Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Of Human Feelings/archive5

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) 01:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman. I attempted to address the previous FAC's concern about close paraphrasing by soliciting another reviewer ([1], [2]). I've also cleaned up the references for a consistent citation format/style and copy-edited/rewrote some parts ([3]). Dan56 (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from DISEman

Overall I find this a well written, comprehensive, well-researched, referenced and structured article worthy of a Featured Article but there are a few (minor) points that may improve it further:

• The statement under Recording that "According to him, Of Human Feelings was the first digitally recorded jazz album in the United States" may be true but there may be more details- a quick check of Litweiler, p. 152 states "It was the first time an American label [i.e. CBS] had recorded a digital album in New York, and it made front-page news in Billboard. here is the Billboard front page. Also Litweiler, pg. 153 supports the statement under Release and promotion that "A few weeks after the album was recorded, Mwanga went to Japan to complete arrangements for it to be issued as a Phrase Text release by Trio Records, who had previously released a compilation of Coleman's 1966 to 1971 live performances in Paris".

Done. Dan56 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Critical reception is excellent using the contemporary reviews - I added one from Rolling Stone but the ref may need some editing to fit the article. Any reason for avoiding the rating template?

I've revised and moved the Rolling Stone quote so that it stays in-topic with the rest. That template is optional and didn't seem to suit this article IMO--only Christgau (The Village Voice), Yanow (AllMusic) in a retrospective review, and now Morrison (Rolling Stone) rated the album, and their ratings have been easily worked into the prose, so the template would only be reiterating a few ratings. Dan56 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

All in all you have my Support DISEman (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Support. Article is well-balanced both in structure and content, sources cited seem reliable and plentiful. Friginator (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Semitransgenic

• Comment for a featured article, citing anonymous record reviews directly is not ideal, would prefer to see such content replaced with secondary source citations that make the observations the editor is drawing our attention to. Also, saying how something charted and then citing the chart as a source could be viewed as OR. Otherwise, aside from those minor points, looks OK to me. Semitransgenic _talk. 10:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean the line "...had no success on the American pop charts", Semitransgenic? Because that's attributed to a source that says this. Also, all the reviews cited in #Critical reception include the names of critics/authors of the reviews. Do you mean you'd prefer that there was a book that summarized the reviews itself? Citing reviews directly, however, is the most common practice in WP:ALBUMS articles, and there is a project page dedicated to such sources being cited (WP:ALBUM/SOURCE). Dan56 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Froglich

Oppose This article, while by no means bad, fails at present to (IMO) maintain good criteria. Quibbles: 1) While the article is indeed comprehensive (it's obvious that fans have poured in a lot of effort) it is arguably excessively so given the minimal notability of its subject (a poor-selling album by a musician with five dozen other works, many of which are demonstrably far more noteworthy (e.g., The Shape of Jazz to Come being inducted into the Library of Congress, etc) yet possessing small article size relative to this one. Featured status is generally granted to well-written articles in topics of widespread interest; 2) no references in the lead; 3) grammar and sentence construction less than optimal (e.g., absence of parenthesizing where appropriate, poor deployment of commas and semi-colons, etc); -- My advice is to tighten up the article to hang onto good status -- and be glad you have that in the first place.--Froglich (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Froglich, 1) What "fans"? I'm the only editor who has contributed to this article, which was this before I started working on it. It is based entirely on what reliable secondary sources have written about it--significant coverage establishes notability (WP:SIGCOV), not popular interest. And the majority of the coverage cited here is from high-quality book and journal sources, who've decided it warranted this much coverage, otherwise they wouldn't have written so "excessively" about it. And although I get where you're coming from, "widespread interest" has nothing to do with the FA criteria (WP:FACR), so personal opinions on its notability in relation to other articles shouldn't be a factor in your assessment, only the points listed at WP:FACR. There are top-importance articles that garner the attention of certain editors, and there are articles like this, which I chose simply because the album interested me at the time, as it often the case with FAs--their importance varies and isn't exclusive to top or high-importance articles. 2) If what's written in the lead is written and cited in the body, citations are redundant in the lead (WP:LEADCITE) 3) semicolons before conjunctions like and is an unnecessary, outdated practice ([4]) I don't see the reasoning behind this addition/revision with parenthesizing, which deemphasized the line about critical praise, used "featuring"--a present participle--in the first paragraph, and linked "harmolodic" (which is already linked in the first paragraph). Dan56 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• If you've been told that the rules of English grammar regarding sentence composition and punctuation are in some state of flux at present, you are have been led astray. (Grammar-monster at the vanguard of slovenliness does not impress those of us who know what we're doing.)--Froglich (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to sound uppity about this, or refrain from backing up your argument with anything saying otherwise. My point was your change was unnecessary, as Geraldine Woods brings up in Wiley AP English Language and Composition. Preferential grammar changes aren't necessary. Dan56 (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

