Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2018

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2018 [1].

Lisa Simpson

[edit]
Nominator(s): AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has been eight years since the last featured article candidate has been initiated on this article. Over the eight years, editors have improved the issues once present. This is the third FAC in the Simpsons family Featured Topic. I believe this article represents all the positive qualities of a FA. AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment

[edit]

If this is to become a featured article you will need to deal with unsourced comments such as "Lisa Simpson was mentioned at the 2018 CPAC when Senator Ted Cruz called the Democratic Party "The Party of Lisa Simpson", as opposed to the Republican Party being the party of the rest of the family." There are other instances of paragraphs ending with uncited statements, which need attending to. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

My concern from a procedural (and practical) perspective is that, per FAC instructions, nominators should be among the main editors of the article, and the nominator seems to have made only two edits. Granted many of the main editors no longer seem active but in that case I think we really should put this through Peer Review first. Once that's done, the nominator would also be eligible for the FAC mentoring scheme. I'm therefore going to archive this as out-of-process and recommend PR as the next step. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2018 [2].

George Washington

[edit]

The article has been a GA for several years now, and after months of work has greatly improved in its scope and comprehensiveness. — Gwillhickers (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the biography of George Washington. Gwillhickers (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose and I suggest this nomination should be withdrawn. The prose throughout is well below FA standard and is often completely unintelligible. I constantly had to re-read sentences. For example, "The British government had ordered Dinwiddie to guard British territorial claims in the Ohio River basin as protection for entrepreneurial interest there in settlements and Indian trade." I have read this sentence several times and I still can't understand it. Graham Beards (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with what Graham says, and there are other issues. When this was peer-reviewed six years ago it had 9,500 words; it now has over 16,000, so a great deal of unreviewed text has been added. I wondering, too, why an article with so many subarticles (some extremely lengthy) needs to be this long? There seems to be plenty of scope for summarising and eliminating unimportant detail, to get this article down to a more reasonable length. I don't think the necessary reconstruction and prose rewrites can take place within the timescale of an FAC. A new peer review, with contributions from some of our experienced presidential biographers, might be the appropriate forum. Brianboulton (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also in agreement on this. Certainly there needs to be some serious editing, and I found enough confusion of text (in addition to that which Graham Beards mentions, to warrant a significant revision. Although I'm not a US presidential biographer (I've done mostly European biographies), I do have a background in US history and could probably help. If not, I'll revisit the revised article at GA/FA. auntieruth (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx for your prompt comments. The sentence Graham Beards refers to makes perfect sense to me, so I'm not clear about what the issue there is, but I went ahead and simplified it. In any case, each topic is presented in summary form, while still presenting it in "context". FA criteria, as you know, maintains that the subject "overlooks no major details" and present the subjects (sections) in context. Many major details were missing several months ago. Dedicated articles are for in depth coverage of specific topics, which doesn't mean we present a given topic here in outline form. A healthy amount of textual overlap should be welcomed between this article and any given dedicated article.
There are several other FA presidential articles that are lengthy because the subject covered is very involved. — In this case we have Washington, his early years, his years before the American Revolution, as a surveyor, as a soldier during the French and Indian War, and of course his iconic role during the American Revolution. Then there is his two terms as president and final years. To cover all of these topics/chapters, comprehensively, even in summary form, requires space, length. This is not to say there are no improvements needed anywhere. Generic claims that the article is "..often completely unintelligible"(?) and should be rewritten, after it has been authored and/or peer reviewed by several editors very knowledgeable in the subject, along with a professional editor, isn't very helpful. We'll be happy to accommodate any specific issues. Meanwhile, I'll see if I can make improvements in the prose. Thanx again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll get to the review in due course if this nom remains (I'll hold off for now) but I did read the legacy and I think it could use some material on how the public (and academic) view of Washington has changed over the years. Anyway, I'll get out of the way for now. Ping me when you want me to loo at the article. Good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wehwalt:, Thanks for your comments. You are not in the way at all. If you see something that could use improvement, or modification, by all means have at it! I'm currently looking for examples of the text being "completely unintelligible", and haven't found anything, but am still looking for ways to improve and simplify any text that may need it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

As usual, I'm primarily looking at references and reference formatting, and not at the prose at all. I rarely outright oppose on these grounds because, frankly, formatting problems are generally minor and easily corrected. That's not the case here. This referencing is a mess. All comments based on this version:

§References, general problems:

  •  Fixed — You have harv template errors in References 7, 33, 41, 63, and 85.
  • Both book-format and online sources are covered in §Bibliography. So... why are some sources exclusively inlined in §References?
  •  Fixed — You are not consistent about whether page ranges are given in short form (such as 258–72) or not (such as 283–284). I'd prefer the latter, but consistency is the most important part here.
  •  Fixed — A considerable number of referenced page ranges use hyphens in place of en dashes. The easiest way to highlight these is to use the browser find function and type a hyphen, then look at the reference section. Reference 10 is the first of these, but there are many. A few of them (including references 275, 289, etc.) use equally-incorrect em dashes.

§References, specific entries:

  •  Fixed — Reference 1 is a citation for the date of Washington's marriage. Surely you can do better than providing a 1000+ page range?
  •  Fixed — Reference 26 is not formatted in the same style as the standard for the article. And lacks an ISBN.
  •  Fixed — Is there a reason no page number is cited for refernece 35? Reference 59?
  •  Fixed — No matter how you resolve the date range formatting problem, reference 86 has "68–7", which is simply incorrect.
  •  Fixed — Reference 90 has formatting problems that break the harv linking, and make a mess of the text.
  •  Fixed — Why do you give a chapter number in lieu of references to specific pages in reference 126? Reference 240?
  • Reference 129 has "pp." for a single page.
  • removed - item covered by following cite — Reference 142 is not formatted in the same manner as your other online references, and has insufficient bilbiographic information.
  •  Fixed — Reference 150 has "p." for multiple pages. Also, these pages are not listed in order.
  • ? This cite is for Van Doren — Reference 151 does something very nonstandard with the pages cited for Chernow 2010.
  •  Fixed Reference 162 has "p." for multiple pages.
  • Something is wrong with reference 164.
  • Removed -- 2nd cite not needed Reference 180 is not formatted even a little like the standard for the article and lacks an ISBN. Also, this is a book-format reference, so will need a citation to a page or page range.
  •  Fixed — Refernece 188 is not formatted correctly because there is a comma before the date. That aside, 2011 appears to be a retrieval date, not a publication date, so that's also wrong. The same thing applies to a different source at reference 251.
  •  Fixed — Reference 189 is presumably missing an en dash entirely. I assume that you are citing pp. 178–179 rather than p. 17879.
  • My script isn't throwing a harv error for reference 197, but I think you have one. You're either missing a Bibliography entry for Henriques 2009, or this should reference Henriques 2006, in which case you should have a page number here.
  •  Fixed Reference 250 is malformed.
  •  Fixed Reference 253 is malformed.
  • Removed statement and questionable citation Reference 256 is incorrect. This National Portrait Gallery page about Stuart's Athenaeum portrait is not, itself, by Gilbert Stuart.
  • Reference 261 has a problem. This piece was originally published in a journal (The Riversdale Letter), which was reprinted at Americanrevolution.org. The citation given tries to have it both ways, attributing the work to the journal (and giving the journal publication date), but actually referencing the website. If you are able to cite the physical journal, you'll need additional information here (volume/issue, page range). If not, you need to cite the website. But I'm not 100% convinced the website constitutes a high-quality reliable source. In any case, I'm fairly confident that you can source this to something of higher quality.
  •  Fixed — Not only does reference 265 cite a chapter instead of a page range, but it does so in a totally incorrect format.
  •  Fixed — Reference 268 appears to be malformed.
  •  Fixed — Reference 269 is better than some of these chapter references because it refers to a specific note, but that really needs to be cited to page number. Same with 302.
  •  Fixed — Reference 278 doesn't match other book reference formatting.
  •  Fixed — Reference 296 has "p." for multiple pages.
  •  Fixed — Reference 306 cites Chernow 2010 without a page number; this one is particularly striking because reference 305 cites a page in the same work!
  • Harv linking is broken in reference 314, probably because it is not done in the same manner as the rest of the references. Also, page numbers. — Checked this, harv linking page numbers appear OK
  • More page/chapter shenanigans in reference 315.
  •  Fixed — "Footnotes" is not a page reference, in reference 321.
  •  Fixed — Reference 326 is malformed.
  •  Fixed — Reference 329 is not a properly formatted reference to the US Code. That said, surely you can find a secondary source to support this?
  •  Fixed — No page number in reference 333 or 344.
  •  Fixed — Reference 334 is another citation to chapter.
  • There are a bunch of sources stuffed into references in the last 10 entries, and I'm pretty sure all of them have at least some formatting shortcoming, but to be honest I sort of glazed past them at this point.

§Bibliography, general problems:

  • Books without assigned ISBNs ideally need OCLCs.
  • ISBNs should ideally be presented as properly hyphenated ISBN-13s.
  •  Fixed —The book source list is not in alphabetical order (Bassett > Haworth > Bell; Carp > Carlson; and so on). The online source section is worse, and in no evident order whatsoever.
  •  Fixed — Publication locations are optional, but they're all or nothing. Sometimes you give them. Sometimes you don't.
  •  Fixed — Also, there's no consistency about how you're formatting publication locations. I see "Whitefish, MT", "Madison, Wis", "Lanham, Md" (this one is simply incorrect), "Princeton, New Jersey". In the first column of sources, I see "New York", "New York City", and "New York, New York".
  • Books don't generally need retrieval dates; links to online copies of print material are considered convenience links. The print itself, obviously, isn't subject to change. That said, some people seem to disagree with me on this point, and I would likely not hold this against you if it were the only problem.
  • Not all of these are book sources. If you're going to break the bibliography up by media, the journal articles need to be pulled out separately, I think. Publishers aren't generally required for scholarly journals unless needed to clearly identify the periodical in question.
  • I'm not sure I understand your criteria for the "Primary sources" breakout, when you cite Washington's journal in the books...

§Bibliography, specific entries:

  • Is Banning's contribution to the Vann-edited work titled separately? I bet it is, which will warrant a chapter title here.
  • Betts (2013) is a self-published book and not a reliable source.
  •  Fixed — Because not everything in this bibliography is templated for harv references correctly, it's not always obvious when a title is unused, and there's enough problems here that I'm simply not going to audit that for you right now. At a minimum, Burt (1906) doesn't appear to be cited in the text.
  •  Fixed — Carlson (2016) probably doesn't need a chapter title, as the chapters don't have individual authorship. However, what is given here is not how any of the chapters are actually titled, and so is incorrect.
  • The source cited as Croll (1911) is a mess. Notwithstanding that it isn't formatted correctly, it also isn't cited correctly. It isn't by Croll, even as an editor. It also isn't a book. It's a bound edition of a periodical, scanned by Google and treated by Google Books as if it were a book. Everything about this citation is wrong, and that's even assuming you consider the history article written by the pseudonymous "Pennsylvania Dutchman" to be a reliable source.
  •  Fixed — The editorial note in the Elkins reference is probably not helpful here.
  • Engber (2006) is listed in the book-format sources, but is an online article.

...and to be entirely honest, that's simply the point at which I stopped taking notes and concluded that I needed to oppose. That's not a comprehensive list of problems. Just looking back at the article to eyeball-scan the other sources, there are two editions of Hindle in the bibliography, but only one is referenced. And so on. I didn't even get to the "online sources" section, where I'm sure even more significant problems would await. I have no idea of the condition of the prose; I haven't even read this article. But there's enough wrong in the references at a fundamental level that I just can't support this article being ready for FAC much less for the bronze star itself. I'm very sorry. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: I am thoroughly impressed with your in depth review, and your patience. I've spent much time removing templates and url adresses, and trying to bring a single citation convention to the article, but obviously there's much more work to be done. I am considering withdrawing the nomination but will discuss the mater first on the Washington Talk page. Many thanks for your arduous effort. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Squeamish Ossifrage: Many thanks for your in-depth review. Greatly appreciated. Shearonink (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

I wanted to give this nom a few days to gather initial comments but I think we should call a halt now and work on improvements away from the pressures of FAC. I agree with Brian that another Peer Review should be the next stop on the way to a future nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2018 [3].

Sonic Gems Collection

[edit]
Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 22:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to say about this one. The article is really nice and compact, and I think it really covers its subject well. For those who don't know about this: Sonic Gems Collection is a 2005 compilation of video games (mostly Sonic, but a few others) published by Sega for the PlayStation 2 (only in non-American regions, though) and GameCube. It got mixed reviews; although the inclusion of rarities like Sonic CD and Vectorman were universally praised by reviewers, opinions about the rest of the compilation were conflicting. I think it's a great read and am convinced meets the FA criteria. Enjoy! JOEBRO64 22:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

Starting with (and focusing on) sourcing, but I'll wander into other topics when I notice things. This shouldn't be considered a comprehensive prose review.

  • Including a publisher for web (and periodical) sources is optional (some people will argue that it's discouraged, especially for periodicals, but we allow editors a lot of mileage when defining their own house citation style). That said, optional referencing aspects are all-or-nothing, and you've got a mix of "publisher cited" and "publisher ignored", which isn't okay. Furthermore, there's an argument to be made that you don't always cite the publisher correctly. Let's look at reference 1, an article at IGN, with the publisher given as Ziff Davis. It is correct that Ziff Davis was the publisher/owner of IGN when you accessed that source in 2018 (and when it was archived in 2016). But I'm not sure it's correct to say that Ziff Davis published that article, because IGN was owned by Imagine Media at the time that it was actually published.
    • I've removed them for the online sources. After I wrote this, I was told listing publishers for online references is incorrect usage as it's meant for books or non-italicized works. JOEBRO64 19:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The GameZone article has a byline, albeit a pseudonymous one (kombo). I like to notate those with "[pseud.]" but consensus as I generally understand it is to cite bylined authors even when it's clear they're not writing under their legal name.
  • Is the best reference for the unlocked demos just to cite in-game content? Likewise, attributing "Sonic the Fighters is a proper port" to the game's credits? I'm not saying that there might not be caused to do so, but... Also, the two citation entries to in-game content are formatted somewhat differently.
    • The game is the best reference for the demos because they're not really mentioned in any reviews; just the game and its manuals. Sonic the Fighters info can be sourced to the credits because there is "console conversion" staff listed. As for formatting, I've turned them into a single reference, rather than two differently formatted ones. JOEBRO64 19:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike articles with pseudonymous bylines, precedent as generally been to simply omit the author for staff credits. I wouldn't ding someone who wants to cite "IGN staff" as the author, but you certainly can't pretend that's a first/last name by presenting it "Staff, IGN".
  • I have no idea what that Cube reference is. I assume it's the defunct GameCube-specialist magazine with that title, but that means the citation is badly incomplete.
    • It's been like that for years, and while I've added the publisher I'm not sure which issue it was. The scan that exists doesn't provide a date or issue number so the only clue to when it was published is that both SADX and Sonic Mega Collection were just announced. As this happened in July 2002, I'm pretty sure this puts it at issue 8 or 9 but I could be wrong. I've asked for input at WT:VG. JOEBRO64 23:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Hardcore Gaming 101 a high-quality reliable source?
  • Your two Nintendo Power references are not formatted in quite the same way.
  • Do any sources address the Playstation 2 version separately (obviously, you'd be looking at sources outside the US here)?
  • This got a first release in Japan; was there any coverage in the Japanese gaming media?
  • I know this got a review in Electronic Gaming Monthly. Did they say anything different from the other sources that might make that worth citing here?
  • FAC's most picky detail: when you use multiple citations to support a single sentence, those references should appear in numerical order (that is, [2][3] rather than [3][2]). You've got a few of these, but since there may be some work to do in the referencing in general, this is the sort of thing you clean up last.
  • Prose... needs work in places. From the lead: "Some reviewers were disappointed by the absence of the Streets of Rage titles in the North American version due to problems with the Entertainment Software Rating Board and other Sonic games like Knuckles' Chaotix and Sonic the Hedgehog Pocket Adventure." So... the absence of Streets of Rage' was due to problems with ... other Sonic games like Knuckles' Chaotix and Sonic the Hedgehog Pocket Adventure? This sentence doesn't say what you mean for it to say.
  • §Gameplay lists a bunch of platforms this inherited from, then mostly fails to connect those to the list of games, sometimes in confusing ways. "The Japanese version also features four other Genesis games by Sega...", but "other" is awkward here, as none of the previously mentioned games were identified as originating on the Genesis.
  • ...and, actually, I'm concerned that the approach to the regional variants presents US-centrism. This game was first released in Japan, so there's a strong argument to be made that the article shouldn't present the JP/EU version as having additional games, but rather describe that as the baseline, with the US version lacking some of the titles (indeed, that's pretty much how sources seem to describe the situation also).
  • Why do you describe Sonic Spinball as "pinball-centric"? The source cited certainly doesn't use that phrase, and pretty much every reference to the game (on its own merits) that I can find simply calls it a pinball game.
  • "...the remaining six Game Gear games..." Consider a footnote identifying these?
  • "When a demo is selected, the player is given a time limit to finish the selected title's final level." This seems unclear to me. Does the demo include only the final level? Does it include the whole game, but there's a time limit? Does it include the whole game, but there's a time limit that applies only to the final level?
    • The "demo" starts by putting you in the final level of the respective game. If you complete the level, you can keep playing the game until time is up. I've hopefully clarified this. JOEBRO64 20:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Thank you for reviewing! I've responded to your points above. JOEBRO64 23:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quick follow-ups: As the footnote is not a complete sentence, it doesn't need a period. That said, I think this is much improved. I wish there was an independent source for the "proper port" claim, rather than just the "Console conversion" team in the credits. I don't have access to this book; do you have any idea if it has any relevant content? Finally, much as I hate to draw lines, I'll note that I really cannot support FA promotion while the Cube reference lacks sufficient bibliographical information. You'll either need to figure out an issue/date on that, or else re-source what it's supporting, I suspect. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Squeamish Ossifrage: Thanks for following up! I've removed period in the note and the Cube reference, which I replaced it with other reliable sources. Unfortunately The History of Sonic the Hedgehog's doesn't have anything to add to this article; just passing mentions about how a game was in it. JOEBRO64 22:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I don't mind if you go ahead and close this. It looks like this is unlikely to garner any more comments (considering how long it's been open for) and I'm currently prepping another article (The Death of Superman) for FAC, which I'd rather have open than this one. JOEBRO64 19:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: Please note that the two-week waiting period before nominating another article applies here. --Laser brain (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2018 [4].

History of the Nashville Sounds

[edit]
Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a history of the Nashville Sounds Minor League Baseball team. It was recently split from the team's article, which is a Featured Article, due to its large size. I believe it meets the FA criteria in content, format, and referencing, though it may benefit from additional sets of eyes. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments – Happy to see an article like this appear at FAC. Here's what I found to comment on from the early part of the page:

  • Prior professional baseball in Nashville: "who were charter members the original Southern League from 1885 to 1886...". Needs "of" before "the".
  • Getting a team and building a ballpark: Don't need the Minor League Baseball link here, since there was already one in the previous section.
  • "for a period of 20 years as long he built a stadium with a minimum capacity of 6,500 at a cost of at least $400,000 within 10 years." Needs another "as" after "long", to go with the one before that word.
  • Again, Nashville Vols doesn't need a link here since it has one earlier.
  • Cincinnati Reds (1978–1979): "Much of the sod that been laid that winter died". Need "had" before "been".
  • "In fact, Nashville went on to lead the Southern League in attendance in each of their seven seasons as members of the league." The first two words don't serve much of a purpose in an encyclopedia article. I'd hope this statement was a fact; otherwise it shouldn't be included in the first place.
  • "Add "the" in "At end of two seasons at Double-A...". Better yet, just make it "After two seasons".
  • American Association: No hyphen is needed in "entirely-new franchise".
  • Detroit Tigers (1985–1986): "until Gordon Mackenzie was brought on to lead the club for the rest of year." Needs "the" before "year".

