacks a suitable understanding of how to avoid plagiarism. It's a common problem, the solution to which is not simple word substitution and reordering items. The very first two sources I checked have problems:

• Ref 13 source text: "... Of Human Feelings which explored "funk‐jazz", a development dating from about 1970 features of which incl. a repetitive bass line, a hint of Latin rhythms, and complex rhythmic relationships.
• Article text: "Of Human Feelings explores jazz-funk, a musical development that originated in 1970 and is characterized by intricate rhythmic patterns, a recurrent bass line, and Latin rhythmic elements.
• Ref 14 source text: "who isn't thought of as a fusion artist, but whose 'Of Human Feelings' (1979) also fits that bill with its blend of funk and free jazz."
• Article text: "was not thought of as a jazz fusion artist, the album can be described as such because of its combination of funk and free jazz.

I must presume the whole article is rife with such problems since even ones as simple as these escaped the previous sweeps. I do accept that opinions on what constitutes close paraphrasing differ, but I don't believe these would pass muster even in a high school composition class. --Laser brain (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Laser_brain. The examples you pointed out have such limited ways of rewriting them, how do you expect me to rewrite them? How the hell do I reinterpret "complex rhythmic relationships"? Reviewers in the past FACs agreed these kind of remarks about music are too unique for me to rewrite them differently without straying from what they mean. You and others are bringing up examples that I've had to rewrite multiple times b/c they were brought up in the past and that my copy-edit sufficed for those reviewers. This is really getting subjective. Dan56 (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree. The best thing to do for you might be to read a source, take notes about its meaning, and then write something about it a few hours or days later. That way, you know what the source was conveying but you don't remember the sentence structure and verbiage. Some people can adequately paraphrase while looking at a source, but I don't think you have that skill set. In both of the examples I posted above (and many others I've seen mentioned by Quadell, GabeMc, etc.), you seem to get wrapped up in using the same sentence structure as the author but doing word substitution ("jazz-funk" into "funk-jazz", "repetitive jazz line" into "recurrent jazz line") to paraphrase. That's not how you paraphrase. But, this isn't a writing seminar, it's FAC. Of course it's subjective as you say—unless someone is pointing out plain spelling or grammar errors, everything said at FAC is subjective. --Laser brain (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well then I risk misrepresenting what the source actually said, like I've seen GabeMc do at Are You Experienced. Quadell believed my attempt to revised the examples he pointed out sufficed, but that he couldn't be sure elsewhere because of accessibility to other sources. Of course, my changes there were less drastic than what you'd like me to do, which I get, but what no reviewers before this article have brought to my attention, so I'm still not sure this isn't a matter of subjectivity. Even in the aforementioned article GabeMc tried to air as dirty laundry below, a change in word choice sufficed for the editor offering a third opinion. Dan56 (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I freely admit this is subjective. Other editors may look at the examples I pointed out and think they're no big deal. The one for which you obtained a third opinion looks fine to me, but that doesn't mean GabeMc's opinion is invalid. It just means people have differing thresholds for what they consider plagiarism. I personally could not strike my opposition until someone helps you check a large cross-section or even all of the sources for plagiarism, because you have not demonstrated to me that you understand the problem sufficiently to fix it on your own. --Laser brain (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

More comments from GabeMc

• While the numerous instances of close-paraphrasing in this article are bothersome, a larger concern I have is that Dan does not seem to think any of these are problems that need fixing. He has downplayed the importance of proper paraphrasing, and has even suggested that its fine for him to introduce them, and that others should fix them if they are concerned. Indeed, he has left them all until someone else pointed them out, which leads me to believe that all of his writing is rife with similar issues. In fact, he added several close-paraphrases to another article just this weekend. Dan currently has six FAs to his credit, so that this type of rookie mistake is being made by him in the last few days does not bode well for the content of his other FAs, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Yet another editor at yet another article has reverted Dan for yet another recent close-paraphrase.

From the source: "is more aligned with progressive metal than thrash"

Dan's version: "is more progressive metal than thrash" GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You're being a jerk. Those were two sentences in a three-paragraph section you removed entirely because I got in the way of you're crusade to remove "acid rock" from that article's infobox as well as every other infobox on Wikipedia (how's that going BTW?). As for your last comment, I see genre warriors stick together. You've clearly downplayed the importance of sticking to sources and due weight for points of view, other than your own. Dan56 (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