<shrug> Believe what you want. Reality will intrude soon enough to spank all those bad commas.--Froglich (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• While I understand this article is your labor-of-love, that has no bearing on whether or not it is ultimately worthy of Featured status -- being informative and well-written are not the sole requirements. Only 0.1% of Wikipedia articles acquire Featured status. For example, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is a Featured article, yet neither the preceding nor succeeding Beatles album articles are accorded even Good status despite being written in the same format with the same arrangement and depth of information. I would guess Pepper is Featured because it contains A Day in the Life, which tops some industry lists as the greatest pop/rock song of all time. In other words, it is immensely notable as one of it not the most famous song by one of if not the most famous bands in history. -- If any article concerning Ornette Coleman becomes Featured, it will likely be the one concerning his album or single with the most significant historical resonance.--Froglich (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong impression of the GA and FA processes Froglich, and I don't see the relevance of other stuff existing when several other low-importance album articles have been promoted to FA status, including Confusion (album) (one of mine) and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded. If this irks you, then you can choose to abstain from reviewing, but what you're arguing isn't an "actionable objection" and isn't benefiting the review process in any way, to better the article for FA purposes. Please read WP:FACR--the level of importance of the article's topic is not part of the criteria. I'm beginning to feel there's an issue of understanding WP guidelines (WP:CIR) when you've overlooked the criteria page and basic MOS guidelines in your edit to the lead. Ian Rose, am I missing something? Dan56 (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't have time for a long reply now but it's quite correct that the perceived 'importance' of a subject has nothing to do with its potential to become a Featured Article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"Potential" is arbitrary wishing-for-ponies; I referenced an actual Featured article. Dan brings up two more (which shoot down his own notability-is-unnecessary argument: Confusion (on at least one Best 100 Album lists) and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded (which had two Grammy nominations) are considerably more successful and influential than Of Human Feelings. To reiterated a previously made point to Dan56, he should concentrate on improving the article concerning Coleman's best known and critically acclaimed work, or that of Coleman himself.--Froglich (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

GrahamColm, this reviewer's obstinacy and lack of competency are becoming an issue, as are his smug responses to every point I make in response to his arguments, which unlike mine, cite nothing to back up his claims. Disregard his review, because there are no actionable objections. Dan56 (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

And yet it was your bright idea to bring me in here, wasn't it? (Competence: having the brains necessary to realize that I wouldn't immediately club you with that upon the first hint of fallacious argumentum ad hominem.)--Froglich (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, you're using your personal definitions of Wikipedia guidelines and criteria. I attempted to randomly solicit reviews, rather than dubiously canvass editors I'm familiar with, whom I'd expect to be competent and have a grasp of those guidelines and criteria. You've been told by an FAC delegate that "importance" has nothing to do with the criteria, yet you continue to impose your personal criteria. How do you respond? By canvassing a retired editor you know opposed this article's previous FAC ([5]) Your review is losing more and more weight. Dan56 (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Would you care to wager on whether or not he still dislikes it?--Froglich (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Hamiltonstone

• Generally excellent
• In the 'critical reception' section, there are some words and phrases that sound like they could be quotes and if not, are perhaps not quite neutral / encyclopedic: eg "compositions that are clearly expressed and occasionally timeless"; "displays expressive immediacy rather than superficial technical flair"; "encompassing of a century of creative development in African-American music". It would be good if those offline sources were checked.