On the positive side, I like the fact that you've blended in information on off-field matters such as attendance data and logo information with the on-field results. I know from experience with a very similar article that it can be hard to merge these disparate elements into a smooth read that is comprehensive for the subject, and you've done a good job of that in the sections that I read. However, my initial impression is that the article needs some copy-editing work. I'm seeing a lot of little glitches, such as missing words, some awkward bits of writing, and a bunch of repeated links. If you and the coordinators can wait a couple of days, I'd like to take a shot at doing some copy-editing/cleanup myself. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • So I've finished cleaning up some of the writing and it looks better now. My last remaining concern is whether 262 Down Right (references 1, 4, and 8) can be considered a high-quality reliable source. It looks like a blog-type site from what I can tell. I'm not doing a full source review here, but whomever does that review will likely need to be persuaded that this site is reliable enough to be used in an FA. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: This has been open for more than a month without attracting any support for promotion, so it will be archived shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2018 [5].

Rick Rypien

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After a few different topics I'm back with an ice hockey player who died during their career. Rick Rypien had depression and ultimately killed himself back in 2011, aged 27. The article was largely written by a now-inactive user, though I have put in the recent work to clean it up and go through a successful GA nomination. All comments and concerns will be addressed as soon as possible. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in when you include location of publication
  • FN7 has a template error
  • FN6: author is incorrect
  • FN9: link not working
  • FN27-28: no need to list TSN as both author and publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All addressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 1c. This strikes me as a good start to covering the subject, but I find it to be very light and not comprehensive. The "playing style" section is very short compared with the Death section, leading me to believe the article was largely written from the news articles and hasty biographies put together by journalists when he died. Some of the death section should possibly be separated into a Legacy section to include information about any aftermath of his suicide like research efforts, mental health programs with the team, etc. I did a brief library search and turned up several sources that haven't been used in this article, which tells me that it could be expanded. --Laser brain (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- given this has been open almost a month with no prospect of consensus to promote on the horizon I think it's best we archive this and work on the points raised by Laser brain away from the pressure of the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2018 [6].

Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another cantata by J. S. Bach. In the last years, I tried one that was 300 years old (BWV 165 in 2015, BWV 161 in 2016), but no cantata is certain for 1718. I chose Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56, for personal reasons. It is the first FAC about a solo cantata, and the first for a cantata from Bach's third cantata cycle when he didn't write a cantata or more per week (as in the first and second), but much more selectively. It is a beloved piece, and one of few that Bach called a cantata. - The article was began by Dgies and expanded by Mathsci in 2009. It received a GA review by sadly missed Yash! in 2015. I added a bit about the third cycle, and more references to the recordings table. - Enjoy yearning for death, - Bach did! Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Edwininlondon

[edit]

I remember reading the previous cantate FA. I still am neither an expert in Bach nor music. A few comments nevertheless:

  • why is "Komm, o Tod, du Schlafes Bruder" in the lead bold?
Because it's a redirect --GA
  • Thomaskantor in the lead could benefit from a brief explanation, as you have in the body
The idea of the lead is a summary, no? --GA
But also an accessible introduction. MOS:INTRO "Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined" --EIL
Yes, but there are so many things NOT mentioned, - do we really have to explain what most readers of a Bach cantata article will know? -----GA
  • Who is Albert Schweitzer? Perhaps add something like "music historian" (I made that up)
This is not about him, theologian, organist, writer, humanitarian, philosopher, and physician, - founder of the Hôpital Albert Schweitzer in Lambarene, Nobel peace prize laureate (1952), - people should know him ;) --GA
  • The year after --> is there a reason why this isn't explicitly called 'second cantata cycle'?
Yes, because it could have happened ten years after the first. --GA
Sorry, let me rephrase: Is there a reason why you do not use the phrase 'second cantata cycle'? --EIL
For two reasons: avoid repetition, and get the chorales in, - how would you do that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For me repetition is not an issue here. But I just read that the second cycle is not identical to the chorale cycle, so it's just too complicated. Maybe leave it. --EIL
The second cycle IS somewhat identical, only that Bach wasn't successful making them all chorale cantatas that year, and added later. -----GA
  • Leipzig Cycle III --> this term doesn't get mentioned elsewhere, just the section header and Jones' sentence. Do we need it? Maybe better to put Jones' label in a footnote?
changed the header --GA
  • A third cantata --> how about something like this:
Bach's third cantata cycle, of which fewer works are extant, is different. It spans works from his third and fourth year in Leipzig, including Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen. It also includes more performances of works by other composers....
I tried differently. The cantatas by others are not part of his third cycle, but performed during the time. --GA
I still find this sentence odd: 'A third cantata is of a different quality.' Should that not be: 'The third cantata cycle is of a different quality.' The following sentences talk about the cycle, not cantatas. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, fixed. -----GA
  • performed works by other - I thought the definition of a cycle was composed, not performed?
see above, - and for Bach, composed meant performed, he composed for specific occasions.
  • Bach shows --> showed?
agree, changed --GA
  • What is the BWV of Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen? Looks as if it doesn't have one.
We established it on top, and in this case there's no hymn or other same title which could be meant. - The template lang changed, making every combination hard to code. --GA
  • which has been discovered in 2015 -> just checking the discovery in 2015 was finding out the name of the author? Maybe "The author's identity was long unknown until in 2015 ...
tried something like that --GA
  • A boat on the Sea of Galilee -> a bit more context, why is this relevant?
Sea voyage - do you think we need to explain more? - Several disciples were fishermen on that lake, sea voyage was every day for them. --GA
Hmm. Difficult. Best I could do is: A boat on the Sea of Galilee (mentioned in Matthew 9:1, which the text has several references to). But it gets a bit clumsy. Maybe just leave it. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • whom he regarded -> who is he referring to?
whom he regarded as a 'profound composer' refers to the one mentioned immediately before. Can't say: "a composer whom he regarded as a 'profound composer'" as repetitive, - what do you suggest? --GA
Just realised there are actually 5 men in this sentence. Is it important that Gardiner is mentioned at all? Is the exact relationship father's cousin important? If not, maybe something like this:
This is Bach's only setting of Crüger's tune, recalling the style of his relative Johann Christoph Bach whom he regarded as a 'profound composer'.
In former reviews, I have been requested to attribute quotations, which means Gardiner should stay. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So it is Gardiner who called JCB a profound composer? Now I'm getting confused. I thought it was JSB. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What Bach said exactly (if he did, and in German), we don't know. We know that Gardiner summarized: "... J. C. Bach, organist in Eisenach, possibly his first keyboard teacher and mentor - the one he called a "profound composer." -----GA

As always, nice work! Edwininlondon (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helpful questions, - please check the changes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Always a pleasure, Gerda! Edwininlondon (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for more, always helpful! -----Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:BWV56-autograph-manuscript-first-page-Bach-1726.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Brooklyn_Museum_1997.168.3_Cross_and_Staff_(2).jpg needs a copyright tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Usernameunique

[edit]

Lead

  • Footnote [a] is pretty basic, but how about a citation?
It only explains what the 3 letters stand for, - was the solution found for the conflict that we can't link to BWV and have it bold as the redirect. --GA
  • Suggested first sentence : "Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen ("I will the cross-staff gladly carry"[1] or "I will gladly carry the Cross"[2]), BWV 56,[a] is a church cantata composed by Johann Sebastian Bach in Leipzig for the 19th Sunday after Trinity Sunday, and first performed on 27 October 1726."
It was like that formerly, but is a lot of German + translations + catalogue + footnote, before a reader (who doesn't look at the infobox) would know if they are at the right article. --GA
I would use "depicts" when it comes to images, such as tone painting. Give me another ;) --GA
How about "portrays"? Or characterizes/expresses.
Perhaps my limited English. He doesn't add portrayal, character or expression, but the result of reflection. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the prescribed gospel reading" — what prescribed gospel reading?
A reader who doesn't know that the Lutheran liturgical year at the time was organized by specific readings for each occasion will know from the link Church cantata, and the others would be bored if we repeat that in every cantata article. --GA
Is it worth adding to the lead that the reading was from Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians and the Gospel of Matthew?
Not sure. I'd be sure if at least one of the two readings was heavily used, but instead, the relation to both rather marginal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the significance of the 19th Sunday after Trinity Sunday? I.e., why is it not just another random Sunday? --GA
same answer, - Bach (and his colleagues) wrote his cantatas to go with the specific readings for a specific occasion, Christmas (3 days with different readings) or 19th Sunday after Trinity. --GA
  • "Komm, o Tod, du Schlafes Bruder" — why is this in bold? To be consistent, should it not be in italics, and should the translation not be between quotation marks?
It's a redirect. Readers who type the title should arrive here. Schlafes Bruder is a novel, a film. The quotation marks frame what is quoted, not its translation. --GA
Understood re: bold. But why is it not in italics when Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen is? And where are "I will the cross-staff gladly carry" or "I will gladly carry the Cross" in quotation marks while Come, o death, you brother of sleep is not?
The former bolded thing is a title, italic, the latter a catalogue number, not italic. I would not have quotation marks for only one translation, but with two, each one needs them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Du, o schönes Weltgebäude" — how about a translation, and a comma at the end.
The title of the hymn has nothing to do with the content of the cantata, I believe it wouldn't add for someone who doesn't already know it. ("You, oh beautiful building of the world", seems a detour.) --GA
  • "(two oboes and taille) ... "(two violins and viola) and continuo" — taille and continuo should be linked (they are below), and suggest "a taille", "a viola", and "a continuo"
Sorry, no. Whoever doesn't know what these are (like you) can look up Baroque instruments, while for the others it's a sea of blue, and why not link violin? They are all linked in the specific section about scoring. - It's never "a continuo" which is a group of instruments. Saying "two violins" is short for "two parts for violins" which may be played by several players each, depending on the size of the orchestra. --GA
I think they should be linked because they're far more obscure than, e.g., violins and violas. See, e.g., taille (instrument): "Today, the instrument is rare outside period ensembles".
We are in a series of articles (see introduction), and the solution is as described: link none in the lead, and all in the scoring section. We will have readers for whom violin is obscure ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

  • "Church cantata by J. S. Bach" — any particular reason for the abbreviation here?
Clarity, and brevity. --GA
  • "opening Bass aria" — Why is "Bass" capitalized?
Mathsci wrote that who contributed the image, - it's a bit like a title. --GA
But it's just a random adjective, right? I don't see how it would be part of a title.
Adjective? Compare Piano Concerto, - piano is not an adjective. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does "Chorale" have a "by" ("by Johann Franck"), but "Cantata text" doesn't ("Christoph Birkmann")?
Good catch! The reason is that chorale often has the title of a chorale (when it has an article), and "Cantata text author" would seem too clumsy, - has to be differentiated from chorale author. Adding "by". --GA

Background

  • "Thomaskantor (director of church music) ... Thomanerchor" — you describe one, how about describing the other?
I think one explains the other, no? --GA
  • "Cantata music had to be provided for two major churches, ... simpler church music for two others" — it's unclear if all four churches are major, or only the first two. Also, suggest "and simpler..."
"and" added. If it says "two", how would a reader think "four"?
Because "and simpler church music for two others" could mean either "simpler church music had to be provided for two other major churches" (i.e., two major churches got complex music, and two major churches got simpler music), or "and simpler church music had to be provided for two other churches" (i.e., the big churches got complex music, the small churches got simpler music). You could clear this up by saying "and simpler church music for two smaller churches".
Seems a repetition of "church", but done, trying to please ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The year after," — can you note somewhere in this sentence that this was his second cycle, to bridge the gap between first (mentioned in the previous sentence) and third (mentioned in the following section)?
seems redundant to me that the cycle after the first is the second ;) --GA

Third Leipzig cantata cycle

  • "Richard D. P. Jones calls this cycle Leipzig Cycle III." — Richard D. P. Jones should be linked. But is there any relevance to this, i.e., is it just another name for "Third Leipzig cantata cycle", or is he the one who coined the concept of the third Leipzig cycle in general?
Linked, thank you! It's only his phrase (here), which was the section title (see above). We might drop the sentence, but it explains the wording in the reference. --GA
Perhaps placing it in a footnote [b] would be better.
Dropped it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "third and fourth year in Leipzig" — suggest adding the actual years as well.
Too tricky, because they all begin mid-year, - he took office First Sunday after Trinity, which was in May 1723. --GA
  • "During the third cycle" — I'm a bit confused by this sentence. Are you saying he again performed three things: 1) Lehms, 2) BWV 199, and 3) BWV 54?
Would it be clearer to add to the first sentence in that section? added: "... that Bach performed more works by other composers during this time, in addition to repeating his own earlier works." --GA
How about adding a few "of"s, to make it "he repeated performances of solo cantatas from his Weimar period on texts by Georg Christian Lehms, of Mein Herze schwimmt im Blut, BWV 199, and of Widerstehe doch der Sünde, BWV 54"? That also has the benefit of breaking up some of the blue.
done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he performed again" — suggest "he again performed"
taken --GA
  • "Like the models, even church cantatas" — do you need the "even"?
yes, because he wrote many secular cantatas for which it's no surprise that they don't contain biblical text. --GA
  • "The writing for the solo voice is demanding" — in what way?
It's what the source says. --GA
  • "Jones assumes that they" — who does "they" refer to? Structurally it invokes the "trained singers" of the preceding sentence, but this doesn't seem right.
should have been "it", changed to "Bach" --GA
  • "The only chorale cantata of the third cycle," — bit of a run-on, suggest splitting in two.
How? Seems one thought. --GA

Occasion and words

  • "For the same occasion ... in his first cantata cycle for 3 October 1723" — suggest "For the same occasion in his first cantata cycle for 3 October 1723, Bach had composed ..." Also, suggest splitting this long sentence in two, one sentence dealing with the first cycle, and another with the second.
done --GA

Poet and theme

  • "whose identity was unknown until 2015" — pretty interesting, would it be easy to give a few words about how he was identified?
The source has it, and his article, but seems not the place to repeat in all cantatas he wrote. --GA
  • "University of Leipzig" — is this the University of Leipzig, or Leipzig University? Regardless, it should be linked.
Both names mean the same thing, - linked. --GA
  • "Sabbath's Tithe devoted to God" — for consistency again, should this not be between quotation marks?
It's only a translation, no title itself. --GA
  • "Ich will den Kreuzweg gerne gehen" — shouldn't this be italicized without quotation marks?
Titles of minor works (poems, hymns, songs) are straight and in quotation marks. --GA
  • "Life is likened to both" — suggest "In the cantata life is likened to both,"
We'd need to say "in the cantata text" then, no? --GA
That works.
done --GA
  • "until the end of the work" — meaning the theme ends slightly before the end of the work? If it's instead present in the entire work, suggest "throughout the work."
excellent! --GA
  • "The hymn in eight stanzas was published" — do you need "in eight stanzas", considering that's mentioned in the next sentence?
no ;) --GA
  • "Bach led the first performance of the cantata on 27 October 1726." — where?
Sometimes we know if Thomaskirche or Nikolaikirche, - for this one we don't. --GA
  • "One week before, he had also concluded a solo cantata by a chorale" — same place?
No, certainly the other, but we don't know, see above. They had performances in both churches on one day only for high holidays (one in the morning, the other in the afternoon), otherwise only one, switching churches. It doesn't matter, no? --GA

Structure and scoring

  • "taille (Ot), two violins (Vl), viola (Va), cello (Vc), and basso continuo." — suggest "a taille (Ot), two violins (Vl), a viola (Va), a cello (Vc), and a basso continuo." Also, why does basso continuo have no abbreviation?
for the numbers, see lead. BC is not used in the table, so no abbr needs to be introduced. --GA
  • "J.J.Dominica 19 post trinitatis. Cantata à Voce sola. è stromenti" — how about a translation?
It's explained by what follows, but done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neue Bach-Ausgabe" — maybe just "New Bach Edition", which via "Edition" indicates that it is a book and is thus a bit more clarifying.
The translation was made only later, not when it was published, seems a bit not historic ;) - There's a link to an article I created as Neue Bach-Ausgabe (NBA). I added the translation, + italics. ---GA

Movements of Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56

  • SATB — clarify what this is above at "four-part choir", by saying "four-part choir (SATB)".
copied abbreviation from infobox ---GA

Movements

  • "Wolff notes" — "Wolff" has not yet been introduced, so should be "Christoph Wolff notes".
good catch (he usually gets mentioned further up ... ---GA
  • What does "scoring even" mean?
You didn't ask in the lead ;) - It's the specification in the score which instrument (group) plays what. We can link to score but the question didn't come up in 7 years. ---GA

1

  • Is there a reason movements 1–5 don't show up in the table on contents?
It's the movement numbers from the table. An Alternative would be the long German lines they begin with (which you'll find in cantata articles not by me). Most articles have it like this, which provides a convenient link to a specific movement without having to know how it begins. ---GA
Misunderstood the question. Reason is that it seems not helpful to have the numbers in the TOC, before explaining what they mean. ----GA
  • "describes the upward part as..." — this sentence has some problems. The most obvious is that there are five quotation marks, leaving two clearly demarcated quotations plus a stray mark (is there a third quotation somewhere?). The other problem (that fixing the first might resolve) is that "as a musical pun on the word Kreuzstab" is dangling a bit; is this another description of Gardiner for the upward part (in which case it should probably be "and as a musical pun...")?
Excellent counting. I had the whole thing as one quotation, and left a mark when breaking it up. All reworded, please check if it makes more sense. ---GA
  • "with its long and expressive melismatic lines" — "its" refers to the soloist.
no, refers to "entry" (after the instrumental opening), would be "his" if soloist ---GA
You might be right, not fully sure here. Not sure you need the "its", could just be "After the entry of the soloist, with long and expressive melismatic lines", but it's not a big issue.
done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "accompany in counterpoint and echoing responses" — not sure I understand what this sentence is trying to say, but (if I'm reading it correctly), I think it would be better phrased as "accompany in counterpoint, echoing responses"
I added one more "in", to clarify that it's both, counterpoint, and responses. If I remember right that paragraph is by Mathsci, - I didn't write the article from scratch. ---GA

2

  • Is there a reason that this (not to mention 3), is so much shorter than 1? The final sentences of each (Gardiner's analyses) seem a bit perfunctory, without much analysis of the movements.
yes, giant opening aria, short recitative, which is added now ----GA
adding: Gardiner writes from the point of view of a performer who conducted all Bach's church cantatas, so knows their sounds, not only construction. ----GA
What about an opening sentence such as "The second and third movements are much shorter than the giant opening aria."?
Not really because it's not specific to this cantata, see Bach Cantata, - most have a substantial opening movement and a closing choral, and recitatives tend to be shorter also in opera, - nothing unusual which needs to be mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "depicted in the" — should probably be "depicted by the".
yes (would be "in" in German, sorry) ---GA

3

  • "the passage from Isaiah" — what passage from Isaiah?
It was specified and quoted in the "Poet and theme" section. ---GA

4

  • I don't understand the first sentence. Is the German the title of the movement? Also, grammatically speaking, the periods should be removed.
I added "recitative", - can't help then having it twice then, split the sentence. Better? ---GA
Looks good, though still don't think the periods are needed.
  • "string accompaniment which after" — suggest a comma between "accompaniment" and "which".
I split that sentence also. ---GA
  • "It begins ... in triplets." — bit of a run-on, consider splitting in two.
just did that ;) ---GA
  • "Gardiner describes: ..." — grammatically the sentence is missing a subject, and stylistically, not a big fan of starting off with "Gardner describes:".
added "this change" ---GA