1) Please stop dragging my name through the mud here. If you continue to attack me in this, a decidedly inappropriate forum, then I will reconsider my redacted oppose. 2) I am not on a "crusade" for anything. I personally feel that acid rock is a) a type of psychedelic rock, and b) a derogatory precursor term for heavy metal. Regardless, starting a merge proposal is not a crusade. If I'm wrong then I'm sure the community will do the right thing and oppose the merge; its not the big deal that you seem to think it is, or that you want to make it out to be. 3) I didn't misrepresent anything at Are You Experienced. "Remember" is an R&B song, and even if the source I used didn't explicitly say that multiple others do; I've since added them. Sometimes when an editor is sifting through dozens of sources one gets mixed-up; to cry foul on me for an uncontentious and verifiable claim is beyond absurd when you have revealed yourself to be a prolific serial plagiarist. 4) I strongly recommend that you take some of the time you've been using to genre war to revisit your six FAs. In about one hour, I found 20 instances of close-paraphrasing in your FA Aaliyah (album). See my sandbox. A few particularly bad examples:

• From the source: "explores the stages of love, from giddy infatuation to late-stage dysfunction to heartbreak"[9]
• From the article: "explores ... stages of love such as frivolous infatuation, late-stage dysfunction, and heartbreak"

• From the source: "Mostly coquettish snake-charmer, sometimes scorned lover"[10]
• From the article: "Aaliyah sings from perspectives of a coquettish charmer or a scorned lover"

• From the source: "'I Care 4 U,' 'Never No More' and the piano-driven 'I Refuse.' All have a deep, bluesy, jazzy undertow that pulls Aaliyah into soulful performances showcasing a bruised knowingness."[11]
• From the article: "Ballads such as "I Care 4 U", "Never No More", and "I Refuse" are sung soulfully, and express bluesy, jazzy undertows and a knowingness derived from emotional hurt"

• From the source: "The track is doused with subtle Neptunian electronica and aquatic sounds that gurgle beneath Aaliyah's distinct velvet harmonies."[12]
• From the article: "It features subtle Neptunes-styled electronica, aquatic sounds, and velvety harmonies by Aaliyah"

• From the source: "While Aaliyah had always used her soothing voice to soften edgy musical accompaniment, she hadn’t done it before with such clear confidence of vision, stellar execution, and diversity of material."[13]
• From the article: "[Aaliyah] had never used her voice to complement her music's edgy production before with as much confidence, execution, and diversity"

You do not seem to understand what any of us mean when we express concern about your close-paraphrasing, which makes me wonder if all of your FAs need a WP:FAR. Can you give us any indication of whether or not you are getting the point, or do you plan to continue as you were? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Laser_brain's last comment. As for you, I think you should try to be a little less pedantic and a little more polite. I've had other editors who used an FA nomination of mine as a way of getting back at me for a previous conflict at another article (like this one). Dan56 (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Dan, you are taking that minor acid rock disagreement way too far. I've completely let it go; you should too. This is not about that anymore, but when I crossed paths with you at AYE it became clear to me that you are having some major issues identifying close-paraphrasing, which is what this is about. To be honest, I considered helping you by looking over the article so that you could have a support from someone who actually reviewed the piece, but I can see now that literally every sentence needs to be checked for plagiarism, and that is just far too much work. Since you referenced the Confusion (album) FA, I decided to take a quick look for close-paraphrasing. Here is what I found in less than 20 minutes:

• From the source: "'Confusion' is a comment on the general condition of urban Nigeria (Lagos, in particular) ... post-colonial confusion of a Nigeria lacking in infrastructure and proper leadership."[14]
• From the article: "The album is a commentary on the confused state of post-colonial, urban Nigeria, particularly Lagos, and its lack of infrastructure and proper leadership at the time."

• From the source: "Fela would decry ... what he saw as the "colonial" mind-set of some Africans"[15]
• From the article: "His lyrics decry what he viewed as the colonial mindset of some Africans"

• From the source: "keyboard fantasia gradually opening into languid, expansive band interplay"[16]
• From the article: "The introduction's keyboard fantasia gradually opens the band's languid, expansive interplay." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment

This has been open six weeks and I don't see the possibility of consensus to promote being reached anytime soon in light of the concerns about close paraphrasing raised by both Laserbrain and GabeMc. Each FAC should be treated on its own merits, and the issues raised by Gabe re. other articles do not have a direct bearing here, though I realise he's trying to illustrate a pattern in the face of what he sees as Dan's resistance, and these examples may well indicate FAR needs to be considered for the pages in question (I note that several of Dan's earlier FACs were spotchecked with reasonably clean bills of health, but by its nature such checks may not find evidence of an underlying problem). I can understand the frustration Dan expresses when it comes to finding new ways to convey the essence of a source without losing meaning, but that's the challenge we all face as editors, and I can only echo Laserbrain's advice on one way to attempt it; the alternative is to simply quote and attribute what you can't satisfactorily paraphrase, which as Hzh pointed out may well be a better way of presenting opinions anyway, but it needs to be done judiciously. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.