The first one is a paraphrase of this. The second is a paraphrase of "the emphasis is never on virtuoso pyrotechnics for their own sake, or in empty stylistic phrase mongering. In every composition there is a synergy of thought and feeling that communicates instantly." The last one is a paraphrase of "The music literally pours out of this ensemble in strains of melody and rhythm that sums up the last 100 years of creative development in Afro-American music." I don't think neutrality matters when the words/paraphrase are attributed to a source in the prose, eg. "Natambu of the Detroit Metro Times said" what would otherwise not be neutral if in Wikipedia's words. Dan56 (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I've tweaked one of the three; the others look OK. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• The present tense here strongly suggests it is a quote: "his more knowledgeable friends have found Of Human Feelings to be the best of the three albums..."

Present tense? Isnt "have found" past? Dan56 (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be "his more knowledgeable friends found..." but i realise i haven't used the right term - i'm nota grammar expert - but this phrase has him talking about the present - it sounds like a quote from a reporter of the period. Anyway, if it isn't a quote, then it isn't a quote... hamiltonstone (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Subject to these checks, i'm a support on prose, structure, comprehensiveness and referencing. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment from BananaLanguage

The third and fourth FAC reviews for this article were closed after a reviewer noticed what they perceived to be plagiarism. It is not clear to me that the nominator's attempts to address these accusations are sufficient ([6], [7]) because the types of close-paraphrasing that caused concern in the third review are quite different from simple lexical substitution. BananaLanguage (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@BananaLanguage:, I asked for an independent review (as requested in the previous FAC) from an experienced editor and significantly revised several parts of the article (many of which were unnecessary, but I did it anyway just in case anyone is still anal about it just because there were a some examples--and no more since--brought up by one or two editors in the past FAC). I did mention these revisions at the top of this FAC, if you didn't notice? In the above comment from hamiltonstone, I showed relevant portions of print sources to prove to the reviewer they were paraphrased properly. If your concern is based in something you can prove, then bring it up. Otherwise, I don't know exactly what you expect. Your comment doesn't seem to suggest anything practical. Dan56 (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

One practical option would be to invite GabeMc and Laser brain to randomly, or closely, inspect the article to check for too-close paraphrasing. BananaLanguage (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@BananaLanguage:, both retired not too long ago (User talk:GabeMc, User talk:Laser brain). And the burden would still be on me to dig up the sources I had originally found and write the relevant portions out for whoever is reviewing, which I demonstrated in the third FAC with at least one review in its entirety (the Detroit Metro-Times review), as well as the three that hamiltonstone asked about above. I've offered before to transcribe the relevant portions ([8]). The crux of this is whether these concerns or perception of close paraphrasing are yours, not theirs, and why, and also whether all these revisions since have made any difference in your opinion. Dan56 (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy requires that we assume good faith, however, this is proving difficult because you have a history [9] [10] [11] of close-paraphrasing sources. I think, in this case, it would be helpful if you could provide access to as many of the materials as possible, to help the community ensure this article is free of plagiarism. BananaLanguage (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

BananaLanguage, I don't have a history--you're citing what was an on-going dispute between I and GabeMc at Are You Experienced and at this article's past FAC again. As far as what sources I could "provide", I obviously could transcribe them all, but you don't expect me to do that, do you? I revised much of this article since that FAC you're bringing up, so perhaps you could request certain print sources citing the material that appears "untouched" or unrevised since that time. This is the diff between January when the last FAC happened and now. Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it would benefit this FAC review if you could provide the surrounding paragraph of text for all the sources marked as subscription required. BananaLanguage (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Those four sources marked "subscription required" are news sources behind a paywall. Unfortunately I cannot access those anymore, because I had found them through Google News Archive and its search result previews (rather than actually having a registered account for Newsbank); Google News Archive was shut down in December of last year (Google_News_Archive#History), after I had written the bulk of the article last Fall. Certain book sources cited in this article, however, can still be accessed (to an extent) without a paywall of any sort, either through GoogleBooks' previews or Amazon.com's preview. Dan56 (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

In that case, I can take a trip to the nearby deposit library and use their resources to do this for you. The time-frame I propose to complete this task is 15 days, due to other real-life commitments . BananaLanguage (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

n.p. go for it. Dan56 (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor

• All of the pictures need alternate text descriptions.

I recall GrahamColm saying in a previous FAC of mine that alt text isn't an FA requirement ([12]) Dan56 (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Even though the section isn't long, maybe you could split "Personnel" into two columns for musicians and additional personnel?