5

  • "an inspired masterpiece" — whose masterpiece: Bach's, or Franck's? I would assume Bach (the article is about his work, after all), but the following sentence and quotation deal entirely with the Franck's text.
Sure, Bach's, or it would be handled further up. The text could go there, but I think it makes more sense to see it close to where the music is described. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "BWV 301" — does this have a title?
yes and no, it was without words - as so many of the 4-part settings, so we can take the first line (O, du schönes Weltgebäude), as the ref does, or any other first line from that hymn, - it doesn't matter, as he set the tune. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'profound composer' — why the single marks (') instead of double (")?
for a quote within a quote ---GA
So it's Gardiner quoting Bach? You could really just have double quotation marks (why quote Gardiner quoting Bach when you could just quote Bach?), although as I assume Bach wrote "profound composer" in German, you might then want to add the German phrase parenthetically. Not a big issue.
Why not take the Gardiner quote for which I have a source? I'd have a hard time to find where Bach said that ;) - We could drop the quote in the quote, for the reason that it - in English - is not what Bach said, but now we have a quote which we shouldn't change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
need to interrupt once more ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manuscripts and publication

  • "and the part" — what is the part?
part, the bass has his part, the violins have their part, - like score a rather commonly known term. ----GA
  • "Preußischer Kulturbesitz as D-B Mus.ms. Bach P 118 and ST 58." — what does this mean? It's really hard to understand.
The museums code numbers, P for Partitur=score, ST for Stimmen=parts. We could drop that. It's not so common that we have score and parts extant. ----GA
How about: "The autograph score and the part are held by the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, where they are registered as Preußischer Kulturbesitz as D-B Mus.ms. Bach P 118[18] and ST 58.[29]"?
"as ... as"? - trying something. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would need to search. ----GA
  • "its complete edition Stuttgarter Bach-Ausgaben" — what year?
took several years, not finished afaik ----GA
Was there a specific year in which this cantata was published?
yes, added --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recordings

  • "marked by green background" — should be "marked with a green background".
you are the first to say so, but why not? ----GA
The main thing was the missing "a". It could have also been "marked by a green background."
learning --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 8 recordings in the chart, but apparently these are taken from a list of 81. What's the criteria for inclusion?
The selection was made so long ago that I don't even remember, sorry ;) - I'll probably add at least those within a set of the complete cantatas. ----GA
Sure, might be worth curating a bit. Also, suggest: "The entries of the table are selected" rather than "The entries of the table are taken".
"selected" would be saying too much ;) - I am quite busy today, want to expand a DYK article which is way too short, + got problems on BWV 60. Patience please regarding additions here and a bit of context. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique, I now added all who recorded a complete cycle, and a bit of summary, please look again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • "his 1908 book about Bach that the" — how about "his 1908 book about Bach, name of book, that the"?
name is Bach-Buch - I thought that's German, and the translation, literally Bach Book, repetitive. Will try to find how it's called in English. ----GA
I don't think an English translation is necessary, considering you've described what it is (his 1908 book about Bach). Suggest "his 1908 book about Bach, Bach-Buch, that the cantata".
I expanded there a bit, and based on a new source, there could be much more, especially on the novel. The book was first French in 1905, but it's not sure that the quote is from the book. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section feels a bit underdeveloped, and doesn't even have a topic sentence. Can you turn this into a paragraph that explains where the work fits in to Bach's oeuvre, and how it is considered to compare to his others?
Hopefully! Flight is called now. Until later. ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the article, Gerda Arendt. Full comments/suggestions are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thorough and helpful review! I replied to the first half, and need to interrupt. Going to travel for a week, responses may come delayed, but as this is planned for the 19th Sunday after Trinity, we still have time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to take so long in getting back to this, Gerda Arendt. I've finished up the second set of comments (i.e., my responses to your responses). Once you take a look at those (take your time), I'll respond to the everything in full. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Replied, with thanks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt, I've gone through and done a final read and copy edit. Since I'm on my phone (left my laptop behind for the long weekend) it was much easier to make edits individually rather than posting here, but I've tried to provide detailed edit summaries, and please revert what you don't like. There's one sentence ("The improvisation is described by the first-person narrator in, with references to the text of the chorale.") that has a problem I couldn't figure out (what's the "in" doing there?), and you'll have my support and soon as it's fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, fixed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, you've got my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Hi Gerda, this has been open for at least 6 weeks without any declaration of support. If it doesn't attract some more review and support soon, we will have to archive it. --Laser brain (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how often I get accused of canvassing? - I will try to get attention, but so far intentionally avoided it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Laser brain, will be taking a look over next 2-3 days. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Laser_brain, I'm pretty close to supporting---will give it another read tonight or tomorrow. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose by Ceoil

[edit]
  • Gerda,I'll mostly edit directly rather engaging in a back and forth, if thats ok. You can revert at will. Note from a first read through, needs work on prose here and there, but expect to support.

I could not figure out:

  • "After the entry of the soloist, with long and expressive melismatic lines" - should this be "who sings in long..."
taken --GA
  • The words refer indirectly to the prescribed gospel reading - "allude" rather than "refer indirectly"?, and can you link the "prescribed gospel reading", and why "prescribed" ? Ceoil (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and copy-edits! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Albert Schweitzer wrote that it belongs to the most wonderful of Bach's legacy - this is a little cute without quotes; can we say something like "places among Bach's strongest works", though I realise "strongest" with Bach is almost meaningless, its still better than "wonderful".
The issue is attribution. I assumed good faith in that the superlative wonderful was taken from sources and added quotes. You reverted and added splendid without quotes[7]. A bit concerning. Either its described by sources as "wonderful" or "splendid" or its not. Ceoil (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote the book more than 100 years ago, and it shows in German. It's an important book, and was translated to English, but I couldn't find the wording in that translation. Help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe add "a typical performance lasts 18-19 minutes (or whatever)" in the lead, to give the reader an approximation of length (surprised this isnt an infobox parameter)
It's an infobox parameter, but I try to keep it concise. Adding it, as you ask, also "cycle", but not to the lead, because I think it's so close to the average 20 minutes that it's no lead material. I don't recall any duration in the lead of other Bach cantata FAs and GAs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bibliography sections should be split between "Sources" and "Further reading" for two reasons. Combining may give a misleading impression that all of the cites works are used, and secondly putting all in one place may obscure the level of the article's comprehensiveness. Ceoil (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It reads much better now; Usernameunique did a great copy edit. On last read through, but noting the "Sources" and "Further reading" are not split if you want to comment. Ceoil (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I renamed the section "Sources", - they are all cited. - In other articles, they were further split in books, journals etc., but here I started with so few that it looked strange. It grew ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, - do you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • One characteristic of the third cycle is that Bach performed more works by other composers during this time, in addition to repeating his own earlier works.(ref) The new works that he composed show no common theme like the chorale cantatas. - Get the gist but dont know what this means, exactly; needs tightening. The word cantata appears twice.
These are two unrelated things, and perhaps you can help me word it better.
  1. While during cycles 1 and 2, he practically only performed his own new compositions, he began the third year with performing the works of others, for the first time while he was in that office, and kept doing it.
  2. While cycle 2 had one theme, chorales, and every cantata was on a chorale (until his librettist died), there is no such strong common theme in cycle 3.
All these things are said in the cycle articles (all linked), and I wonder how much repetition is good or needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solo cantatas are modeled after secular Italian works such as the cantatas by Alessandro Scarlatti. This seems like a random statment, divorced from the article.
Where would you put a general idea where solo cantatas (the only things Bach considered cantatas) come from, that they have secular background in text and style? I think it needs to be said, in an article about a solo cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All that is need here is "Bach's Solo cantatas are modeled" - and it becomes clearer. Is this ok?
If it helps. (I still think the same is true for Telemann's, for example, but it doesn't matter.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • One week before, he had concluded a solo cantata by a chorale, the cantata for alto Gott soll allein mein Herze haben, BWV 169 - A week earlier, "a solo cantata by a chorale" is hard to unpack, and there is some repetition: the article uses the word "cantata" 118 times by my count. You really need to bring this number down as it makes reading tough work at times. Ceoil (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not only Bach's, all solo cantatas (and the name cantata) come from these Italian models. - In German, if you speak in past tense, and then mention something before, you can't use the same past tense. I will never learn that it seems to be different in English. Will check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, better wording always welcome. So, most solo cantatas have no chorale at the end, but this one, and the one composed a week earlier, have one. - There are not so many ways to say cantata in a different way, - "piece" is too small, "work" is too general. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - pls check if meaning is changed! Ceoil (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not yet convinced, because I believe that "do not" is a rather weak construction. What do others think? Is alliteration a problem? - Thank you for thought-provoking questions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to copy-edits:

  • All grouping is later, Bach didn't make numbers for cycles, nor works, - all numbers are those of musicologists, unless it's 19th Sunday after Trinity ;) - Referring to the cantata, we can repeat the title. - I read "Kreuzstab Cantata, but don't know if that is common in English or just the specific writer's short name. Kreuzstabkantate IS common in German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thanks, v interesting. Will incorporate. Ceoil (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a fair summation of the novel: The protagonist, Elias, improvises on the chorale and decides to end his life.[14] The improvisation is described by... Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to oppose on a few basis. There is a significant lack of clarity and muddled reasoning in areas, as well as overuse of superlatives, which are sometimes mixed into technical descriptions. These issues seem related; the author is an enthusiast and assumes the reader has the same knowledge level, as has become clear while I was trying to tease out the issues above. I have really tried here, but cant in good faith support this, and frankly don't think it was properly prepared for FAC. I do think the foundations of the page are solid, but it needs significant polish. Ceoil (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is very general, I'd much prefer if you said saying which superlatives you find unsupported by sources, and what reasoning muddled and why. I can't help that many - not I - love this piece most of all his compositions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm as guilty as anybody of using superlatives, but the one that got me was the treatment of the word "wonderful", which had to have come from a source, so i put in quotes, but then got [8]. Trimming others ("expressive", etc) now. Ceoil (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for butting in. Schweitzer's book is in the public domain, here if either of you can see it. The quote might be found there. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the find. I searched for "Kreuzstabkantate" and found two matches in the green edition (bottom left), but not the one we are looking for. ("Limited preview") - In the article, it's in the "Legacy" section in German, saying "zum Herrlichsten", which was translated (by Moonraker, if I remember right) to "most splendid". I wonder what Schweizer wrote in the original French. - Have to interrupt again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, (and sorry Ceoil for writing in your section) - I supplied a link to all instances of Kreuzstab. On page 108 he writes - "Further examples of Bach's way of depicting elevated grief may be seen in the opening of the cantata Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen (No. 56) and the sinfonia for the cantata for the third Sunday after Easter - Weinen klagon (No. 12). In the cantata Himmelskönig, sei willkommen (No. 82), with its wonderful passion atmosphere .... " and so on. It would be incorrect to say in Wikipedia's voice, in the lead, that Schweitzer considered Kreutzstab wonderful. Link to the page is here. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, and I was reverted on this no less, and it now reads "splendid". I might disengage from the review at this point. Ceoil (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but feel that we can't say that Schweitzer wrote "wonderful" when he didn't. (He wrote "herrlich", not "wundervoll", and it's translated as "splendid".) Better not mention him at all, I'd say. (Although I believe that he shaped what others think about the work.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that I was on way out then and had no time to explain better than in an edit summary.
You wrote: "While Bach lead works by other composers during the period in which he composed the first and second cycles, by the time of the works now grouped in the third cycle, he lead only his own compositions." - and that's pretty much the opposite of what I had tried to explain. Trying again: For two years, from June 1723 to May 1725, he treated his Leipzig audience rather relentlessly to a diet of ONLY his new compositions. He gave them a break in the third cycle, performing the works of others first, and repeating some of his older ones, and his new ones only every now and then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the confusion here goes back to Victoria's urge below for clearer, plain writing. The reader shouldn't have to read, re-read, and consult the author twice to figure out. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third cantata cycle encompass works composed during Bach's third and fourth year in Leipzig, and include Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen.[5][6] It is of a different quality than the first two cycles, with fewer extant compositions.[5] - of a different quality is very vague and opens questions. Better? Worse? Or what. Can you clarify please. Ceoil (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's different is said in the following, - and if the word "quality" is disturbing, what else can we say? Just "different"?
  • cycles 1 + 2: new composition for all occasions, cycle 3: few extant new works
  • cycles 1 + 2: focus on chorus in opening movements, cycle 3: focus on solo cantatas, some without any chorus.
  • cycles 1 + 2: many biblical quotations and chorales, cycle 3: few biblical quotations and some without chorale
  • cycle 2: 40 chorale cantata follow a certain scheme, with a librettist writing arias and recitatives for the middle movements, cycle 3: the only chorale cantata relies on the chorale text without change.
How woud you write that in prose? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the article assumes the reader is a Christian with knowledge of early modern era Lutheran doctrine. I just removed the phrasing "expresses readiness for the final journey" which was neither blue linked nor reffed. Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Context: the translation of the text, with a ref, is "I stand ready and prepared to receive the inheritance of my divinity with desire and longing from Jesus' hands", summarized as "expresses readiness for the final journey". "journey" not even Christian, but in the image that life is a sea voyage. What would you say? Or would you leave the reader alone with the Baroque wording? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Victoria

[edit]

Victoria, thank you for making an effort to trim, arriving at this:

In 1723 Johann Sebastian Bach became director of church music (Thomaskantor) in Leipzig. He supervised church music and trained choir boys for the Thomanerchor. Neue Kirche (New Church) and Peterskirche (St. Peter) were smaller churches and required simple music. He had to provide weekly cantata music for the larger churches, Thomaskirche (St. Thomas) and Nikolaikirche (St. Nicholas), on Sundays and on feast days, except during the "silent periods" ("tempus clausum") of Advent and Lent. In his first year on the job, Bach decided to compose new works for almost all liturgical events. These became known as his first cantata cycle. The next year he composed a cycle of chorale cantatas with each based on a Lutheran hymn.

It's missing a few things that I think are important:

  • He was hired by the town of Leipzig, not by a church body.
  • He trained the boys of the Thomanerchor, and not only in singing, but also in general education.
  • Mentioning the choir before the churches (St. Thomas is one of the four) makes it harder to understand, imho.
  • I think we have to say that all cycles begin in the middle of a liturgical, not New Year's Day, or First Sunday of Advent when the church year begins.
  • "job" seems a term not quite matching Baroque thinking ;)

Can you insert that in your wording? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Gerda, trimming out words tends to make it easier for your reader. To answer your questions:
  • Does the casual reader need to know exactly who hired him?
  • Does the casual reader need to know exactly what his duties were in respect to the Thomanerchor for this article?
  • I placed the choir first because it's less important, so as to focus on the more important aspect for this article - supplying music for churches = this cantata.
  • I don't think the casual reader of this article cares that he started work in the middle of the liturgical year and all cycles follow that pattern - it is relevant to another article, I suspect.
  • Yes, job is very much plain English. Yet, what was it to him, if not a job? Shakespeare wasn't writing for prosperity but simply fulfilling jobs as they came in. We tend to deify geniuses to some extent, imo. Anyway, I had started to read this a week or so ago and decided to not to review. As a layperson it's difficult for me to understand, but I saw the activity here today and decided to give a template of a simplified version of that one paragraph, [9]. Good luck! Victoriaearle (tk) 21:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining. It's in the article now, as you will know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I only noticed later as I was about to log out. I've reinstated, but the section is lacking a citation in the first paragraph. I searched history back beyond March and can't find it in any version.
Also, I read a little about the position - "post" might be a good word to use - in this book. Rather than saying providing education for the Thomanerchor students, it was, in fact an academic post. Maybe mention that? Plus, the Thomaskantor was expected to compose - this has never been clear to me. Maybe not relevant here, but it might be teased out elsewhere.
I also spent some time reading Schweitzer, instances of Kreuzstabe here, which is fascinating. The sections about the wave, taking a concept from nature and setting it to art/music, is very good. There were other fascinating sections, too, to do with this cantata, but I didn't take notes or screen prints and now google books won't let me see those pages again. Regardless, have you considered using Schweitzer as a source? Victoriaearle (tk) 13:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Link to Schweitzer, vol. 2, on archive.org [10]. Victoriaearle (tk) 14:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria, thank you for looking into this in such detail! - Quick responses (a bit tired after an extended hike):
The whole background section is sort of optional, - more or less saving people the links to Thomaskantor and the cantata cycles. Someone who knows all that will skip the section regardless how long it is, so a bit more doesn't hurt, - my pov. I more or less copied it from the last cantata FA. - I can follow that it still needs to be sourced even if a summary of other articles, and suggest to use Wolff for the post in Leipzig (I like that term, thank you!), [11], p. 237ff, and Dürr/Jones for the cycles, [12], p. 22ff. Both refs are already used, it just takes adding the pages. - There was relation to the university, but "academic" seems a bit misleading.
The Thomaskantor was expected to compose some, but what Bach did was beyond these expectations.
You now probably read more by Schweitzer than I in a long time. It's quite his personal view, of course, and dated, so to be used with care. I think the quote in legacy is worth mentioning, because it gets quoted in program notes again and again, and possibly opened the eyes of others for this cantata being something extraordinary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the following reasons per the following criteria, 1. a; possibly 1.c. & d; 2. b; and 4.

  • 1. a - as a lay reader without any knowledge of the topic, the prose is difficult to parse and I think it can benefit from a copyedit throughout. A single example only: I'm confused as to whether the sea and water imagery, somehow combined with imagery of symbolism of the Christian life, is the result of Bach's composition or whether he built on what Birkmann wrote. I tried reading the source about Birkmann and couldn't find those passages so I think that page numbers need to be supplied, but the point is that the reader & reviewer shouldn't have to try to find what they seek in the sources.
  • 1. c. - has a complete literature survey been completed and is the full literature about this particular work reflected here? I understand that it's more simple to copy a reference than to create a new one, but that misses the point. The first paragraph in the "Background" section still lacks a reference. Perhaps easily fixed but it was mentioned a number of days ago & is apparently a copy of the same para elsewhere on Wikipedia? Nonetheless, our criteria require sourcing throughout. The Schweitzer quote is another example: it's best to find the quote in an English translation, which I linked some days ago. It's here on page 254. This involved finding it in the original [13], determining which chapter, finding the English translation, and then using that particular translation. The quote in the lead and the "Legacy" section both need fixing, and honestly, it's not the reviewer's job to track down statements in the article. Also, the source about Birkmann seems to hypothesize that he wrote the lyrics, but it's impossible to tell without page numbers. If that's true, then more research is required.
  • 1. d. - I'm not convinced it's neutral. There's a fair amount of language that eludes me and seems to assume a Christian pov. These could be eliminated through a copyedit, I suspect.
  • 2. b - The "Legacy" section is lacking. A legacy should be presentation of how the piece of music influenced others, how music critics today see it, etc.
  • 4 - using summary style might help with some of the issues mentioned above.

