Talk:Nicolaus Ricci de Nucella Campli

Disclosures, Stub

Two slight disclosures: I have edited a volume with John Nádas and I have a completion of another piece recorded on the Micrologus CD. I do not believe that either of these facts amounts to a conflict of interest in writing the article, but I felt they should be mentioned. Before slapping a "stub" template on the article, I ask editors to see if they can find any more information on the composer. It's a short article, but I believe it's fairly complete. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Biography project quality classification.

I notice that this article has been labelled "C" on the Biography Project quality scale. This means that the assessor feels that it is "missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material", that it "may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup", or that it "may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research". It would be helpful if the assessor could explain the perceived problems with this article and indicate how they might be resolved. --Deskford (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I doubt if the assessor read the article or this talk page or will ever be back. Biography Project likes drive by tagging based purely on article length. FWIW, there are no photos of Nucella. I'll cut the Composers C assessment so they can reassess, but there's no point in removing the "C" for biography; someone will just put it back. It's one of the main reasons I rarely contribute WP articles -- the annoyance of having someone who knows nothing about the topic slapping a "C" on largely complete work. They'll probably say that experts should be consulted (though they all were already) we should include a photo of Strasbourg or something equally irrelevant to the article. Another article I wrote wouldn't pass an assessment until a photo of a cathedral built three centuries later was added. I've tried just to let go. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to think that it is best to put some rating on articles until some expert comes along to fix it, but I am happy to remove it.--Grahame (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've re-rated with my opinion in the edit summary. The article was written by a topic expert, and it certainly looks like a good article to me. Antandrus (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Antandrus. That seems a fairer assessment. I don't normally pay much attention to these quality scale tags, but in this case the original assessment seemed way off the mark. A very nice article Myke - always good to read about a composer I'd never heard of before! --Deskford (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Antandrus. Grahamec -- I do appreciate your efforts to improve the encyclopedia, but I disagree with assessing without knowledge of the subject for the sake of assessing except in the case of some very pressing issues (BLP etc.); I think that Wikipedia rightly avoids a policy that inaccurate information is better than none. Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Default sort

I reverted the addition of a default sorting as "Campli, Nicolaus Ricii de Nucella" because I'm pretty sure this is inappropriate – Campli was not his surname. I'm not sure how he should be sorted though. Any ideas or opinions? --Deskford (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Either as Nicolaus (hence no sort needed) or as Nucella Campli, Nicolaus Ricii de, but better as the former. See Di Bacco/Nádas article. Definitely not Campli. :-) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

Thanks for working on this article, but I'm not sure there is enough content to bring this to GA level. It's just so sparse, for reasons outside of anyone's control, I would have trouble calling the coverage "broad". I'm not saying this as a reviewer, merely giving my opinion. Hekerui (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay -- I figured that since this is 100% of the information that exists about the composer, this would be pretty broad. :-) but I like your tone in rejecting it. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nicolaus Ricii de Nucella Campli/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 12:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well. I will be making my review comments over the next couple of days.

Side note, I would love some input on a couple of Featured List candidate NWA World Historic Welterweight Championship. I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but all help is appreciated.  MPJ-US  12:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mscuthbert: - I am confused by the naming of the article, reading the lead I see the following names

• Nicolaus Savini Mathei
• Ricii de Nucella Campli
• Niccolò Ricci
• Nucella,

None of those are the actual name of the article? Why is that?  MPJ-US  21:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Toolbox

I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.

Peer review tool

• WP:LEAD is too short. should be two paragraphs please.
• Are there no info boxes for composers or singers?
• Artice is short - 2968 k of "readable prose", 503 words. That's on the short side for a Good Article, but the criteria is really if it's "broad" in coverage, I will be reviewing that further down the page.

Copyright violations Tool

• No issues Y

Disambiguation links

• No issues Y

External links

• No issues Y

Well Written

• "Only a single work by Nicolaus is known," does not need the comma
• "From his name we can guess", for an encylopedic article this is a problem, saying "we can guess", if it was phrased that "scholars guessed" or something that may be better but still borderline weasel word
• "In February 13, 1436" should be "on", the word "in" would be approprate for "February 1436"
• "On recommendation from the Cardinal" should be "On the recommendation of the Cardinal"
• There is only a source for the statement that it was not by Zachara, not who it was actually written by?
• Question - If no other work of his has been preserved how would they know that it was Nicolaus' and not someone else?
• "Nicolaus Ricii's ballata "De bon parole" was edited in Polyphonic Music" I am not sure that the term "editited" is appropriate here, "Polyphonic Music of the Fourteenth Century" is a book right?
• The Edition and recording section is confusing, looking like it's trying to give a citation half way through it?

Sources/verifiable

• Reference 4 needs more data than just the title, which does not actually match the title on the web page. Also I am not sure what this is actually supposed to source?
• Reference 13 also needs more data about the actual source - consider checking out the various parameters for the template:cite web options.
• The "Edition and recording" section is basically unsourced except for the very last claim.

Broad in coverage

• It is really short and very narrow in coverage, it cannot even narrow down his birth year or death year? Reading this I get the impression that it's believed that he wrote this one piece with the name "Nucella" on it and that seems to be the only notable event? And I see no source actually stating that the person mentioned in the "life" section is the same guy in the "music" section - considering "Nucella" seems to be a place reference that's quite a leap. I know that the furter back history goes the lower the bar on "notable" is, but this is nuding at the bar from what's presented in this article.

This is really the sticking point of this article, the "music" section covers the work, but does very little to tie it to the guy this article is about. No sources cited to cover that. This would have to be addressed and sourced to be considered a "good article"

Neutral

• No issues Y

Stable

• Looks okay, no issues Y

Illustrated / Images

• license ect. checks out for the image, shame there is nothing on the actual composer

@Mscuthbert: - There are some baisc issues, the article does not really state his notability nor clearly link the person with the piece. I am going to put this on hold for up to 7 days to allow for adjustments to be made. MPJ-US  22:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Alright, well good luck. MPJ-US  10:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Withdraw

Ah, thanks -- I withdraw the Nomination. And I'll take another 6 month wikibreak. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)