What do you mean? It already is lol (Of_Human_Feelings#Personnel) Dan56 (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think that splitting the "Bibliography" section into 30em columns would make it a touch more organized.

K, done WikiRedactor. Dan56 (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Other than that, I have nothing else to add; it is clear you've put in a lot of effort into this article because it is in great shape. I trust that you will handle the alternate text, and my other two suggestions are pretty much a matter of personal preference, so I am happy to give you my support. Great job! WikiRedactor (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Overall, looking very nice :). Just several things:

• When in 1982 was the album released?

None of the sources available or used specified, SNUGGUMS. Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• "According to jazz writer Francis Davis, 'a modest commercial breakthrough seemed imminent' for Coleman, whose celebrity appeared to be 'on the rise again'"..... meaning "celebrity status"? Also, you might wanna tweak the beginning to something like "Jazz writer Francis Davis sensed Coleman was about to have a 'modest commercial breakthrough'".

"Celebrity" is used as a noun here → "Fame, renown; the state of being famous or talked-about." I used "According to" so that it would read better as the leading sentence in that paragraph; the next sentence uses the structure you're suggesting: "[Writer so-and-so] said that..." Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've noticed there are no singles listed..... is this why the album has no chartings either?

I don't think jazz albums ever produce singles, but this album did not chart on any major charts. Only the Top Jazz Albums chart, but a "Charts" table/section is only necessary if there are multiple chartings (MOS:ALBUM#Charts) Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem, just thought I'd ask SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• The "M" in AllMusic should be capitalized.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Toledo Blade" should link to The Blade (newspaper)

Piped link, done. Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• "The Boston Phoenix" should link to The Phoenix (newspaper)

Piped link, done. Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Discogs is not a reliable source, so you'll have to take that out of the "External links"

It's not being cited as a source, just an external link, which have a different criteria for inclusion--"Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." (WP:ELMAYBE → "Links to be considered") Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I see..... has Discogs been approved of as EL (like IMDb)? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd assume so, since there was a template created just for it, which this article uses (Template:Discogs master), but the criteria for any EL is usually a site having relevant information that otherwise can't be worked into/cited into the article. Dan56 (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Very well. I now officially support. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 05:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This is incorrect, Discogs most certainly is a reliable source, given releases are verified among a number of users to ensure release details are verified. So I don't know where that idea comes from whatsoever. As for EL's, Discogs has been used across WP for YEARS now – where have you been, lol!? This is additionally the very reason there are also four clear EL templates for linking to Discogs pages accordingly, see here: Template:Discogs Jimthing (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

There's my 2¢. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 03:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Adabow

A comprehensive media review was last done in the article's second FAC, so I'll do another to see how things stand:

• File:Ornette Coleman - Of Human Feelings.jpg is non-free but is tagged and has an appropriate FUR. A source would be nice, however; was this scanned from an LP sleeve, or was it obtained online. If so, where (link)?
• File:Jamaaladeen Tacuma.jpg is cc-by-sa from Flickr, no evidence of Flickr washing.
• File:Ornette Coleman - Sleep Talk.ogg is sufficiently short and of low quality, per WP:SAMPLE
• File:Ornette at The Forum 1982.jpg is cc-by-sa from Flickr, no evidence of Flickr washing.

Support on criterion 3, although I'll reiterate that it'd be nice to have definite source of the album cover. Adabow (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Done ([13]) Dan56 (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WonderBoy1998

I'm running late at the moment but I have read through the article, and it's crisp and incorporates technical terms well. One thing-

• The lead's first two paragraphs both start with Of Human Feelings. I'd suggest altering the second one to "it" or "The album"

I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that grammatically if the paragraphs start that way, although I find it more clearer to readers than "it", and "the album" may not be clear with the reference to "1975 album Dancing in Your Head" in the second paragraph's first sentence. Dan56 (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Bleh

Other than that I will support this article, assuming that it will successfully pass a source check. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Flow Ridian

Dan56 asked me to comment here, so I'll make a few observations.

Lead

• "It was well received by critics". I think well-received need a hyphen.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• "However, the album made no commercial impact". I see this a lot on Wikipedia, and while many editors would not even mention it, this is a poor use of however, which should be used sparingly and should always follow a semi-colon.