A quick note: when I was reviewing the bottom of the queue last month I noticed this article, put the article and review on watch, considered whether to review. I did not create this section, but after wrestling with myself over what to do, it seems to me I've followed a double standard. So, here I am in the oppose column, and this is an independent view. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the sources, - I am sorry that I had other priorities and need to ask you for patience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added references to the Background section. Basically, Dürr, translated and revised by Jones, is The Bible for Bach's cantatas, - he knows them all and was one of the key people and the second edition of all Bach's works. I also rely highly on Wolff, recommended by Tony1, and on Gardiner who conducted all cantatas and thus adds the performer's perspective, combined with understandable language.
1. a. The images are in the text already, and I wonder how there can be doubt about it, as they are mentioned in the Text section, before Music begins. Things have been written about the text before it became known that Birkmann wrote it. The complete text with translation is in ref "Dellal", another person I trust because she - a mezzo-soprano - translated all texted works by Bach.
1. c. You are much better in finding sources, and thank you for those you retrieved. I'd never say that anything I did was complete, - always room for improvement. However, the four sources just listed are a good basis.
1. d. It would be difficult to write about a piece of music intended to be performed in a Lutheran service without using some Christian terminology. Please point out details of where you think it's too much. As pointed out a bit higher up: I don't think "last voyage" is a particularly Christian image.
2. b. No Bach cantata article so far has such a section. I can expand, if needed, there's plenty of material in reviews, however always with some personal colour/pov. For example, Schweitzer's view is clearly expressed in the language of a bygone time, so can't be just taken. I am quite ready to say nothing from him in the lead. - Need to interrupt, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Back. I now added the ref with the brief description of the Thomaskantor post, used Schweitzer more often, including the full English quote in the lead. Should we somehow point out the Grove thinks that "Schweitzer has probably been more quoted than any authority since Spitta."? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have the wrong volume and the wrong page number for Schweitzer. That particular quote isn't in the passage on page 75. Please take the time to look at the books I linked from Archive.org. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I changed now, from one link to the first of the pages, and page numbers for the higher ones, - to a link to the book, and individual links to the pages. Never did that, but saw Francis Schonken doing it. - I looked at the archive.org but find it much harder to read. Also: when I turn a page up there, I arrive much higher, and have to turn backwards to get to the right spot. - I added vol. and translator. Thank you for pointing it out. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it takes some getting used to, but it's a good resource. So, right now you have Schweitzer's quotation in German sourced to Keuchen. Is the German quote necessary? Personally, I think since you now have an English translation, it's best to use only that for en.wp. Also, the Newman translation was published in 1923, so that field should be added to the ref template. If you decide to keep the German quote then indicate that it's quoted in Keuchen. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the German to a footnote. With more time, I may find the book in German, as a more immediate source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's fine. Yes, it's best to use the original, I linked it above but here's the link again in case you want it for another project. The little icon with arrows going in all directions will give you a full page view and once in full page view you get a zoom icon. The quote begins on the bottom of the right page. But, what you've done is acceptable and a good workaround.
The next thing is to supply page numbers for Blanken. Thanks. Victoriaearle (tk) 15:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, good idea as that's in English. The summary in the German articles is shorter, but Blanken has more detail. - You misunderstood Schweitzer, - I meant a ref to his book in German, for the footnote. It's very colourful and high-level German, which (sadly) gets lost in the translation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the link goes to Schweitzer's original text, I can read that script, though it does bring back schooldays memories. Thanks for supplying page numbers for Blanken; seems like interesting scholarship. I'll take a look and post a bit later. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about misreading Schweitzer's Book, - J. S. looks un-German ;) - Thank you for the link to Gospel readings, however, prescribed readings are two, the other called epistle (letter), and I don't know if we have a link for both. The best background section about the 19th Sunday after Trinity (readings, hymns, cantatas) is Church cantata#19th Sunday after Trinity (Trinity XIX), linked in the previous sentence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand how this page is not German. Perhaps I've lost my mind?
Regarding Blanken, she writes on p. 25 about Birkmann: "... I would now like to substantiate the hypothesis that this student of Bach's was indeed an author of cantata texts. If we can show that the text for Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen (BWV 56), points clearly to Birkmann as author ... " That seems to suggest that her research is not complete and as such it would be best not to claim in Wikipedia's voice that he is indeed the author. When there's an inconsistency in the sources, as there is here, it's best to mention. Try something like, "Until recently the librettist was unknown but recent research by Christine Blanken suggests Birkmann" (that's a short version). Victoriaearle (tk) 20:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that I was to sloppy explaining that just because J. S. Bach looks not German I failed to look closer.
I understand Blanken differently, accent on substantiate and show. I took your suggested wording anyway. Bach Digital - the most scientific database on the Bach works - has Birkmann without any questionmark. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. New research is always difficult until it makes its way fully into the scholarly literature. Unless the sources are unanimous, and I haven't looked to see what Dürr says, then the discrepancy has to be explained. I've struck a few. Sorry you thought I would have led you astray re Schweitzer. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote "sea and water imagery", I meant the motif or theme, not the actual pictures in the article. What I'm curious about is whether Bach used the existing imagery, symbolism, motif, (use whichever word works best for you) of sea/water/waves and from there built a composition to reflect sea/water/waves. My ignorance is showing: perhaps the best way I can express this is to ask whether we know if Bach decided to use that sea/water/waves imagery and requested Birkmann to provide the text, or whether the text came first? We may not know of course and I might be asking the impossible, but I did get very confused in those passages. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A very good question - and thank you for good edits, and I requested GOCE - but I don't know how far the collaboration went. We do know for his work with Christiana Mariana von Ziegler: she wrote, and he changed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "and is part of Bach's third cycle of cantatas for all occasions of the liturgical year." I might say "the" rather than "all".
taken --GA
  • Why is "cantata" italicized in the final word of the first lede paragraph?
probably changed in a copy-edit, changed back, yes it's Italian but became a word of English --GA
  • You do the same thing in the body, when you discuss the same thing.
  • "to the prescribed gospel reading which tells that Jesus traveled by boat." I might clarify by saying, "to the prescribed reading from the Gospels for that Sunday, which relates that Jesus traveled by boat".
"prescribed readings" was mentioned before. --GA
  • "He was employed by the town of Leipzig to this position, " I might say "in" rather than "to".
I believe you. --GA
  • " Fewer works are extant from his third cantata cycle,[5] and it spans works" I might avoid the double use of "works"
replacing one by "composition" --GA
  • Could the cross staff be described as a crozier?
never heard that, will have to check, - checked, yes, crosier, very helpful! --GA
  • "(I stand ready and prepared to receive the inheritance of my divinity with desire and longing from Jesus' hands.),[2]" having a period and a comma at the end may be a little much.
(dropped full stop, although it's a complete sentence
  • "Only at the end of the penultimate line, torment and dissonance are transformed into glory and harmony, illuminating the words "Denn durch dich komm ich herein / zu dem schönsten Jesulein" (for through you I will come to my loveliest little Jesus).[2] " I'm not sure what the "Only" is saying. You might want to check to ensure it is as clear as it can be.
It means that for quite a while into that movement, the mood is different. Perhaps you can help? --GA
Maybe "Not until the end of the penultimate line are torment and dissonance transformed into glory and harmony ..."
  • "whom he regarded as a 'profound composer'.[25] Andreas Kruse notes that the chorale conveys the transformation and transition from earthly life to an eternal harbour.[31] " Two things. First, I'm not seeing why you are using single quotes here. Second, "harbour" is inconsistent with "harbor", earlier.
The single quotes are for quote within a quote. Spelling fixed (which had been copied from the American site). --GA
It's mentioned in the Brinkmann article, and in the sources. Of course I keep forgetting that others can't simply read the German sources. - Thank you for the review, very helpful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chetsford

[edit]

I think I'm late to the party so may not be able to offer much in the way of commentary beyond what has previously been said. Ergo, this will be short.

  • Per MOS:LEADLENGTH an article under 30,000 characters should have a 2-3 paragraph lead. While this is only an advisory guideline, I think it's a good one and the current lead may be a very small bit verbose. However, I think this is probably just a atter of personal preference.
Yes, but I looked more at what should be said, comparing to similar articles. --GA
  • I feel like "taille" should have a wikilink to Taille (instrument) as it's not an instrument with which many people are likely to be familiar.
To avoid a sea of blue in lead and infobox, no instrument is linked there (but all in "Baroque instruments"). Every single one is linked in the Scoring section, because some readers will not know what a violin is. --GA
  • The author of the text is Christoph Birkmann, whose identity was unknown until 2015. ... I don't believe there should be a comma after "Birkmann". While "the author of the text is Christoph Birkmann" is an independent clause, the second part of the sentence does not start with a coordinating conjunction. Please ignore this comment if you understand it differently.
Commas in English are difficult for me, - I go simply by: should there be a little pause when reading ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • One week before, he had also concluded a solo cantata by a chorale, the cantata for alto Gott soll allein mein Herze haben, BWV 169. ... The two commas here turn "he had also concluded a solo cantata by a chorle" into a paranthetical expression which it isn't. I believe the first comma should be removed. Please ignore this comment if you understand it differently.
as above, - some insist that we have to have a comma after "In 1726", - I wonder how to please them and you. --GA
  • You generally use the WP:SERIALCOMMA but here - Bach structured the cantata in five movements, alternating arias and recitatives and a four-part chorale. - you do not. I think the serial comma just needs to be standardized throughout.
taken --GA

Overall, this is a beautifully composed and comprehensive article. This is probably my favorite Bach cantata and it was a joy to read.
I SUPPORT. Chetsford (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, good points! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

The sources mainly seem to be of a high standard. I had some concerns about the use of discogs and of sales sites like the Challenge (44) and Schott (54) references, but in practice the content was uncontroversial. Nevertheless, if these sources could be replaced with references that don't feature prices, that would be better. Personally I wouldn't use such pages, but I can see it's more difficult to avoid in the creative arts than it is in natural history topics. I checked the content of about seven of the English language sources; each confirmed the relevant text, and there was no evidence of improper use. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking at the sources! All recordings are sourced to the Bach Cantatas Website (BCW), where they are displayed in great detail (cover photos, days of recordings, individual orchestra players and choir members, liner notes, you name it), example pictured, 1980s. However, one user thinks we should not use the site, therefore I added at least one supporting additional ref for each recording.
Do you think I should add the decade listing of BCW to the individual recordings, instead of the summary with the links, as it is now? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Sorry but two outstanding opposes after more than two months is not a good sign, despite several supporting reviews earlier. Let's complete the work resolving issues away from the FAC process and bring it back after the usual two-week waiting period -- Gerda, pls feel free to ping the reviewers from this round when you renominate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2018 [14].

HIAG

[edit]
Nominator(s): K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a Waffen-SS lobby group in post-war Germany. The article passed GA about two years ago and has been stable since. I believe that the article meets FA requirements for scope, sources, etc. It addresses a key group among German World War II veterans' organisations. HIAG is notable for the legacy of its propaganda campaigns, with some off-shoots and publications possibly still existing today. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Kurt_Meyer_and_Paul_Hausser_at_a_HIAG_convention.jpg: the "historic images" tag is intended for cases where the image itself, not just whatever is pictured, is historic - eg. the Tank Man photo. This needs a different tag and a better FUR

Provided. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could use additional expansion, IMO. What does the reader gain from this image that they do not derive from simply reading the article? (Also, is anything further known about this image's provenance?) Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Provided. --K.e.coffman (talk)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Stein title doesn't match between Notes and Bibliography
I'm not sure I understand this comment. There are both Stein and Steiner used as sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn6: publication title should be italicized
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page for FN54? FN27? FN75?
Some of that is Ward, "A Global History of Execution and the Criminal Corpse". I was using GBooks preview which unfortunately does not provide page numbers, i.e. here. Can I provide URLs instead? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page formatting needs correcting on FN77, 81, 108, 109
I provided a pointer to the URL. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether publication titles are or are not abbreviated in footnotes, but in the full ref they should be written out
I'm not sure I understand this comment. Can you give me an example? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
I'm not seeing anything out of order. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Access dates and archive dates should have the same formatting
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspaper articles should include full date and, where available, author name or agency
Provided where available. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Factotem

[edit]

My responses inline in italics. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The link to kuecprd.ku.edu for Citino's The Wehrmacht Retreats: Fighting a Lost War, 1943 could not be reached at the time I checked it.
Removed as unneeded. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link provided to uncpress for Diehl's Thanks of the Fatherland: German Veterans After the Second World War gives a different ISBN (978-0-8078-5730-4) than the ISBN link that you provide (978-0-8078-2077-3). Checking that first ISBN on Gbooks shows the 360-page 2009 edition, while your ISBN is for the 345-page 1993 edition. The difference in pagination may affect the page numbering in your refs.
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link provided to www.dacapopress.com for Parker's Hitler's Warrior: The Life and Wars of SS Colonel Jochen Peiper gives me a page not found error.
Removed as unneeded. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pontolillo's Murderous Elite: The Waffen-SS and Its Record of Atrocities appears to have been published in 2009, rather than 2010 as stated in the bibliography.
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Schneider appears to be the translator. Compare: [15]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bibliographic details you provide for Wienand's Returning Memories: Former Prisoners of War in Divided and Reunited Germany are confusing. According to the Worldcat list of editions, Rochester, N.Y., is the location of Camden House publishers, whilst Boydell & Brewer appear to be located in Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK. There's also an inconsistency in pagination, with the JSTOR link showing 366 pages (and the different ISBN 9781782045304), the Camden House edition (which corresponds to the ISBN number you provide) indicating 346, and the Boydell & Brewer edition (which has the different ISBN 9781782045304 - same as the JSTOR edition, prob refers to the e-book) indicating 364.
Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the translation of Wilking's "Wie ein Mann ein Mann wird" correct? Google translates it as "How a man becomes a man". Whilst Google translate is more often guilty of butchering a language than translating it, I do believe that the German verb Werden in this context means "to become".
Removed; it may have been my translation. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the above rather minor issues, the presentation of sources seem OK to me.

Spotchecks

  • Ref #3 (Smelser & Davies pp. 72-73). Page numbering error? These two pages appear, from the Gbooks preview, to discuss only Halder, and nowhere can I find anything to support the statements in the second paragraph of the "Post-World War II context section" cited to them. Should the page numbering be 73-74 (Section titled in the book as "Networking with the Bundeswehr"), which do generally support the statments? There is, however, one troubling exception relating to the third bullet point. I'm not sure where the quote in the statement: that "measures to transform both domestic and foreign public opinion" be taken with regard to the German military comes from. The source, p. 74, actually reads "Measures to change the public attitude toward military service would have to be implemented" (my emphasis). There is no mention there of "domestic and foreign" public opinion. More importantly, military service and German military are two very different things. Given that the Himmerod memorandum relates to the rearmament of West Germany, it's quite conceivable that this statement is referring to the future military, and not the past, don't you think?
Fixed page numbers and text; not sure where I got that last point. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #42 (Frankfurter Allgemeine) OK except, as far as I understand the German, the article specifies that Simon was imprisoned for war crimes perpetrated against "Italian civilians", without specifying the Marzabotto massacre. The WP article on that massacre reports the conviction of Simon as one of the perpetrators, but the assertion is unsourced. FAZ also states that Simon was tried thrice (rather than twice as written in the article) after his release. This is an issue of precision, and the fundamental point being made is supported by the source.
The death penalty for the massacre is mentioned here: London Cage: The Secret History of Britain's World War II Interrogation Centre, "Max Simon did not stand trial for the Ardeatine caves massacre, but did receive the death penalty from a British military court for the Marzabotto massacre in Italy in autumn ...". --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #70 (SPD Anfrage). Given that this is a 39-page document, you could usefully refine the ref to "Chapter 3, Section 4". Also, the source states that Munin-Verlag was established by "Soldaten der ehemaligen Waffen-SS" (soldiers of the former Waffen-SS). It does not state whether they were members of HIAG.
Added "Chapter 3, Section 4". The sources used elsewhere in the article state that Munin-Verlag was established by HIAG. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #74 (Worldcat listing). Is this not WP:OR? Also, taking one example from the names listed, how do we know that the Rudolf Lehmann listed as published by Munin Verlag is the same person as Rudolf Lehmann (SS officer)?
This seems okay to me, as I'm using a primary source for non-controversial statement. Rudolf Lehmann was a Munin-Verlag author, for example. I can remove, if it's a sticking point. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any WP:PRIMARY issues with the use of the listing to say that this publisher published these authors, but strictly speaking, linking those authors names introduces an element of interpretation on your part. We are not able to verify from the primary source that those authors are the same as those you link to. I've also just noticed that the first sentence constrains the time-scale up to 1992, but Patrick Agte's works were published after then. The fundamental point that Munin published works by former Waffen-SS still stands, so I'm not sure that linking listed individuals adds any value that would warrant skirting around the boundaries of WP:OR in an article that aspires to showcase WP's best work. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I removed the list. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #86 (Heberer 2008 p. 235). Whilst the source supports the quote, I can see nothing in it to support the statements that the "...legal rehabilitation of the Waffen-SS was out of HIAG's reach" or that "...attitudes were beginning to change...".
Fixed. My citation was wrong; should have been {{sfn|Werther|Hurd|2014|p=330–331}} for the para. The "out of reach" was in Large. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was the only ref sourced to Heberer, so there's no need now to include that publication in the Bibliography. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #88. Werther & Hurd's work is a 33-page document. Is there a reason why you do not supply a page number for this ref?
Provided. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've provided a page number for W&H in ref #87, but ref #88, at the end of the second para in the section "Transition into right-wing extremism", is still without a page number. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I provided the missing pages. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #103 (Smelser & Davies pp. 159-161). I'm curious about the page range, given that all of the statement can be cited to p. 159. Also, the source states that Yerger was a prolific writer, which is not the same as popular. This is an issue of precision, and the fundamental point being made is supported by the source.
Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #107 (Smelser & Davies p. 187). Where on that page is there support for the statement that "...revisionist-inspired messages and visuals found their way into wargames, Internet chatrooms and forums..."?
I see this in Smelser & Davies, p. 187: "Romancers naturally saw wargames as an opportunity to refight the battles of the Russo-German war with distinctly different outcomes..." and "By 1990, the Internet transformed and enlarged the romancer communities. (...) Web sites, chat rooms, various fora..." So I think it takes care of "revisionist-inspired messages" and "wargames, Internet chatrooms and forums", no? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with this is that romanticising war and romanticising the activities of the Waffen-SS are, I think, not necessarily the same thing, and I can't find anything in my (limited preview access) reading of Smelser & Davies that explicitly states, when they talk of "Romancers", that they are referring specifically to the latter. I can see, in a snippet view, that on p. 201 they state "...veterans eagerly joined romancer chat groups, giving members access to men who served and fought in what romancers perceived as the heroic and courageous Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS". That tends to support the statement more than anything I read on p. 187. Is it possible to define what Smelser & Davies mean by the term "Romancers"? It appears to be their own term and not something I can find repeated more widely, based on my googling for it. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've found a preview of the introduction where Smelser & Davies explain, on p. 5, what they mean by the term "romancers", and explicitly link it to a sub-culture that has "embraced the message of the gurus" (which is the revisionist part of the equation here) and identifies "with the values of courage, honor, and self-sacrifice they see in the German soldier of World War Two". You do explain ..."romancers" — that is those who romanticise the German war effort at the end of the first sentence, but that is cited to p. 187, which does not support that definition. At the minimum, I would suggest adding p. 5 to that ref. Personally, I think you could probably do a better job of explaining what they mean by "romancers" in the article; it needs maybe only a sentence. That's more a content issue than a source issue though. Factotem (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Factotem (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few items remain. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned in the query I posted on the FAC TP, and adding here for the FAC itself:

  • Ref #9: The source for the statement "...HIAG-affiliated books were predominantly published by Plesse Verlag (de) in Göttingen, owned by an extreme right-wing politician and publisher Waldemar Schütz (de)" makes no mention at all of Waldemar Schütz as far as a GBooks preview search goes, and certainly not on the page referenced. Factotem (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sturmovogel_66

[edit]