Debatable → Linguistics professor Pam Peters insists that "there is no basis for suggesting that contrastive however should not appear at the beginning of a sentence" (The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, 2004). In fact, says The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage (2005), "placing however at the start of a sentence can emphasize the starkness of a contrast." Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Coleman enlisted his son Denardo as manager after a dispute with his former managers over the album's royalties, which inspired him to perform publicly again during the 1980s." Two things, 1) it's odd to use enlisted here, which sounds faintly militaristic. Maybe hired is better. 2) You need to clarify what which refers to, as you mention to distinct things, a) the dispute over royalties, and b) Coleman's hiring of Denardo. It would also be nice to avoid using "manager/managers" twice in such a short span. Maybe, "After a dispute with his former managers over the album's royalties, Coleman replaced them with his son Denardo."

a) The source cited (in the body, supporting what's in the lead) doesn't specify "hired", i.e. earning a wage for it. b) Would "...royalties, a change that inspired..." be better? Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That's seems better to me. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Background

• "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.[2]" This is a faulty parallelism, because wanted and prevent are in different tenses. Maybe "He taught his ... and prevented them from"?

Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• "He had been fired by jazz organist Charles Earland" The preceding proper noun is Coleman, but I think you mean Tacuma.

Revised. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Coleman encouraged him to remain what he called a 'naturally harmolodic' player.[6]" I don't know what this means, and I wonder if most casual readers will either. Is there a way to translate this so it's not jargon?

Well, the jargon is explained in depth in the first paragraph, so readers should ideally read that first lol. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm still wondering if this makes enough sense to casual readers. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Recording and composition

• "However, they encountered mechanical problems". Again, in high-quality writing we would not want to see the use of however unless it follows a semi-colon. It looks like you use this construction four times in the article; I suggest that you avoid this here and elsewhere.
• "Jazz writer Stuart Nicholson viewed it as a culmination of Coleman's musical principles". I think you want to use the definite article here, not an indefinite one.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• "a type of music that originated in 1970 and is characterized by intricate rhythmic patterns". This contains another faulty parallelism: originated is past tense, and "is characterized" is present tense.

Changed "is" to "was". Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Nix strummed variants on the melodies, while Ellerbee provided accented linear counterpoint.[20]" Omit the comma; it's unnecessary.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• "middle frequency" needs a hyphen.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• "collective improsivation" Spelling error.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• "and posits Coleman's extended solo against a dense". I think this is an odd use of posits. Instead of "and posits", maybe "juxtaposing".

Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Release and promotion

• "on which it spent 26 weeks" should be "where it spent".

Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• "According to Steve Lake of The Wire, Coleman offered only a "funk/jazz compromise" to consumers with the album and consequently appealed to neither market." This is awkward; maybe, "According to Steve Lake of The Wire, On Human Feelings offered a "funk/jazz compromise" to consumers and consequently appealed to neither market.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• "and did not conform to what he felt was the corny, romantic image of jazz that many of the genre's fans prefer". Either corny is the exact word from the source and should be in quotes, or it's a poor choice for encyclopedic writing.

The original word from the writer was "cornpone" which refers to characteristic of rural people, so would "simple" be better? Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If the original word is "cornpone", I would avoid using "corny", as it has an entirely different meaning. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Changed to "simple". Dan56 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Critical reception

• "Kofi Natambu of the Detroit Metro Times believed that Coleman's synergetic approach displays expressive immediacy rather than superficial technical flair". Faulty parallelism: "believed" and "displays" are different tenses.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• "have found" should be "find" or "consider".

Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• "the stylistically ambiguous music is potentially controversial and 'unratable, but worth checking out.'[35]" Check the article for compliance with LQ.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• "its discordant keys radically transmute conventional polyphony". This sounds like a close-paraphrase of jargon.

It's paraphrased from "The clashing keys require the biggest leap in faith, as they give strange dimensions to old-fashioned polyphony." This is a music article, some theory terms are expected. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that some terms are acceptable, but ideally these terms would then be linked. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"Polyphony" is linked, "key" is linked in #Background. Those two should be the only ones that can come off as jargon-y. Dan56 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• "On the other hand, Rolling Stone magazine's Buzz Morrison wrote" Swap "on the other hand" with "conversely" for a more encyclopedic tone.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Of Human Feelings was voted as the thirteenth best album of 1982 in the Pazz & Jop, an annual critics poll run by The Village Voice.[40] Christgau, the poll's creator and supervisor, ranked it number one in an accompanying list.[41] In a 1990 list for the newspaper, he named it the second best album of the 1980s.[42] At that point, Of Human Feelings was one of only 18 albums to have received Christgau's 'A+' grade, which the Press-Telegram called 'the ultimate accolade'.[43]" This strikes me as a bit off-topic, as it's too much about the poll and Christgau, and the "ultimate accolade" seems to be there to glorify Christgau, not the album. Is an A+ grade from Xgau really the "ultimate accolade", as in the best the entire world has to offer? This at least needs to be put in context that it's rare to get an A+ grade from Xgau. Then again, this is a somewhat obscure jazz album, which is just the sort of thing that Xgau loves. You need to trim this to stay on topic of the album.

I disagree; the "ultimate accolade" contextualizes the praise of the album. This is the most significant poll of American music critics, and the source cited--Press-Telegram--believes the "A+" from Xgau is the "ultimate accolade", and it is written as such, not as fact. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Really? Why is this article a good place to explain details about Christgau's rating system? I think this is wildly off-topic, and if it belongs in the article at all it's in an endnote, not in-line text. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not explaining anything about Christgau's rating system, just that the album being one of the few to receive an "A+" is notable (it'd seem less notable to readers without that characterization, which is attributed to the source as an opinion). Three sentences in the paragraph related to Christgau (two of which are accolades) don't seem off-topic or excessive. Furthermore, the last paragraph in this section deals with accolades, so "the ultimate accolade" would sort of be related to this. Dan56 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Does the cited source explicitly state that OHF is "one of only 18 albums to have received Christgau's "A+" grade"? Anyway, this is way too much detail about the poll and Xgau, and it's inherently misleading because Xgau is massively biased in favor of this type of music, but the way this is written it sounds as if OHF competes equally with the other albums Xgau has reviewed. This needs to be removed or significantly revised. Flow Ridian (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, of course it says OHF is "one of only...". Why else would I have cited it to support that sentence? Also, according to whom is Xgau massively biased in favor of this type of music? He acknowledged disliking "fusion jazz", yet this album and Jack Johnson were given "A+", suggesting he can reconcile that "prejudice" with a record he believes is good, regardless of its type. Dan56 (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you really arguing that Xgau is not a rabid jazz enthusiast who loves Ornette Coleman? The way this is written, it implies that the "ultimate accolade" in jazz music is to get an A+ grade from Xgau, which is beyond absurd and POV! I am strongly contending this language as written. Flow Ridian (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no mention of "jazz" in this paragraph. It doesnt imply that at all. I don't see how this is a POV issue when the source mentioning both the album and Christgau is a third-party who found it notable enough to point out what they pointed out. This complaint doesn't seem to be grounded in anything other than the bias you suspect Christgau has, which isn't even relevant since a) he's a critic, that's kinda part of their job, and b) he's admitted to disliking jazz styles like fusion and '30s jazz. As an aside, if he really did love Coleman, he would have written at least a word on The Shape of Jazz to Come at some point in his journalistic career ([14], [15]) Dan56 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The source is writing about Christgau, not Coleman and not OHF. You are bending over backwards to include the source not because of what it adds to the reader's understanding of OHF or Coleman, which it adds absolutely nothing to, but because it unduly glorifies Christgau. That's why I object to this language. The cited sources is a book-plug for Christgau, it's not even about Coleman. Flow Ridian (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Further, I think that you are misinterpreting and misrepresenting what the cited source actually says, which is "The 18 records given the ultimate accolade - an A-plus - include", but they are saying that an A+ is the "ultimate accolade" that Xgau gives, not that it's the "ultimate accolade" in the whole world!!! Flow Ridian (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting the source's words; "Ultimate accolade" is not synonymous with "highest grade", which is made abundantly clear in the preceding paragraph: "Each album is given a grade on a scale ranging from A-plus to E-minus." And what "bending over backwards"? I found the Press-Telegram source simply by putting the album title in Google News Archive. You seem to be the one making such an effort to contest this "language" and scrutinizing sources that make statements/claim I'm guessing you happen to disagree with, right? Dan56 (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Aftermath and legacy

• "After Coleman went over budget" should be "After Coleman had gone over budget".

Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• "'never saw a penny of the royalties.'[21]" Check for LQ.

Source cited was a quote → "... and I never saw a penny of the royalties." Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

What I mean was, "never saw a penny of the royalties" is not a complete sentence, so the full-stop should not be included inside the quote marks. There appears to be several issues in the article pertaining to LQ. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Also fixed the others ([16]). Dan56 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• "After showcasing his style of avant-garde jazz on the album, Tacuma became widely viewed as one of the most distinctive bassists since Jaco Pastorius." This is a wild claim, IMO, and at the very least this contentious text should be immediately followed by the source.

"If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient." (WP:OVERCITE) Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, this claim needs further verification from independent sources. I had never before heard Tacuma mentioned in the same sentence as Pastorius, and quite frankly it's a ridiculous claim, IMO. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Apart from your opinion on the matter, is this claim contradicted by "the prevailing view within the relevant community", or is Stuart Nicholson a questionable source here (self-published, conflict of interest, etc.)? I'm not going to research this in-depth, but a quick search with the two names offered these: [17], [18], [19]. I don't see why this is an exceptional claim @Flow Ridian:. This article cites three books written or co-written by Nicholson, and I don't know of a contrary view regarding this. Dan56 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see these cites as supporting the claim that Tacuma is in the same league as Pastorius, which is what you are implying. By "mentioned in the same sentence" I meant to compare their relative abilities and influence. Stuart Nicholson is one source, and per WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Flow Ridian (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any saying otherwise. Why do you consider this an exceptional claim? Dan56 (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The way it's written, you would think that Tacuma ranks significantly high on lists of electric bassists in jazz music, but TMK he does not. He is usually not even mentioned. Flow Ridian (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

An NPR blog which qualifies itself with "We obviously can't cover all the 'basses' with five artists and songs, so be sure to tell us your favorite electric jazz bass players and performances in the comments", which lead to two that do. Nicholson is a "high-quality source", and the timeframe of the viewpoint he's summarizing is the 1980s. Dan56 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see him near the top of any lists, do you? If you do, then why not add a source or two so this isn't an issue? Flow Ridian (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

What "lists"? What does that have to do with the "one of the most distinctive bassists" claim? Dan56 (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It presents Tacuma as on a similar level as Pastorius, which is ridiculous. Flow Ridian (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Nicholson is a high-quality source; I don't see you questioning any other material attributed to him throughout this article, so the fact that you're citing your personal opinion here undermines the complaint. Also, "distinctive" doesn't suggest greatness but uniqueness. Dan56 (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty much all I can find. Flow Ridian (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed most of the concerns, did my best to respond to the rest, @Flow Ridian:. Let me know if I overlooked or misunderstood anything. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I made some follow-up comments above, but I hope you come to your senses regarding the Christgau excess. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, per FACR 1d: "neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias", at least until this business about over-emphasizing Christgau and misrepresenting the cited source is resolved. The Press-Telegram source is saying that an A+ from Christgau is the "ultimate accolade" that he gives in Record Guide: The 80's, not that it's an "ultimate accolade" in the music world. Flow Ridian (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"Ultimate accolade" is not synonymous with "highest grade", which is made abundantly clear by the source in the sentence right before the reference to "the ultimate accolade": "Each album is given a grade on a scale ranging from A-plus to E-minus." There's no reason for the source reiterate the fact that A+ is Christgau's highest grade. This is a gripe based on some point-of-view issue you seem to have with jazz and this particular critic, rather than WP:FACR. Dan56 (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Look, you asked me to review the article, so I did. You should be thanking me, not debating my oppose. Now please show some class, and stop arguing with everyone who disagrees with you. Flow Ridian (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I've corrected every legitimate concern and appreciate that you pointed them out. But these two aren't such concerns, and you were welcome to disregard the message/invitation like I said. I've defended them and responded to your belief that it's misrepresenting and overemphasizing that critic, which is your basis for opposing smh. Don't accuse me of classlessness when you've interjected these concerns with an appeal to personal opinions ("ridiculous", "absurd", etc.) Dan56 (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why you insist on personalizing this, but I must say that you've acted aggressive and immature. I don't dislike jazz music or Christgau, in fact I have a deep respect for both. That's not the issue here, which is that the Press-Telegram source is using the "ultimate accolade" in terms of Christgau's rating system, not as in the entire world of music. E.g., a grammy award for best jazz album would certainly top an A+ grade from Christgau, right? Maybe you should ask a delegate to take a look at the source and decide which one of us is reading it incorrectly. GrahamColm, are you interested in weighing-in here? Flow Ridian (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