Comments inline in italics. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • the arrival of the Cold War Better, I think, to say "the beginning"
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same year (1951), some former career officers of the Wehrmacht were granted war pensions under the Basic Law. Unlike the Wehrmacht, the SS had been deemed a criminal organisation at the Nuremberg trials and could thus act as an "alibi of a nation" (as Gerald Reitlinger's 1956 book of that title suggested). The SS was the entity onto which all crimes of the Nazi regime were conveniently shifted. Consequently, Waffen-SS career personnel were not covered under the 1951 law. Awkward
This seems fine to me. Is there anything, in particular, that seems awkward to you?. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hard for me to articulate, but I'd probably combine the second and third sentences in some manner.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1949, the political climate was changing and the ban on forming veterans' associations had been lifted. Encouraged by the shifting tone of the World War II discourse, and the courting of the Wehrmacht veterans by the West German government and political parties, former Waffen-SS members came forward to campaign for their rights. Should move this to the 2nd paragraph so chronology is preserved and the text flows better.
I change to "Since 1949..." and kept where it was since the former Waffen-SS members came forward in 1951. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading this makes me want to consolidate this whole para and move it into the preceding para. Perhaps something along the lines of: "After the ban on forming veterans' associations had been lifted in 1949, and encouraged by the the courting of the Wehrmacht veterans by the West German government and political parties, former Waffen-SS members came forward to campaign for their rights." Or a variant thereof.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • local so-called support groups commas surrounding "so-called support"
Took out "so-called support", as this did not appear to be necessary and reads better without. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • were officers, most often of junior grades awkward
Seems fine. They were officers of junior grades, so that's what this is trying to convey. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except that particular phrasing is almost never seen. It's always "junior-grade officers"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of 1977, Wilhelm Bittrich served as the chairman;[16] as of 1976 Hubert Meyer acted as the federal spokesperson. Awkward. Just say that they held those positions in those years.
I don't know the exact timeframes; sources are sporadic. This is true to sources, so I prefer to keep it this way. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only timeframe mentioned is a single year, so exact tenures are not important. "as of" is very clunky.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the publication of its first periodical in late 1951 Provide title
Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waffen-SS membership, surviving and fallen Awkward. Perhaps "living and dead"?
Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The organisation also asserted that the Waffen-SS was merely "the fourth arm of the Wehrmacht"; these claims were even "more dubious", explains Large. Awkward
What seems awkward about it?. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Explains" is the problem here. It sounds as if Large is lecturing. Try concluded, believed, said or some other synonym that's not present tense.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kameraden-Suchdienst wouldn't a better translation be "lost comrade/soldier search" to be pretty literal or "tracing service"?
I standardised on "Tracing service meetings" as this is what Large was using. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the historian Jonathan Petropoulos comma at the end
Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • alone during the Pripyat swamps punitive operation better retitled "anti-partisan operation", IMO. Punitive reads oddly in this context
They were mostly murdering defenceless civilians (Jewish men, women and children), so calling it an "anti-partisan operation" would be inaccurate. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Murderous rampage would probably be the most accurate characterization, but that might be viewed as a trifle pointy. Punitive implies punishment, or at least retaliation, which isn't what they were doing, either. On the Eastern Front, the Germans called just about anybody that they took a dislike to a "partisan", whether or not they were armed or not, etc., so I'm perfectly comfortable calling it an anti-partisan operation provided that their exceedingly liberal definition of partisan is explained.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the underlying article is called; so I would prefer to stick to that for consistency. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not happy with this term in this article and in the underlying article, but that's something we can work on later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • that could "honour traitors" but would vilify its soldiers missing comma
Comma not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is; you're contrasting the "but" clause against the preceding one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I implemented various suggestions, as noted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • with works published in the 1960s. Published in "Published" too close conjunction. Try: "with subsequent works".
  • Prior to the establishment of HIAG's own publishing house Munin Verlag (below), HIAG-affiliated books were predominantly published by Plesse Verlag (de) in Göttingen, owned by an extreme right-wing politician and publisher Waldemar Schütz (de) Avoid single-sentence paragraphs. This should be folded into the next para.
  • Until HIAG's dissolution in 1992, Munin-Verlag published 57 titles. Reverse the order of these clauses.
  • Clarify that Weidinger was a former regimental commander in Das Reich rather than just some junior officer.
  • Expand the abbreviation VdH--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and combine the two entries for Tauber since they share the same OCLC #.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments

[edit]

I've also rephrased a few things in the article.

  • The two links to Munin Verlag don't make any sense to me. That is just a redirect to a section in this aricle.
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The organisation drifted into right-wing extremism in its later history" drift doesn't quite seem like right word to me, when, as the article explains, HIAG had always engaged in glorification of Nazism.
The point that the sources were making that, in its early history, HIAG was less overtly open about its Nazi roots. Once their aims of rehabilitation have largely failed, they became more open about it. How about "The organisation drifted into open right-wing extremism..."? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added "open" to qualify the statement. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Potsdam Conference held by the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States from 17 July to 2 August 1945 determined the occupation policies that Allied-occupied Germany was to face" "Allied-occupied" seems superfluous, since only an occupied country can face occupation policies. Besides, all of Germany was occupied (well, except for the parts that were annexed, but those parts weren't then part of Germany any more).
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might be wrong, but I thought all WWII veterans in the Wehrmacht, including conscripts, received pensions and not just career soldiers?
Conscripts are not entitled to pensions. Once they are demobilised, they just go back to their civilian careers. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In response, Hausser wrote an open letter to the Bundestag" maybe mention that the Bundestag is West Germany's parliament?
Added. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph starting with "The historian David C. Lange wrote that..." seems a little strange to me. It feel like it's quite common for an organization to claim to represent a group of people, not all of whom are members of that organization, like the AARP claim to act in the interest of all elderly people in the US, even though not all are members. I also don't quite understand how this indicates a contradiction between HIAG's bylaws and what it actually did.
  • Reading "The organisation also asserted that the Waffen-SS was merely "the fourth arm of the Wehrmacht"" I was curious what the first three arms were.
Large did make a point that HIAG inflated its membership rosters to make itself appear more important in the context of the West German rearmament. The three branches were the Navy, the Army, and the Airforce. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as described in a 1951 issue of Wiking-Ruf ("Viking Call"), HIAG's first publication" I don't think that you need to mention that this is HIAG's first publication, since this is already mentioned in the previous section.
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading "Along with other veterans' organisations...", I was a little curious how the West German government depended on veterans' organizations' cooperation in rearmament.
The German society was in general not very inclined to support a new military; they were war-weary. So the W. German policians felt it was important to get an endorsement from the veteran's orgs. Also, many sr officers were recruited from the former personnel of the Wehrmacht. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having "Fritz Erler (politician)" in the text seems a little awkward. Maybe the template being used doesn't support piped links, but then I'd do away with the template.
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally on Wikipedia song titles aren't translated, or their translation is only given in parentheses. The article only uses the English title of This Is the Guard that Adolf Hitler Loves. This is a little complicated, since this is what the Spiegel article used as a source does. I researched this a little and I believe the German title of the song is "Wir sind die schwarze Garde, die Adolf Hitler liebt", which is actually "We are the Black Guard that Adolf Hitler Loves".
I think I prefer to keep it in English for the benefit of the reader, and since that's what the source had. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Large, who studied HIAG extensively, stated in 1987 that HIAG's anti-democratic and anti-Semitic public statements were..." You don't actually give any examples of HIAG's anti-democratic and anti-Semitic public statements.
I think I may have made a mistake; I believe he was using their internal memoranda, rather than "public" statements. I took it out. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You call the Spiegel article an "investigative article", but the way I understand it, it is only reporting on the study by Wilke.
Removed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the [Allied] battle was directed not only the authoritarian regime of the Third Reich" Is there an "against" missing after "directed" or after "only"?
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that the one beaten" Shouldn't that be "ones"? I'm hesitant to change it since it's a quote.
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Munin Verlag titles did not go through the rigorous fact-checking processes common in traditional historical literature" There is a lot of historical literature that is barely fact-checked.
Changed to "peer-reviewed". --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "HIAG worked with historian Ernst Klink of the Military History Research Office (MGFA) in Freiburg to screen materials donated to the German Federal Military Archive (de) for any information that may have implicated units and personnel in questionable activity" Does that mean that they were working to keep those materials out of the archive? Or why were they looking for it?
My understanding is that before the materials were donated, Klink would help review them to remove anything that would be potentially incriminating. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He argues that the unit histories, like other HIAG publications, focused on the positive, "heroic" side of National Socialism" What positive side of Nationalism Socialism?
Good one :-). Changed to "positive". --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Perceived by the West German government to be a Nazi organisation, HIAG was disbanded at the federal level in 1992" By whom? Were they banned by the government?
Yes, they were banned. I've changed to say that. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might run into objections concerning the reliability of Antifa-Infoblatt, since it produced by antifa activists, not by experts, although I don't really doubt that it's well-researched. Just two little issues with how the source is used: "Der Freiwillige was still being published in the 2000s" is rather vague and suggests more than a source published in 2001 can back up. "At some point, Der Freiwillige and the Munin Verlag publishing business had been taken over by Patrick Agte, a right-wing author and publisher." The source is much more precise than "at some point". Agte took over Der Freiwillige in 2000 and Munir Verlag on January 1, 2001.
I expect that Antifa-Infoblatt would be considered RS in this context, similar to Southern Poverty Law Center for U.S. based far-right and extremist group. I provided the dates to be more specific. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've also checked the Large paper and compared it to the claims backed up by that source up to footnote 44. I've found a few discrepancies. I concur with Ealdgyth's comment below that it would be good to recheck all sources.

  • According to Large, the Allies agreed to demilitarize, denazify, decartelize, and democratize Germany. There's no mention of decentralization. He also doesn't really claim that these policies "met with limited success".
  • Hausser being HIAG's spokesman is mentioned on pg. 82, not 83 in Large's paper. It does not, however, say that he rose to that position in December 1951, but merely that he wrote a letter in that capacity at that time. He may have already had that role before.
  • "It allowed the Waffen-SS proponents to advance the idea of Waffen-SS men being "soldiers like all other"—the phrase first put forth in HIAG's materials, and later publicly used by Chancellor Adenauer" That is not on pg. 86 of the Large article.
  • "Internal disagreements began to emerge in the mid-1950s as to the stance of the organisation: Steiner, Gille and Meyer favoured a more political, outspoken orientation. The rest of the leadership favored a moderate approach in order not to jeopardise HIAG's goals of legal and economic rehabilitation, which, in their opinion, could only come from the establishment: the government and the Bundestag." I also wasn't able to find that on pp. 86-87
  • The information in the paragraph "Along with other veterans' organisations..." isn't on pg. 88.
  • "as evidenced by internal party correspondence" according to Large it was a letter to a "Jewish Federation functionary and fellow socialist", there's nothing claiming that the recipient was an SPD member
  • There is no mention of the FDP on pg. 97-101

Nom's comment

[edit]
Couple of points, mostly very nitpicky:
  • My mistake, but the SPD Anfrage source is actually Chapter III, Section 4 (Roman numerals for the chapter). Also, I would have expected that information to appear in the inline citation rather than the bibliography.
  • You've not addressed my last point about Romancers.
  • I'm not sure about how fastidious we need to be on sourcing at FAC. Whilst I haven't found any fundamental problems, there are discrepancies (one of which is new, not listed above) at a very detailed level. It's entirely possible that I've not fully understood policy and am being excessively critical. I've asked for advice on the FAC TP. Factotem (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Factotem: I believe I addressed both points with this edits. Please let me know if that's satisfactory. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I expanded the FURs for both images. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Better, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

[edit]
  • I was asked to give a second opinion on sourcing.
Condensed & changed cite to Werther & Hurd, p. 331. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick but in the full bibliographical details - spell out JTA, don't leave it as an abbreviation. This isn't as widely known as say the BBC.
Changed to Jewish Telegraphic Agency. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, checking against Smelser & Davies:
    • Current citation 3 is to Smelser & Davies pp. 73-74. There's a few small concerns here. One - at times the prose in the article skates close to being a bit too close to the wording in the source. The article text is "In 1950, after the outbreak of the Korean War, it became clear to the Western Allies that a German army would have to be revived to help face off against the Soviet Union. Many former German officers were convinced, however, that no future German army would be possible without the moral rehabilitation of the Wehrmacht. To this end, in October 1950, a group of former senior officers produced a document, which became known as the Himmerod memorandum, for West German chancellor Konrad Adenauer. It included these key demands: that all German soldiers convicted as war criminals be released; that the "defamation" of the German soldier, including those of the Waffen-SS, cease; and that measures to ensure welfare of former soldiers and their survivors be taken." The source text is "Five years earlier, after the outbreak of the Korean War, it became clear to the Americans that a German fighting force of some kind would have to be revived, for the eventuality that a hot war spread from Asia to Europe. U.S. military thinkers had been contemplating this eventuality since 1947, but now it took on real urgency. Among large numbers of former German officers, however, there was the conviction that no future German fighting force would be possible without the rehabilitation of the Wehrmacht." (paragraph break) "It was to this end on October 9, 1950, that a number of former senior German officers, including..." (list of names omitted along with some details on their pasts as well as the exact location of Himmerod) "The group advised West German chancellor Konrad Adenauer. Out of this meeting came a memorandum, known as the Himmerod Memorandum," which would be the "Magna Carta" of the future West German army. The authors made ic clear that they would only be involved with the founding of a West German military under certain conditions. All German soldiers convicted as "war criminals" would have to be released. The defamation of German soldiers, including Waffen-SS, would have to cease. Measures to change the public attitude toward military service would have to be implemented. The German federal government would have to issue a declaration to the effect that the German soldier had fought honorably. Suitable social measures would have to be taken to assure the material welfare of the former soldiers and their widows and orphans." There are phrases in the article that are almost exact word for word from the source... and while it's not really a complete copyvio - it's close enough that it should be tweaked a bit more to avoid the worst bits. But, there is also the issue that S&D are being reworded a bit off their meaning. Article: "clear to the Western Allies" - but S&D only say that the Americans thought that Germany needed rearming. "help face off against the Soviet Union" in the article - but S&D say nothing about the SU, and instead say the reason for rearming is the threat of the spread of a hot war from Asia to Europe. S&D list FIVE things that the officers demanded - we only list three. The phrases that need tweaking for close paraphrasing are at the least "after the outbreak of the Korean War", "future German army would be possible without the moral rehabilitation of the Wehrmacht", "that all German soldiers convicted as war criminals be released", "that the "defamation" of the German soldier, including those of the Waffen-SS, cease". And I do think that the two other demands need to be in the article.
"...against the Soviet Union..." is a bit of explanation of what the Korean War was, which was essentially a proxy war between China / Soviet Union & the US; from the linked article: "...was a war between North Korea (with the support of China and the Soviet Union) and South Korea (with the principal support of the United States)...". See also: The Korean War, by Steven Hugh Lee. I added the explanation, for the benefit of the readers who may say "huh, what did the Korean War had to do with German rearmament?" I can add a cite for the "proxy war", although I don't think it's needed since the linked article explains it. I also reworded to avoid close paraphrase & condensed, as I don't think we need to list out all five demands. People can learn about the details in the linked article about the Memorandum, which was mostly about the Wehrmacht, not the Waffen-SS. Even the Germans did not want to reconstitute the Waffen-SS. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we're obviously talking past each other. You cannot include information that says it's sourced to Smelser & Davies pp. 73-74... that is not in Smelser & Davies pp. 73-74. Right now, the "a proxy war between China and the Soviet Union on one side and the United States on the other," phrase is not supported by Smelser & Davies. Yes, it's very picky, but this is a picky process. Every bit of information (that is not of the obvious "the sky is blue" variety) needs to have a souce. It sounds like Lee would support this ... but it cannot support it if it is not in the article as a citation. Putting it here on the talk page of the FAC is not good enough. It being in a linked article is not good enough. It needs to be on the information in this article that it is sourcing. I realize this is your first FAC... but this is just plain sloppy citation practices. (Which, I might add, you're upset about enough in other places to take folks to ArbCom for ... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 5 - also to Smelser & Davies - pp. 72-76. Again, we have a phrase that's pretty much verbatim from S&D - article: "Adenauer accepted these propositions and in turn advised the representatives of the three Western powers that German armed forces would not be possible as long as German soldiers remained in custody." S&D: "Adenauer accepted these propositions and told the representatives of the three Western occupying powers that there could not be any West German contingent in the then-planned-for European Defense Community force as long as German soldiers remained in custody or were brought before courts."
Rephrased & narrowed down the cites. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick, but the quote from Eisenhower starting "I have come to know..." needs a citation directly on it. And it needs to note that the quotation is coming through S&D ... something like "as quoted in <blah>" is good.
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 96: Smelser & Davies p. 136. This is used to source in the article: "HIAG achieved remarkable success in its rewriting of history. The results are felt to this day in the public's perceptions and popular culture, with many works translated into English. The historians Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davies write: "Unfortunately, the scholarly writings remained confined to a small audience, whereas the readership of the German authors (and their English-language spin-offs) was considerably larger." The authors note that "with a forty-year head start," the predominance of the German view, and the related fascination by Waffen-SS admirers, "hardly remains a mystery". While the second bit of this is supported by S&D (the parts after "the historians...") the first sentence is not supported on page 136. There is no mention of HIAG there or any remarkable success. S&D are talking in general about the overall German effort to rewrite history - but never specifically mention HIAG. For that matter - HIAG is not listed in the index to my (softcover) copy of S&D.
Added Large p. 81, and commented out S&D for now to see if I can similar content in another source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if you find something else? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 99 - S&D pp. 173-178 - is used to source "Smelser and Davies contend that some of the better known or prolific authors in the Waffen-SS revisionist tradition include Agte, who wrote hagiographic accounts on Jochen Peiper, Michael Wittmann and other Waffen-SS men, and Franz Kurowski, who provided numerous non-peer reviewed wartime chronicles of Waffen-SS units and highly decorated men." Pp. 173-178 discuss exclusively Kurowski. Nor could I find the part in there where it is pointed out that Kurowski's works are not peer-reviewed. Unfortunately, Agte doesn't even appear in S&D's index.
Added Danny S. Parker, p. 276, to support "hagiography" [16] & revised. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have Parker ordered through ILL... eventually it'll get here. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 101 - S&D p. 251 - is used to source "Critics have been dismissive of his works, describing them as Landser-pulp ("soldier-pulp") literature and "laudatory texts," that focus on hero-making at the expense of the historical truth." But ... nothing in S&D says anything about this on page 251.
"Laudatory texts" is top of page 251 that starts with "Gurus such as Richard Landwehr and Franz Kurowski..." The rest comes from other sources (see below). --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Critics have been dismissive of his works, describing them as Landser-pulp ("soldier-pulp") literature and "laudatory texts," that focus on hero-making at the expense of the historical truth.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Wilking 2004, p. 79.
  2. ^ Smelser & Davies 2008, p. 251.
  3. ^ Hadley 1995, pp. 137, 170.
  • Current ref 107 S&D pp. 5, 187 is dealt with by an earlier source review.
I assume no action is needed here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it was fixed to the others satisfaction, yeah. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 108 - S&D pp. 187, 201, 206 - used to source "The two historians contend that the Achtung Panzer and Feldgrau websites are especially attractive to this group." The only quibble with this I have is that really, the pages should be pp. 187, 201-218, as those pages are what back up the information - you really have to read the whole section for the import of the author's point to come through.
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 109 - S&D p. 226 - used to source "The romancers' popular culture also includes Waffen-SS reenactment. Although banned in Germany and Austria, SS reenactment groups thrive elsewhere, including in Europe and North America. In the United States alone, by the end of the 1990s, there were 20 Waffen-SS reenactment groups, out of approximately 40 groups dedicated to German World War II units. In contrast, during that time there were 21 groups dedicated to American units of the same era." The second part is well supported and paraphrased but the first two phrases of the second sentence are not (the "Although banned in Germany and Austria, SS reenactment groups thrive elsewhere" part.
Rephrased. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing on page 226 that supports "which is legal in North America and Europe (outside of Germany and Austria)." Ealdgyth - Talk 22:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a further problem with these last citations (and the whole sections "Popular history" and "Websites, wargames and reenactment") - none of this is tied to HIAG specifically. As I mentioned, S&D don't mention HIAG in their index once. While the information in the article is generally supported by the citations given - there is nothing to tie this to HIAG, which makes these two sections quite possibly WP:SYNTH. There may well be sources that tie these sorts of books/sites/etc to HIAG, but it's not S&D. Luckily, this isn't a core part of the article - so if sources can't be found to tie these phenomenon to HIAG directly, it's not going to gut the article.
I think that MacKenzie makes a strong connection between the contemporary revisionist tradition and HIAG. Perhaps I could condense this area. I feel like this is a useful "footnote" for the readers. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the Websites section is cited to MacKenzie though... just Smelser and Davies. I've requested MacKenzie through ILL, it will probably eventually arrive... someday. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the websites & reenactment on second thoughts, as S&D do not connetct this to HIAG (as you note), just general Waffen-SS revisionism. MacKenzie does connect present-day popular/militaria literature as continuing HIAG's revisionist tradition. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checking against Wette:
  • Current ref 4 - Wette pp. 236-238 - which sources "Adenauer accepted these propositions and in turn advised the representatives of the three Western powers that German armed forces would not be possible as long as German soldiers remained in custody. To accommodate the West German government, the Allies commuted a number of war crimes sentences. Public declaration from Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower followed in January 1951, which read in part". This duplicates/buttresses a citation above from S&D. I note that Wette is a bit more nuanced on the first demand of the officers... he says that it was "that the men who had been convicted as war criminals be released" and then quotes the memorandum with further qualifiers "if they had acted only on orders and were not guilty of any offense under the old German laws". But it does support most of the information given.
I assume no action is needed here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the rearrangements earlier dealt with this. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checking Petropoulos
    • Current ref 54 - no page number given. This is a rather hefty book - we need a page number. It's supporting "Erich Kern, a far-right Austrian journalist and a former Nazi war correspondent, became the organisation's key employee responsible for its publishing arm. He first became active within HIAG in 1955, and then joined as a full-time employee in 1959. According to the historian Jonathan Petropoulos," ... is it meant to also support the uncited rest of the sentence "Kern remained an "unrepentant and unreconstructed Nazi" up to his death in 1991."? Because if it is, it needs to go on the whole sentence, not just the previous sentence and opening phrase. This is doubly so since the last bit is a quotation and would need a citation on it specifically. The only listing for Kern in the index is for page 151 - where it does support the full text in the article - Petropoulos says Kern was an employee of HIAG, but does not support the dates given nor that he was the key employee. Petroupolus info is "Erich Kern, whose full name was Kernmayr. Kern, who died in 1991, had been an SS-lieutenant and later a key employee of the SS veterans' organization (Hilfsgemeinschaft auf Gegenseitigkeit [HIAG], Auxiliary Fellowship for Reciprocity), as well as a prominent member of both the right-wing Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands and the Deutsche Volksunion. This unrepentant and unreconstructed Nazi, born like Scholz in Austria, worked to maintain the personal bonds left over from the Third Reich."
Yes, this is covered by the same page (151) here: [17]. I added page number and moved citation.K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpicks: The Ottawa Citizen article is authored by the Associated Press - this should be given in the bibliographical details
Added. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that the Frankfurther Allgemeine article is bylined by Christopher Dowe? If so - it needs to be put in the bibliographical details.
Added. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick - you give some states for publication locations but not others - be consistent. Also with regard to this - either abbreviate New York "NY" or "N. Y." but not both
Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed most of this (as they were still not all with states, and were using different abbreviation systems), but there is no location for Fatal Crossroads - and I don't own that book so I can't check it. Please fix. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick - you give publisher for some academic journals but not others - be consistent.
Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
I strongly suggest that the authors go through and double check all the citations. I don't think the problems above are deliberate but just simply sloppy citing practices but they need to have the entirety of the article double checked. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the rest of the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further nitpick:
    • Carrard does not appear to be used in the citations - so should not be in the bibliography
Moved to further reading. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • checking Sydnor 1990:
    • The ref for the sentence "Steiner's, Meyer's and Hausser's books have been characterised by historian Charles Sydnor as the "most important works of [Waffen-SS] apologist literature" (current ref 64a) is actually p. 319 footnote 14.
Not sure I understand this comment. This was already cited to page 319. Or should I be citing "p. 319, footnote 14? --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if the information is solely in a footnote, it's helpful to cite it that way "p. 319 footnote 14" Ealdgyth - Talk 22:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • For this sentence "They demanded rehabilitation of the military branch of the Nazi Party, and presented Waffen-SS members as both victims and misunderstood heroes. Nothing was said about the Nazi indoctrination of the troops or the atrocities committed by them." (current ref 64b) ... I see on p. 319 and footnote 14 that the first phrase is supported, but I'm not quite seeing that this supports the rest of the sentence. Sydnor doesn't really develop any discussion about the apologists claiming that the Waffen-SS were victims nor is heroism mentioned. And there is nothing about Nazi indoctrination on this page either.
Revised & removed 2nd sentence. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • For this sentence "To legitimise its image, HIAG underwrote the publication of works by right-wing academics sympathetic to the Waffen-SS." the source is again Sydnor p. 319 (current ref 64c). Here, the last part of the sentence is supported, but the "To legitimise its image" phrase does not seem to be supported by Sydnor's text. Sydnor says "For twenty years HIAG has lobbied vigorously with the Bonn government for a full rehabilitation fo the Waffen SS, and has underwritten the publication of a stream of tendentious memoirs an books by former SS generals and right-wing academics sympathetic to the Waffen SS." The rest of the page discusses the apologists in general and specific, but nothing about HIAG as an organization.
Revised to "To rehabilitate the image of the force...". I can see that it's confusing since "its image" can be interpreted as "HIAG's image", which is not what I was trying to convey. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 68a (Sydnor 1973) doesn't have a page number but it's actually to page 319 footnote 14 again of Sydnor 1990. This needs fixed.
"Sydnor 1973" is a journal article Sydnor, Charles W. (1973). "The History of the SS Totenkopfdivision and the Postwar Mythology of the Waffen SS". Central European History. 6 (4). Cambridge University Press: 339–362. doi:10.1017/S0008938900000960. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (as opposed to Sydnor 1990, which was a book). I will look for the page numbers or will switch to the book cites. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when you've got this dealt with. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 68b again lacks a page number - is this also supposed to be page 319 footnote 14 of Sydnor 1990, where Steiner is discussed? In this bit, the other ref is current footnote 9 - is the Sydnor supposed to only be supporting the quote from himself, because the quote is on page 319 footnote 14, but this doesn't support most of the sentences it's attached to...
Same as above - journal article; my mistake of not having include the page numbers. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 69 supports "Felix Steiner published The Volunteers of Waffen-SS: Idea and sacrifice (German: Die Freiwilligen der Waffen-SS: Idee und Opfergang) in 1958. It presented the sacrifice messages echoing those of Der Freiwillige and stressed the theme of the purely military Waffen-SS." The only bit on page 145 is footnote 45 which reads in its entirety "This is a chief theme of much tendentious memoir literature ground out by former Waffen SS generals. See especially Paul Hausser, Waffen SS im Einsatz (gottingen, 1953); Kurt Meyer, Grenadiere (muich, 1957); and two books by Felix Steiner, Die Freiwilligen; Idee and Opfergang (Gottingen, 1958) and Die Armee der Geichteten (Gottingen, 1963)." I'm not seeing how this supports the article text completely. The rest of that page is a discussion of a two volume work by Fuhrlander titled "Schwert und Pflug" and then discusses the political indoctrination of the Totenkopfdivision. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revised & changed the cite to page 319; see [18]. I also added Tauber, p. 549 [19]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checking Orchard (1997):