A Grammy Award for best jazz album? A music industry conceit as voted by a seemingly anonymous panel industry people not from the journalistic community? I strongly disagree, but once again we are venturing into opinions. I responded to your concern about it being "in terms of Christgau's rating system": what neither of us can disagree on is the fact that the Press-Telegram outlines the grade range in the sentence directly before it; I should also point out how silly it'd be for them to have to characterize an "A+" in the context you're suggesting since almost everyone in America is familiar with the letter grade system, so why would they have to reiterate that it's the "ultimate" grade in the letter grade system? Btw, I did ping you at Talk:Of Human Feelings#Last sentence in Critical reception, so maybe GrahamColm should be directed there if he has an opinion on the matter? Dan56 (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If you'd been listening to anything I've said, you'd see I mentioned it numerous times that it is being attributed as the opinion of the newspaper; it'd be an exceptional claim if it was written as fact. And it's not an advertisement; the original source is part of a larger music column in the Press-Telegram, but the source now available (since Google News Archive became defunct last Fall) shows it as a reprinted blurb. Dan56 (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You are really stretching to justify this point, which again has nothing to do with OHF and everything to do with Christgau. According to this source, the NEA Jazz Masters is the Nation's Highest Honor in Jazz, not an A+ grade from Xgau. Do any actual jazz musician's cite an A+ from Christgau as the "ultimate accolade"? Flow Ridian (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

"Stretching"? You're the one making this about "the highest honor in jazz" (?) and finding websites to support your effort to get this opinion from the Press-Telegram removed, while continuing to put words in both my mouth and the source's; there's no mention of jazz honors in the Press-Telegram. Refer to Talk:Of Human Feelings#Last sentence in Critical reception, where I pointed out the Press-Telegram begins their blurb by contextualizing its relevance to music criticism, which the #Critical reception section is entirely about. You can disagree with the Press-Telegram's position, but their opinion is verifiable and ties to the inclusion of Christgau's "A+" grade in this paragraph and the paragraph's dealing with accolades, and IMO you should have more than your own difference of opinion to make an argument for its removal. Dan56 (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

To use this article as a platform to declare that an A+ grade from Christgau is the "ultimate accolade" in all of music is to make an exceptional claim, and per WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." So, do any other sources support this statement, or is this solely the opinion of an anonymous writer who is basically writing an advertisement that plugs one of Christgau's books? Flow Ridian (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, if this is the major complaint remaining in the review, any further responses regarding this by me will be at the talk page, where it's being discussed. Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Is it proper FAC protocol to spam notify close to 100 editors to review this article? It looks like another editor tallied 55, but that was three weeks ago, and I notice that Dan56 has put out another 30-40 notices since then. "Indiscriminately sending announcements to editors can be disruptive for any number of reasons. If the editors are uninvolved, the message has the function of "spam" and is disruptive to that user's experience ...The inclusion of links to discussions, including featured content nominations, in signatures, has been found to be disruptive spamming.[3] (emphasis added) Flow Ridian (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

According to Simon Burchell ([20]) and Maunus ([21]) in that discussion you linked, there's no problem with my having done so. I don't expect even 1/20 of those solicited to respond. I'm wondering why you've chosen to bring this up now though. Dan56 (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm bringing this up now, because you appear to be manipulating the Wikipedia consensus process by canvassing people to discussions in which you have a conflict of interest. Since you're pinging people, maybe Froglich and BananaLanguage would like to add to this discussion. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If this is what I called it in my edit summary, I'm not bothering contesting it anymore. I've revised it, Flow Ridian. Dan56 (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

That's better, but it does not address the fact that Xgau is mentioned (i.e., name dropped) 5 times in the section. Why is it notable that OHF was ranked the "thirteenth best album of 1982" in the Pazz and Jop poll? Flow Ridian (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)