  • I got in the paperback printing of the 1997 edition, so the pagination is a bit off, but the entry for Munin is on pages 257-258 of the 2002 printing of the 1998 paperback version of the 1997 hardcover. (ISBN 0-304-36385-5). The only citation to this work is current ref 72: "Muninn is one of the two ravens that are the companions of the war god Odin on the battlefield; muninn is Old Norse for "memory"." Orchard sorta supports this. Orchard does not call Odin the war god. He doesn't say that Muninn goes with Odin to battlefields. The entire entry is "Munin ('memory') (1) One of the two ravens of the god Odin, the other being Hugin, who sit at his shoulder and keep him supplied with information. Munin is less well-attested in the sources than Hugin; the eddic poem "Grimmismal" has Odin say of the two birds: "Every day Hugin and Munin fly over the wide earth. I worry that Hugin may not return, but I am never worried about Munin." The notion that thought and memory can be expresed as birds, visiting distant places and returning, is a commonplace of early Germanic and Celtic verse. In skaldic sources Munin appears simply as a poetic term of Heiti for 'raven', as in a verse by the twelfth-century poet Einar skulason which describes how: 'blue-black Munin sips blood from wounds'". Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revised to match text. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are starting to get to the point where there are a lot of problems, but it’s been almost a week and there has been no reply or acknowledgement by the nominator of the issues. @K.e.coffman:. I would rather not oppose this nom on sourcing issues, but continued checks keep turning up more issues. But it is concerning that the nominator doesn’t appear to consider these issues important enough to address. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately - I'm of the opinion that everything needs to be checked against the sources as there is a lot of sloppy citation practices - it's not that I don't think the stuff has sources, it's just that it feels like not much effort went into making sure that the citations went with the information they sourced. This isn't reflective of our best work as wikipedians, and it needs fixing. But it doesn't appear that the editors of the article will do that checking without someone going through and doing all the checking for them. The next two days are my husband's days off so I'm going to be scarce, but will try to reply to the above replies after that. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Comments/suggestions: G'day, I'm afraid I can't comment on content, so I just focused on minor aspects. Just a few nitpicks from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • slightly inconsistent: "Pontolillo 2010" in the citations, but 2009 in the Bibliography
  • Note 2, "Large: They "never..."", probably needs a full stop at the end of the note AustralianRupert (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • same as above for Note 4
  • Citation # 6 seems a little inconsistent with the other refs, suggest making it the same style
  • "reassigned to "pacification actions" — the Nazi term for punitive operations — in the rear": the emdashes should be unspaced here per WP:DASH
  • same as above for: "Waffen-SS "romancers" — that is..."
  • same as above for: "...to "pacification actions" — the Nazi term for punitive operations — in the rear."
  • "p. see url." is there a page number that could be provided here? If not, I think it might be best to use the {{cite web}} template here instead. AustralianRupert (talk)
  • "p. 86–87" --> "pp. 86–87"
  • "pp. 257-281": should have an endash
  • "According to the historian Jonathan Petropoulos,[54] Kern remained an "unrepentant and unreconstructed Nazi" up to his death in 1991.": suggest moving citation to the end of the paragraph here, and adding a page number
  • "Titles published by Munin-Verlag, 1951 through 2000": not sure if this is specifically cited or not. If not, it probably shouldn't appear in the Bibliography
  • "One of the cavalry units in question, SS Cavalry Brigade, was...": missing definite article before "SS Cavalry Brigade" AustralianRupert (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is a mixture of English language variation in the article, e.g "organisation" and "defence" (British) but also "honor" (US). Either variation is acceptable, IMO, but it should be consistent for a featured article
  • "virulently anti-semitic" --> "virulently anti-Semitic"?
  • in the Bibliography, the "Thanks of the Fatherland" link appears to be dead: [20]. You might be able to link to an archived version through the Wayback Machine

Nom's comment

[edit]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus and Ealdgyth: sorry about the delay in responding. I'm procuring / reviewing sources and should be able to start addressing the concerns raised in the next few days. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peacemaker67

[edit]

Firstly, a point that jumped out to me on the first read through. Early on we are told what the HIAG bylaws stated the purposes of the organisation were, but then nearly all of the article is about its whitewashing activities and advocacy for Waffen-SS rehabilitation, which weren't even in its stated purposes. If Large investigated how these statutes were applied in practice, why aren't the results of his investigation covered in the article? Where is the information on its supposed activities; "comradeship, legal assistance, support for those in Allied captivity, help for families and aid in searches for those still missing"? Did it just not do the things it was established to do (other than the early tracing services and the rallies)? To be a comprehensive article on HIAG, surely this article must cover what it did in the areas it was established to pursue, as well as its role in trying to whitewash the Waffen-SS and rehabilitate its image? Also, how many chapters did it have, and what was its federal structure? Did it have federal or state presidents etc, if so, a list of at least the federal presidents would be appropriate. I'll have more comments once this has been addressed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • there is a problem with the statement "and judged the entire SS to be a criminal organisation" currently cited to Stein pp. 250–251. Stein does not state that, he states that "the SS was utilised for purposes that were criminal". The cited statement may be true, but those pages of Stein don't support it in its current form. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • another instance of Stein not supporting the material cited, in the sentence beginning "In the first instance, Meyer was most likely referring to..." None of the information there appears on pp. 255–256 of Stein. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • a further issue is insufficient specificity. On p. 256 of Stein, Meyer is referring to soldiers of the "divisions of the Waffen-SS", not to the Waffen-SS as a whole, Stein then goes on to examine how Waffen-SS is defined, explaining that there are different positions taken by both accusers of and apologists for the Waffen-SS. This nuance is not currently reflected in the article. At the very least, Meyer's statement should be modified to incorporate the fact he specified the "divisions of the Waffen-SS". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are two citations to Stein with an over twenty page range for a single sentence. These need to be narrowed down so it can be better understood what material is being relied upon. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To my understanding, "the SS is a criminal organization" comes from the Nuremberg trials. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Not from those pages of Stein though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:48, 6 June 2018 [21].

The Rolling Stones

[edit]
Nominator(s): TheSandDoctor Talk 14:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most commercially successful bands of all time and one at the forefront of the "British Invasion". They have been going strong since '62, are a member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, have released 30 studio albums (soon to be 31 according to various sources, including the band), and have been chart-toppers for decades. The band has also been nominated for Grammy Awards 15 times, winning 3 of them (their most recent win being in 2017 for Blue & Lonesome). They have also had 37 top 10 albums on the Billboard 200 chart.

I initially nominated this article in 2017 after not editing it, something I do apologize for as I did not intend to waste anyone's time. Since then I have taken the advice given and last summer successfully brought it through GA, becoming its most active editor in recent years. I believe that the article is now to the point where it can be nominated for FA. TheSandDoctor Talk 14:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC); edited 15:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Laser brain

[edit]

I haven't had much of a look at this but I was casually checking out the images used and they need scrutiny. I have doubts about the copyright status of some of them:

  • File:Brian_Jones_1965.jpg - The photo was taken in 1965 by Christopher Kevin Delaney, yet it was uploaded to Flickr by "Steve Denenberg" who almost certainly doesn't have the right to release it under CC-BY-SA 2.0.
  • File:Keith-Richards and guitar.jpg - The photo is from 1973 but the Flickr uploader "Dina Regine" was probably a toddler in 1973 and says it was taken in 2008 on her Flickr page.
  • File:Mick Taylor2.jpg - Same Flickr uploader, same problem. The photo is from the early 70's and she almost certainly doesn't have the right to release it.

Oppose under criterion 3 until the images are examined and copyright status verified. --Laser brain (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: I am not an expert with images and copyright, but will try to address this ASAP. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These images have been removed for now. Alas SandDoctor, but there was no way around it. Ceoil (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Images you brought up are now removed from the article. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: It is a shame that they had to be removed as they were great images. With that said, I do understand and agree with the removal. Their absence doesn't really affect the visual appearance anyway. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keef to me is the most photogenic man to ever walk the earth. But sometimes you just have to let them go. Ceoil (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That made me smile and you are correct on both fronts . --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now watching the "Waiting On A Friend" vid, the man is a god. Ceoil (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good version. --Laser brain (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to review the status of the images.

On second thought with this one, it could have just been taken by someone in the front row. The camera details on Flickr is period. A reverse image search only shows 7 origins of this image. One of them does credit a "Michael Conen" (the flickr poster). It could very well be an original? --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Rolling Stones 08.jpg is claimed as the own work of the uploader. (This next one is a bit of a doozy) This does seem plausible if the image is taken from/of the large screens which are at shows displaying images and video from the stage.
  • File:Platino vodoo lounge.jpg is claimed as the own work of the uploader
  • File:KeithR2.JPG is an image I am not sure about. It is claimed that it is a work of the uploader, but the linked discussions are concerning
  • File:Rolling stones - 11 luglio 2006 - san siro.jpg is from flickr and is claimed as own work. Considering the apparent thumb-splotch in the lower left corner and the fact that it does not appear to be "official," that does seem plausible
  • File:ABiggerBangTwickenham4.JPG is claimed as the own work of the uploader. This does seem plausible as it does appear to be taken from a ways back in the audience and doesn't appear to be professionally done.
  • File:Rolling Stones Berlinale Filmfestspiele 2008 Berlin.jpg from flickr and claimed as own work. This does have some doubt though as, while the year does line up, they would have to have been in a semi-privileged position to get the shot (definitely not impossible though).
  • File:The_Rolling_Stones,_Prudential_Center_2012-12-13.jpg claimed as own work (on Flickr). Although it is from Flickr, it does seem plausible to indeed be their own work as it is not professionally done (not official) and taken from a ways back in the audience.
  • File:Rolling Stones 14.jpg is claimed as the own work of the uploader. While this is possible, I do wonder if that is the case. I haven't seen the (2013) Hyde Park concert film recently, but it does appear to be of the quality calibre that it might be a screenshot from the film.
  • File:Rolling Stones in Cuba-4601.jpg claimed as own work of the uploader. This instance seems more plausible than the above one. They were probably just in the first few rows (my guess: the first).
  • File:FGF museum 04. Keith Richards Telecaster.jpg uploaded to Flickr and claimed as own work. In this instance, it appears to be plausible due to the quality and fact it appears to have been taken through a display case.
  • File:Brian Jones guitar, HRC Sacramento.jpg uploaded to Flickr and claimed as own work. This does seem highly plausible as the guitar is (or was, might not still be) in a (semi) public setting and taken through a display case.
  • File:WaGriz RollingStones.jpg the permission link is now dead. Is eGriz the actual website for the stadium (or group owning it)? If so, it might be plausible. I believe that this image (or one like it) is definitely needed in the legacy section.
  • File:The Rolling Stones stage props at Prudential Center 2012-12-13.jpg is from Flickr. Its claim as "own work" does seem plausible as it appears to be taken in the audience shortly before the band took to the stage.

That concludes an analysis of all the images within the article. What are your thoughts Laser_brain? (cc Ceoil). --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Ceoil

[edit]

I have concerns about stewardship. Its very obvious which sections are due to earlier, now retired, editors (these sections are very well written to be fair, and see last FAC) and which are tacked on by random ips or record label promo people. I'm not sure that one person can single-handedly address the concerns that might impede this attaining FA standard. Examples only from a sample of four odd paragraphs, but reflective of issues throughout the article. That said, TheSandDoctor is to be applauded for dedication and willingness to take feedback.

  • Richards' addiction to heroin delayed his arrival in Toronto; the other members had already arrived, waiting for him, and sent him a telegram asking him where he was. - The heroin addiction is already mentioned, after that, so what about a telegram, and why do we have to spell out "asking him where he was".
Trimmed --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1974 album It's Only Rock 'n Roll was recorded in the Musicland studios in Munich, Germany; it reached No. 2 in the UK and No. 1 in the US.[171] Miller was not invited - ...to the recording session you mean. Sentence structure is a problem here - better go with "was recorded", "not invited", "it reached nr two". This confused ordering of claims is a common issue throughout the page.
Expanded slightly, will rework further if needed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Near the end of 1974, Taylor began to lose patience with a number of band-related issues.[176] The band's situation made normal functioning complicated, with band members living in different countries - "a number of band-related issues" is hopeless vague, to the point that it seems the author neither knows why or cares. Also, "band" x 3.
I agree. I am expanded it from a BBC article. Instance of "band" has been reduced by one (with one of the remaining now being part of a quote from the article). --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rolling Stones needed to find a new guitarist, and the recording sessions for the next album, Black and Blue (UK 2; US 1) (1976) in Munich provided an opportunity for some hopefuls to work while trying out for the band. - "to find" is redundant. Chart positions inelegantly thrown in in brackets. What does "some hopefuls to work" mean
Resolved redundancy, clarified. How do you think the chart positions could be thrown in more elegantly? I am almost wondering if they are needed there at all. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above sentence becomes clearer here, but the session musician connection is not made Both Beck and Irish blues rock guitarist Rory Gallagher later claimed that they had played without realising they were being auditioned, and both agreed that they would never have joined - Dont like "would never have" either
@Ceoil: "Would never have" removed. What do you mean exactly by "the session musician connection"? --TheSandDoctor Talk 07:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wood officially joined the Rolling Stones in 1975 for their upcoming Tour of the Americas, while the Faces disbanded - "while the Faces disbanded" - pretty strong statement, really badly stated, with no further context and leaving so many open/leading questions.
I debated removing the bit about the Faces disbandment, but ultimately decided to expand on it and link to the article. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have concerns about the nom of an article that has vastly dated promo debris like this at the time of it candidacy [22]
  • Dirty Work (UK No. 4; US No. 4) was released in March 1986 to mixed reviews despite the presence of the US Top Five hit "Harlem Shuffle". - presence??
I have resolved this. I think it was meaning the the single on the album was a hit, but the rest of the album was mixed. I might re-add and tweak it. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • With relations between Richards and Jagger at a low, Jagger refused to tour to promote the album, and instead undertook his own solo tour, which included Rolling Stones songs.[205][206] As a result of the animosity within the band during this period. Examples of this throughout - don't need to endlessly clarify; here we can loose "his own", and "within the band during this period".
"his own" and "within the band during this period" removed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • met with moderate success - of what type? Critical, fan, commercial
Commercial; added. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • going gold
That is awkward. All three instances of "going gold" have been changed to "certified gold". --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In early 1989, the Rolling Stones, including Mick Taylor and Ronnie Wood as well as Brian Jones and Ian Stewart (posthumously), were inducted into Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.[71] The American? And can we sometimes just say "the Stones", for readibility
"The American" was present? "Rolling Stones" condensed to "the Stones" per your suggestion. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: I appreciate this feedback and I assure you that I am indeed committed to addressing issues raised. Over this coming weekend (probably starting tonight, I just dont have time for the next couple hours) I shall address the specific examples that you brought up and re-review the article looking for more. Unlike last time, I intend to keep close tabs on this discussion. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you SandDoctor, but I think the level of editing on prose need for FA might be a stretch for one person, especially in the time constraint of an FAC. Overall, the article is engaging, largely focused, and hits the right notes, but is tellingly weak across passages. I suggest canvassing for help in tightening, and also cutting down in areas, especially around chart positions, announcements, etc. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: Fair enough, I shall look for some to assist. I also appreciate the copyedits that you have made so far. I am going to probably head off for the night, but I have dealt with a bit over half of your specific examples. I shall look through the article further later (hopefully with some help). Do you know anyone who is good with images? --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SandDoctor, re images, look at other music bios that have passed FAC and do what they did. You might be able to make a claim to include one or two non free images, but not as many as you have. I would start by trimming down the non essential ones. Ceoil (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The band was first led by Brian Jones, but after developing into the band's songwriters, Jagger and Richards assumed leadership when Jones was dealing with personal troubles and legal issues. - not a good summation! Ceoil (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How does that line look now Ceoil? I moved it to where it made a bit more sense (was located after Jones left the group, so moved just before) and reworked it. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]

The prose is poor throughout the article. It suffers from proseline, which in turn gives rise to illogical flow. (For example "At that time, the line-up included neither bassist Bill Wyman, who joined in December 1962, nor drummer Charlie Watts, who joined in January 1963, thus completing the band's original rhythm section.") A Featured Article should be a pleasure to read; this one is unbearable. Graham Beards (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

I appreciate the speed with which the nominator is trying to deal with issues raised but it does look like this nom was premature, so I'll be archiving it shortly. It sounds like a copyedit is indicated, after which I'd suggest Peer Review and perhaps the FAC mentoring scheme prior to another attempt here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2018 [23].

Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells

[edit]
Nominator(s): The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the stereotypical morally outraged letter writing style attributed to residents of Royal Tunbridge Wells. I believe that the article covers the topic comprehensively. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the nature of the micro-topic, you really need more on the very widespread use of pseudonyms in journalism, pamphleteering and authorship in general. It seems to me this peaked in the decades around 1800, but goes back at least to the Renaissance. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just have a few preliminary comments:

  • According to WP:ITALICTITLE, italics should only be used in titles when they would be used in running text. The only possible justification I can find in WP:ITALIC for the title being italicized here is this being words used as words. In most cases in this article, Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells is in fact being used as words. That doesn't seem like a reason to italicize the title though, since by that rationale any title could be italicized since they could all reasonably be mentioned rather than used. Generally the use of quotation marks versus italics in the article seems inconsistent to me, but I might be missing something.
  • "A "stuffy, reactionary image"[1] was associated with the town of Tunbridge Wells by the novelist E. M. Forster in his 1908 book A Room with a View, in which the character Charlotte Bartlett says, "I am used to Tunbridge Wells, where we are all hopelessly behind the times"." The first quote is a little confusing, since it kind of seems like the quote could be from the book.
  • There are a number of instances where the same footnote appears in more than once in the same sentence, or after consecutive sentences. That seems like overkill to me.
  • "Tunbridge Wells was later granted a royal charter by King Edward VII in 1909 and renamed "Royal Tunbridge Wells".[4]" The relevance of this sentence isn't clear to me.
  • "Despite being described as the "quintessential Englishman" and having his letters regularly published, his identity was never known because he would only identify himself as "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells". The phrasing implies that there is a contradiction between him being a described as the "quintessential Englishman" and his identity being unknown. That contradiction is unclear to me.
  • "who had developed a skill for letter writing after five years of observing apartheid in the Union of South Africa." This seems to imply that there is a link between his skill and apartheid. What exactly is the link? Did he write letters about apartheid?
  • "The term Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells was later used to stereotype Royal Tunbridge Wells as being a town of retired British Army colonels who would write such letters to newspapers" What is such referring to here? The relevance of the letter that follows this is unclear to me.
  • "People writing them have been claimed by commentators to be readers of the Daily Mail, despite the original letters not originating in that publication" That's not what the source says. The source is citing one case where some Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells expressed themselves in the Daily Mail
  • "UKIP leader Nigel Farage stated in 2013 "I used to say you could always tell it was a UKIP meeting by the number of Bomber Command ties in the room"" What is the relevance of this?--Carabinieri (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]

Tricky topic.

  • "he BBC radio show Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh, first broadcast in 1944, is sometimes stated in newspaper reports to have popularised the term Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells for correspondence to newspapers." In the lead, you framed this as a possible origin, but that's not what's suggested here.
  • "sometimes stated", "also suggestions", "some reports have popularly rumoured": all a bit weaselly.
  • "the Kent and Sussex Courier claimed" I'm generally a little wary of personifying publications like this, but I know that opinions vary.
  • You alternate between "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" and Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.
  • Dates of George Thomas Howe? How does this match up to the claims about The Times?
  • It'd be really nice if we could include an example or two of letters signed by the pseudonym. That might serve as a better "picture" than the current lead.
  • "The type of letters written with a tone of incensed moral outrage have become commonly described as "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" letters, even though the writer may not be from Royal Tunbridge Wells.[6][11][12] For example, the actor Michael Caine once said: "I don't want to sound like Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells, but I do think there should be some sort of national service for young men"." That doesn't sound like "incensed moral outrage" to me!
  • "of which the UKIP leader Nigel Farage stated in 2013 "I used to say you could always tell it was a UKIP meeting by the number of Bomber Command ties in the room."[20]" I'm not sure about of which, and it's not fully clear what the ties have to do with anything.
  • Three short paragraphs in a row start with "In [year],": It feels a bit listy.
  • "Critical review of the book has stated that the" Do you mean a critical review?
  • "some of whom wrote to newspapers similarly to the "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" style stating" This doesn't read well.
  • There are a lot of hits on Google Scholar for the phrase. There's an editorial in the British Dental Journal, for example, and there are a few fun references to "Disgusted-of-Tunbridge-Wells Syndrome", as well as what looks like (something resembling) a piece of investigative journalism from Country Life of all places. And that's just from the first page! Have you had a look through these results?

I feel like this article makes a decent GA, but it feels very bitty for a FA. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a further think about this article; I do stick with what I said about examples. I feel like there should probably be a "use" section with a few examples; perhaps an older one from the Courier, and a newer satirical one from Private Eye. I'm also surprised that you don't cite the book that's mentioned; I'm sure that will have an introduction section explaining the significance of the pseudonym. No doubt that would be a great place to find examples, too. (A quick Google suggests that there are a few reviews out there which will also be worth citing.) I've thrown together an example of how I might structure an article like this on the talk page; take it or leave it, but perhaps it'll be useful for thinking about how to further develop the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; after a little further thought, I think this is too far from where it needs to be for FA status at this stage. More than tweaking is needed. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

It looks to me from the commentary above that there are some fundamental concerns that are best addressed outside the FAC process, so I'm going to archive this. Note that if (as I gather) you don't yet have any FAs under your belt, you'd be eligible for the FAC mentoring scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2018 [24].

Amor Prohibido

[edit]
Nominator(s): – jona ✉ 22:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the fourth and final studio album recorded by American singer Selena before she was shot and killed a year later. The album transitioned Tejano music from a moderately successful regional scene, into a powerhouse genre. Amor Prohibido is a culturally significant album that helped solidify Selena as a leading performer in the Latin music market. Still popular today, it sporadically makes appearances on Billboard's music charts, while its singles remain popular in Hispanic and Latino households. I decided to nominate Amor Prohibido for FA, after receiving positive encouragement from editors to do so, despite a rather lackluster peer review (it didn't generate any interest ) – jona ✉ 22:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]

I love Selena and this is probably my favorite album by her. I will try my best to help with this, and it is great to get a chance to work with you again on something. My comments are below:

  • Please look carefully at this sentence (After achieving a fan base EMI Latin was aiming for, company president Jose Behar wanted to take advantage with another studio release.). The opening dependent clause is describing Selena, but the structure connects it to Jose Behar. It should be revised. Also, the “take advantage” part is somewhat awkwardly placed into the sentence. I have a similar issue with a similiar sentence in the “Production and development” section.
Done. – jona ✉ 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (to help with the writing), I think you can just say (to help with writing) as “the” is not really needed.
Done. – jona ✉ 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (The recording ended up being a more mature sound with), I think that “having” would be a better word choice than “being”.
Done. – jona ✉ 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not certain about this part “its lyrics speak”. I have been told in the past to not personify lyrics with this particular verb.
Done. – jona ✉ 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (the highest-ranking album by a Hispanic performer), I am not sure about the link to “Women in Latin music”. It is a good article, but I interpreted “Hispanic performer” to mean out of all Hispanic singers, male and female. The link here just feels a tad force to me. I have the same issue with the link in the body of the article.
Fixed. – jona ✉ 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please link Selena on the first instance you mention her in the body of the article as the lead and the body of the article are treated separately.
Done. – jona ✉ 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (In a 2002 interview he said), add a comma between “interview” and “he”.
Fixed. – jona ✉ 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This part (Pérez found his behavior nothing out of the ordinary) reads a little awkwardly to me. Maybe (Pérez found that his behavior was nothing out of the ordinary) instead?
Fixed. – jona ✉ 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (Her grandmother was forbidden to formulate a relationship with him), I would just say “form” instead of “formulate”.
Done. – jona ✉ 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence (Her grandmother was forbidden to formulate a relationship with him because of her social class and described it as "forbidden love”.) seems rather repetetive. You repeat that the relationship was forbidden twice in the same sentence. I would revise the sentence to avoid it.
Can you elaborate where it is written twice that the relationship was forbidden? – jona ✉ 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have concerns with the placement of the “Fotos y Recuerdos” audio sample and the Chris Pérez image according to Wikipedia:SANDWICH.
Done. – jona ✉ 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (The latter genre is used heavily throughout Amor Prohibido.), I would just say the genre instead of “The latter genre”. You provide so many genres in the previous sentence that I am not sure what you mean by this.
Latter (in this context) means the genre that was immediately just said prior to the opening of a new sentence. – jona ✉ 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link for “Tejano” in the “Composition” section should be removed and put in this sentence (for which A.B. later told her it could be included in Selena's next Tejano recording) as it appears in an earlier section.
Done. – jona ✉ 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would link “mariachi”.
It is in the list of genres in composition. – jona ✉ 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not certain about the structure of the “Reviews” subsection. I would suggest that you look to Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections as a resource for structuring a reception section. The first two paragraphs appear like a rather random assortment of critics and their quotes, while the third paragraph jumps around a lot from listing its legacy/impacy to comparing it to a J-Lo album. There is not enough of a cohesive narrative here, and I would suggest looking over this again for improvement.
I tried my best at this one, took over an hour, but hopefully it flows better. – jona ✉ 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the first sentence of the third paragraph be more appropriate for the “Recognition” section as it more about the album’s legacy?
Not exactly, those reviews were mostly just statements about the album and not how it impacted anything in particular. – jona ✉ 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that you look at this part (Prior to peaking at number one, A.B.). I understand what you intended, but if you read the part literally, it means that A.B. peaked at number one.
Fixed. – jona ✉ 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great work with this article as a whole. I have some concerns with the prose as there a few areas where it should be improved to meet the requirements for a featured article. I would also request that you look at the “Reviews” subsection and rewrite it to make a more cohesive narrative. This is what pops out for me during a first read of the article, and I would be more than happy to provide more comments and suggestions once you have addressed everything. I hope that this review helps, and you have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night. Aoba47 (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks for your review! I have gone through your review and hope it now satisfies the FA criteria. Best – jona ✉ 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wonderful work with this! I learned a lot from reading through the article. Makes me want to go and listen to a lot of Selena music now lol. I support this for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, scratch that, I see now that the permission was obtained through OTRS, which makes whatever licence the website shows irrelevant. It should be ok to put it back. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I'll bring it back. Thanks – jona ✉ 14:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cartoon network freak

[edit]

Support: I don't see any major flaws with this article, having edited the page by myself a little (feel free to undo). I'm thus supporting its promotion to FA status. Although I'm not an experienced FA reviewer or contributor, it think Amor Prohibido is really great work, @AJona1992:, and I see it evolved significantly from the times I've reviewed it against GA criteria. Best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon network freak Thanks for your support! Best – jona ✉ 16:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from magiciandude

[edit]
  • Comment I think you should mention where the source is getting the 1.5 million copies from, since the article mentions sales for 1.2 million copies from Nielsen SoundScan. More to come... Erick (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. – jona ✉ 23:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yo! Sorry for the lack of response. I just had an idea. I would mention the album second-highest certified Latin album by the RIAA and I would use this as a source. How does that sound? Erick (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks for that suggestion. – jona ✉ 15:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great job Jona! Erick (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

[edit]

Sorry for the late response, I had written something up but lost it in a browser crash. Serves me right. I think the article is pretty strong, although mainly I have some niggling issues with prose that's holding me up.

  • Prose:
    • I think there's some general weakness with how this article is organized. On a macro level with subsections it's fine, but I get bogged down a little in some choices in between. Some examples:
      • The singer's brother, A.B. Quintanilla, felt it was important that the music he produced for Selena remain fresh.[4] EMI Latin had insisted on a Grammy Award-winning producer to work with Selena on the album. A.B. felt he had to outdo himself to remain her principal record producer.[6] Selena agreed that A.B. knew her musical tastes and vocal range.[7] I think this sequence feels out of order and a bit open-ended. EMI Latin insisting on another producer seems like it should come after the details about Quntanilla's efforts; Selena's comment doesn't seem to connect in the same way (if it should go anywhere, it should be after the comment about EMI) but it's also weird the prose doesn't spell out what the resolution of EMI's requests were.
      • In a 1994 interview, A.B. told KMOL on his song selection saying how if he catches himself humming a tune the next day "then it's catchy" and if he doesn't, he "wouldn't use it." He would use a tape recorder to hum a melody before creating a title and concept of a song.—I'm not sure why details like who this interview was given to and when it was is really important details when we just want to know about the topic at hand. Throughout there's a lot of unnecessary and complicated phrasing that could be simplified, e.g. Quintanilla described his song creation process as humming melodies into a tape recorder before creating a title or concept. If he catches himself humming a tune the next day "then it's catchy".
      • In general I'd try to reduce some of the quotations and just paraphrase where possible. Leave the quotes for stuff that's difficult to parse another way, or exceptional language.
      • This paragraph just comes off as very repetitive and should probably be condensed or rephrased instead of X said Y over and over: Amor Prohibido was recorded at record producer Manny Guerra's studio in San Antonio, Texas and was engineered by house engineer Brian "Red" Moore.[15] Pérez wrote that the singer "never complained about her mix or the sound onstage" calling this "rare" among singers.[16] He added that he never heard her say: "I don't want to do that." He said it was common for her to arrive at the studio during the album's production, "hum her part a little", telling them not to worry about her because she will "know what to do when [the band is] ready to record", and then "go off to shop at the mall."[16] Pérez said the band never "had to ask [Selena] to change something in the studio" as she "track[ed] her vocals by herself, and she would be the one who would request a second take" in order to "add little harmonies she'd create" during recording.
      • Pérez found that his behavior was nothing out of the ordinary and worked on the song with Vela throughout the night "coming up with drum sounds and programming the pattern for it," finalizing its structure before sunrise.—why would his behavior be out of the ordinary?
        • My assumption from listening to the liner notes is that A.B. often approaches the band to change or tweak something with very little time before they are due to record an album. But, that is my assumption since Perez did not explicitly say that. – jona ✉ 22:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the time of Hynde's refusal, the band had $475,000 (1994 USD) of pre-sale copies in a warehouse that included "Fotos y Recuerdos".—until this point, you have not actually named the song, and it's not entirely clear that "Fotos y Recuerdos" is the cover in question.
    • Overall, Amor Prohibido is a Tejano recording,[42][45] encased in an "authentically Tejano sound",[46] that fuses "cross-cultural [music]",[11] which uses a minimalist style that was quintessential in early 1990s Tejano music. This is one of several run-on sentences. Cut things up and either make multiple sentences or drop trying to cram as much into one.
    • You alternatively refer to people by last or first name (A.B. for example.) This should be made consistent and use the surname throughout.
    • There's a lot of sentences in reception that boil down to sales increasing after her death, and should probably be synthesized rather than split up.

I am currently working on the prose as we speak and will address all these issues within 24 hours. Thanks for your review, I really do appreciate it. – jona ✉ 15:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Media:
    • Most of the media looks fine. I'm not sure File:Amor Prohibido (song sample).ogg meets NFCC requirements; the song has some details in the article but it's not a major facet of the reception section and it's certainly less important than the title song.
      • The sample of "Bidi Bidi Bom Bom" illustrates a critic's review of the tracks on the album who found the song to have a number of arrangements that differentiates it from the first four tracks (including the titular song) on the album. – jona ✉ 15:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • References:
  • What makes the following publications/published works reliable? Puro Tejano, Infobase Learning (Jones 2013), Robbe 2000, Neon Tommy?
  • Puro Tejano was the definite source for all things Tejano music, the radio host had a syndicated TV show called Puro Tejano and personally interviewed Tejano artists. The source used in this article comes from his interviews with Selena and her brother whose comments were used to improve the article and not that of the host. According to Jones' "about me" page, she graduated from the University of Southern Maine attaining a masters degree in creative writing and has published over 500 articles for Cricket, Highlights, Humpty Dumpty, The Writer, Writer's Digest, and Woman's World to name a few. While Ms. Robb writes scholastic biographies on pop culture though her creditals and education is not available online as with any scholastic author, though I am willing to remove her work and cited information if there is still a question about her reliablity. According to their website, Neon Tommy is an "online publication of the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism". – jona ✉ 15:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]

There are significant prose problems with this article:

  • It is, I feel, rather too long for an an encyclopedic summary, partly due to some excessive overdetailing of minor issues which make reading the article a somewhat indigestible experience. For example:

Pérez wrote that the singer "never complained about her mix or the sound onstage" calling this "rare" among singers.[16] He added that he never heard her say: "I don't want to do that." He said it was common for her to arrive at the studio during the album's production, "hum her part a little", telling them not to worry about her because she will "know what to do when [the band is] ready to record", and then "go off to shop at the mall."[16] Pérez said the band never "had to ask [Selena] to change something in the studio" as she "track[ed] her vocals by herself, and she would be the one who would request a second take" in order to "add little harmonies she'd create" during recording.

This inflated trivia, in which 130 words are used to cover what might be contained in 30, is just one example – there are several similar cases where much inconsequential detail could be reduced or omitted altogether.

  • There is far too much use of verbatim reported speech, all through the article. You tend to illustrate almost every point by quoting exactly what someone said or wrote, instead of paraphrasing in your own words. The required encyclopedic tone is missing – the article reads more as though it was from a music magazine. This overuse of quotations is illustrated in the following sentence taken from the Composition section: Her "powerful" and "emotive" overdubbed vocals were found to be "low [and] sober", sung in a "desperate" and "sentimental" way. That's five quotes in a sentence of 20 words!
  • A few random examples of substandard prose:
  • Songs, such as "Tus Desprecios", about dysfunctional and volatile relationships has a storyline typical of mariachi recordings".
  • "Daniel Bueno, who organized the event, told The Washington Post in April 1995, that Central Americans dislike Tejano music and found that the singer added reggae and tropical music flavored tracks that helped her to appeal to Central Americans."
  • "The vast majority of contemporary reviews were positive and the album received widespread critical acclaim": that's just saying the same things twice.
  • "It finished 1994..." – paragraphs should not begin with a pronoun.
  • General readability: Some of the paragraph lengths are horrendous; in particular, look at the Commercial performance section. These great walls of text are very off-putting to the general reader, and need to be subdivided.

The article has obviously been well researched, and is written with a commitment to the subject which is admirable. However, my rather speedy examination of the prose is enough to convince me that the prose needs considerable further attention before reaching the high standard required in a featured article and I do not think that at present it meets FA prose criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

I'm concerned that this nom has been open almost two weeks and we're finding so many fundamental prose issues, so I'm going to archive this and ask that the issues be dealt with outside the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2018 [26].

John/Eleanor Rykener

[edit]
Here again, this time nominating John Rykener, "calling himself Eleanor, having been detected in woman's clothing" committing a "detestable act" in December 1394: I won't say anymore so as not to spoil the surprise :) The irony that medieval London appears more sympathetic to transvestite sex-workers than Britain throughout most of the twentieth-century will not, I imagine, be lost on anyone.
User:Nick-D earlier suggested this be brought here, and I do so; he is, of course, in no way responsible for what you see. Anyway, I hope you enjoy the read, and I welcome all questions, comments, criticisms and witticisms. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceoil

[edit]

Prose need work, but overall, from a quick scan, a very strong article, I'm drawn in, and this candidacy is doable. Suggest you ask for help on wording; its such a colourful subject I'm sure you will get attention. Ceoil (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't like the block quote in the lead. I see what you are getting at, but its too much too soon (first thing readers eyes are drawn to, but isolated quotes lack context) Ceoil (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to move it, and I understand the point about context—I was thinking it could act in place of a lead image? —none of those I have used really seemed suitable for the lead. In fact, I will admit now that I think the article's especially week on images. That's why, btw, why I deliberately made the font bigger...in fact I was even looking for a way to colour and bold the font, but the parameters don't exist to do so, which is something to be grateful for eh! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree 54129 and would prefer to see it gone. Overall the article is quite well illustrated, given the lack of historical record. Ceoil (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with that—I've stuck it the very end where it can act as a "And Finally" —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by John B123

[edit]

This article was an unremarkable stub a few months ago. user:Serial Number 54129 has worked hard to bring this article up to where it is now. I think it's deserving of FA status. John B123 (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Usernameunique

[edit]

Lead

  • "continued to sex work" — suggest rephrasing
    • "continued with sex work"?
  • Perhaps add brief descriptions of who the historians are, e.g., "[name of University] historian [name of person]"
    • No problem; even the ones that are wikilinked?

Background

  • "public order notice" — anything that can be linked?
  • "the church in their own courts" — "the church in its own courts"?
    • Done.
  • "fill the palace with foulness." — an in-line Citation should follow this, since there's a quotation
  • hermaphroditism — link?
  • Linked.

John Rykener, Londoner

  • "His responses have been described as one of the very few glimpses the modern era has into medieval sexual identities." — does this belong here?
    • Good point; moved to "Recent scholarship" section.
  • where does the info that there were three Rykeners come from?
    • The whole note is from Goldberg, who says there's three, but two of which "may" be the same? Does this need making clearer perhaps?
  • In this gaol "most prisoners were convicted clerks. — missing close quotation mark
    • Removed—it had previously been a quote, but I rephrased it and only deleted one q.m.
  • There were, notes Goldberg, a number of prisoner escapes from the gaol under Bishop Robert Braybrooke’s tenure." — missing open quotation mark
    • Ditto!
  • "just as the records do." ... "probably a bisexual." ... "they say." — inline citations needed
    • D'oh. Cited.
  • "Ruth Evans, on London specifically, describes it as being "a place of unrivalled sexual and economic opportunities" beneath the surface." — I’m not sure what this is saying. So society was repressed, but below the surface London had unrivaled opportunities?
    • I think they mean that on the surface it was formal and rigidly moralistic, but, underneath, etc. If I say that though, would it be WP:OR? (That's the main reason it—and many others—are quotes, so I didn't have to place my own interpretation on them for the reader.

Historical significance

  • "London Metropolitan Archives." — linked in lead, so another here would be appropriate
    • Ha! Annoyingly, this is one of those duplicate links I removed an hour or two ago with this edit! Added back though.
  • "that mayor's court" — mayor's court, or the mayor's court?
  • "The", done.
  • "These manuscripts are, according to one commentator, "apparently the only legal process document" — manuscripts is plural, but document is singular
Only one MS, of course.

Life

  • "Brouderer could give her daughter, Alice, to men at night (in the dark so they could not see Alice). Alice then left her client before daybreak, and Brouderer would tell the man that they had slept with Rykener." — what was the point of this deception? If blackmail, wouldn’t the point be to try to convince the client that he’d just committed sodomy, but if so why would Rykener be called Eleanor by Brouderer?
    • I guess the blackmail would be stronger? Not just sodomy, but transvestitism too.
  • "under the pretext of lighting his way home." — what does this mean?
    • She would hold the torch for him on his way home (from Brouderer's?) and would then go in with the priest.
  • "Britby certainly claimed" — this is the first time Britby is mentioned in the body of the article, so an introduction may be in order
    • Mentioned (a couple of times) in the lead.

Arrest

  • "When Rykener was asked where he had got the idea for such work," — this and the following quotation are a bit repetitive
    • I've greatly condensed it; an improvement?
  • "even the one thing he could have been charged with, fornication. This was also beyond the mayoral court's jurisdiction." — so he could have been charged with fornication but he couldn’t have been charged with fornication?
    • Indeed  :) Meaning to say, that he could have been charged with fornication, but only in an ecclesiastical court, not the mayor's court. Clarified.

Aftermath

  • Whatever lollardism is is left unexplained. Why was there a crisis?
  • "Hence, says Goldberg, the "staged and dramatic way" with the case is presented." — this is an unclear fragment
  • "Two years earlier Richard II had stripped the city of its liberties" — why?
  • "dealt by those courts." — the Church’s courts?

Recent scholarship

  • "Tristan and Isolde. While their story" — there should be a brief summary of the story and its implications
  • "we still know very little...about the "sexuality of courtly lovers like Tristan and Isold." — extra quotation mark
  • "even if we do not know anything about Rykener's self-identification, her life as a male-bodied woman was “transgender-like.” — three quotation marks
  • "the law report enrolled in the Memoranda Pleas." — what is this?
  • "mayor and corporation" — what’s the corporation?

In culture

  • I’d add the 2011 debut of the puppet show
  • "John–Eleanor" — should the name of the show be in quotation marks, or italicized?


Thanks for these pointers, Usernameunique—I hope I've resolved most of your queries, but there's a couple I'd appreciate a little clarification of first. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 16:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re-ping Usernameunique. One above failed. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room
Serial Number 54129, that’s pretty much it. Great article, enjoyed reading it. Made a bunch of copy edits along the way; as my comments were made piecemeal, I'll let you respond to the last ones above before looking at the responses you’ve already made. —Usernameunique (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Usernameunique, I think I've addressed your points—by the addition of exlanatory footnotes as far as the quarrel with London, Lollardy and Tristan; the other little bits I've either clarified or removed—e.g. the Mem Pleas which is a level of detail of such arcanery it's frankly a distracting irrelevancy. Sorry I can't give you a fuller reply, but I'm a bit dispirited atm. Thanks very much for all your suggestions though! Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Brianbouton

[edit]

Sorry to rain on the parade, but what this article is getting here is a peer review, and this isn't the place for that. What's the rush? Why don't you transfer the whole thing over to WP:PR and allow it a proper preparation before it's brought back here? That might actually save you time in the long run. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Its a very interesting article, there is a lot of goodwill towards 54129, and I'm sure will get a lot of attention at PR. Ceoil (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Mapping needs some work. The London one is difficult to see at that size, "travels" I don't think is the right word for the England map, and formatting on both legends is a mite inconsistent. I'm wondering about the source for coordinates for the London map. Also the source of the London map (File:Plan_of_London_in_1300.jpg) needs a US PD tag, and I'm skeptical that the derivative work would garner new copyright under US law, which is based on originality rather than effort
Thanks for this NM. Re the London map, I've made some temporary adjustments. The map itself is embedded in a Lua module, and is thus a foreign langwidge to me. However, I have requested some techno-help in swapping it for this one, which I knocked up earlier, and should address the question of originality / derivation, etc. I will also look much easier on the eye with less clutter. I have standardised the legends so they both use pogs, and changed the caption to "Locations Rykener stayed in 1394" which isn't particularly easy on the tongue but more accurate than "travels."
The St Kath's image is from early eighteenth-century, and it would be a PITA to hunt out the original source, s I swapped it for a more modern image, even though it's been moved. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The map has been updated. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So that looks better, but we've still got inconsistencies in the legend formatting, and File:Plan of London in 1300.jpg still needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Could you clarify re. legend formatting? They look the same to me—or should the colours be the identical? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, don't care about the colours. As above, it's a minor issue: spacing of dashes and use/nonuse of periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Got it, very subtle. I've standardised the /space/dash/space for the pogs, and removed the full stops/periods from them. I have however left them on the image titles—not because I think that "Rykener's London" is a sentence—it's clearly not—but the other title, I think, is—which would then be inconsistent. What do yo think? Incidentally, I'm using a different file for the London map now—a basic vector image: no us-pd now required? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say neither caption is a sentence. As to the US-PD issue, I would disagree - although the map has been modified, it's still derived from the earlier image, so we need to make sure that the licensing of that image meets our standards. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
​ Ok, that's understood. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]

Whether this stays here or moves to PR, I'm very happy to offer some thoughts on an article about such an interesting topic.

  • How attached are you to the article's title? In your experience, is this the name by which the subject is normally known in the literature? My thought would be that the best title would probably be one or the other, with the one not used serving as a redirect.
  • I'm saddened that a biographical article doesn't include birth and death (or at least flourishing) dates in the opening lines. This is made more confusing by reference to both the 14th and 15th centuries in the first paragraph!
  • You may want to consider an infobox, but I appreciate that this is sometimes a rather controversial issue.
  • I wonder whether intersex might be a better link for what you call hermaphroditism; the article on Hermaphroditism is not focussed on humans.
  • "who imprisoned in the" was imprisoned?
  • It's bizarre to me that we're talking about the possibility that he was the same Rykener who did xyz in 1399 when we haven't even gone through the events of 1394 yet.
  • Generally, be aware of MOS:LQ. I've made a few tweaks, but perhaps more are needed.
  • "meant that male-to-female transvestism was effectively non-existent in broader society.[24] Ruth Evans, on London specifically, describes it as being "a place of unrivalled sexual and economic opportunities" beneath the surface.[25]" Mixed messages!
  • Again, the historical significance section feels it should be coming after discussion of Rykener's life.
  • Phillip or Philip for the rector?
  • Claims about "Rykener's true gender" may be a little provocative! Perhaps sex would be less problematic?
  • You refer to Rykener as an "embroideress"; does this mean that he presented himself as female in that line of work?
  • "the Swan inn." Why italics?
  • "officers" did you mean to use ffi rather than ffi?
  • It seems odd to have all the discussion of Anna in footnote 16, before she's discussed in the article proper.
  • Is continence the best word to describe abstinence?
  • "aliens or foreigners in modern English." Is that a word-for-word direct quote?
  • Could you check the quote in footnote 20? And 21?
  • "As noted above" Avoid self references.
  • Paragraph one of "recent scholarship" is a bit listy. Interesting stuff, though.
  • "Karras has argued that Rykener is a medieval example of a transgender person, rather than merely a transvestite or cross-dresser. Karras says that "even if we do not know anything about Rykener's self-identification, her life as a male-bodied woman was "transgender-like"." Could you check the quote?
  • The Blud blockquote in "Recent scholarship" apparently has "double quotes" within "double quotes".
  • "Goldberg has also suggested that historians may have misread what was happening in the law report enrolled in the Memoranda Pleas. It is possible, he says, that the whole case was a fabrication by the scribes, who wanted to officially lodge an unofficial allegory against the King." Ok, interesting. Is this what was talked about in the lead? I didn't get the impression that the whole thing could have been made up!
  • "Phillips, K. M; Reay, B. (2002). "Introduction". Sexualities in History: A Reader. Barry. London: Routledge. pp. 1–26. ISBN 978-1-13530-476-8." Could you check the formatting of this citation?
  • "V. C. H. (1912). Page, W., ed. The Victoria History of the County of Hertford. The Victoria County History. III. Westminster: Constable &co. OCLC 927018962." This one too?

What a great topic. An article on a crossdressing (or perhaps transgender?) medieval prostitute that ends with a discussion of the World Puppetry Competition? I hope this is part of a series :) In all seriousness: This feels a little short of where it needs to be for FA status, but the impression I get is that it's well on its way. In addition to PR, you might want to think about sending it through good article candidates, which can be very useful for helping an article on its journey. It's sometimes slow, but I can't see a topic like this waiting long for a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these J Milburn; left a message on your talk. Sorry about that! I'll deal with this tomorrow, if that's OK. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: I think this edit addresses most of your suggestions, including moving sections and notes. There's a couple of things I'll query though if you don't mind. Firstly, the title—which I'm surprised has taken this long to raise its head! I was intending to start a discussion on it here, or possibly on the talk afterwards. I'll say from the start though that yes—I think John/Eleanor is a pretty common way of addressing the individual within the literature. But it should be noted that it's not a particularly broad literature, so we are really only talking perhaps five scholars. And it is also a rather young school of historiography—gendering the master narrative—so perhaps this is a more modern approach to the traditional questions. Incidentally, in at least one peer-reviewed piece, Karras uses the z/he construct, compared with which, I'm not sure that John/Eleanor is that radical!
I wasn't sure what you meant when you say "check quote/citation"—I'm very slow and need what you want to be looked at spelt out I'm afraid.
Thanks for all these pointers though, JM, much apreciated as ever. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A quick reply (I've not looked at your edits): By "check quote", I meant "could you check the original source to ensure that your quote is correct", presumably because I thought the grammar was off. By "check citation", I just meant "could you have a look at the formatting here and make sure all information is included correctly?" As for the "John/Eleanor" thing, I defer entirely to the existing literature; large or small, we should be lead by that, I feel. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two more suggestions: First, I wonder whether the information about the John Rykener who escaped from a prison belongs in the "life" section. I moved it (probably too clumsily) here and self-reverted. Secondly, from a quick glance, there seem to be some images of a document with the original Latin floating around online. Something like that would be a fantastic lead image for this article! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: I'm going to archive this now as it seems better suited for a PR process given the feedback so far. Serial Number 54129, I would encourage you to copy the feedback you've gotten into a PR page and engage with reviewers from there. --Laser brain (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2018 [27].

Friends (The Beach Boys album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This album is approaching its 50th anniversary on June 24. It's the third LP of the Beach Boys' so-called "lo-fi trilogy" (after Smiley Smile and Wild Honey).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:BeachBoysFriends.jpg needs an expanded FUR

Comments Support by Ceoil

[edit]
  • Some online refs contain retrieval dates, but most don't. Also, "Brian Answer's Fans' Questions In Live Q&A". January 29, 2014. Retrieved 27 June 2014." - no mention of publisher. Ceoil (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The LP was met with poor sales - not sure about "was met" here, maybe just "did not sell very well, compared to previous.." "commercially unsuccessful" or something.
    Done --Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you could put together a stronger lead
    Done--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general the writing is very strong; will take a proper look later today. Ceoil (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources see fine as regards reliability, no red flags. Some of the book sources lack the publishers location, which will need to be sorted. Ceoil (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it necessary? I removed a lot of the location values to maintain citation consistency. WP:CS does not include a location in its lead example, and it would seem a bit superfluous to mark "London" onto something published by Oxford University.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is at FAC, and partially related to V, and that different locations relate to different editions. You might not get pulled up on it later, but you probably will. BTY, Oxford is not in London. Ceoil (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • that echoed some of the qualities of Smile - would be interesting if this was briefly expanded on - "some of" is vague. Ceoil (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new, expanded lead is a huge improvement
  • Friends marked the last Beach Boys album where Brian held most of the writing or co-writing credits until 1977's The Beach Boys Love You. - "until" isn't the right word here; there are tense and logical issue with the sentence
    Done? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the songs were inspired by Transcendental Meditation and the group's recent involvement with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - This implies two separate influences. I suspect you should swap the order (he was a fashionable charismatic) and use the words "which lead to"
    Done --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subsequent albums would also see Dennis contribute more original songs - "Denis contributed more songs in later Beach Boy albums". Also "Pacific Ocean Blue" deserves an accolade; maybe seminal, or just critically acclaimed classic.
Done I think "critically acclaimed" would be WP:PEACOCK and to say anything more about his solo career would be drifting too far on a tangent 10 years removed from the album. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, it's factually "critically acclaimed", and the point needed is that he emerged from under Brian's wing Ceoil (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That point already comes across regardless of whether the album was acclaimed (it was not celebrated at the time of its release).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So what that it was not at first appreciated when we are talking here some 30 years later? Also, we called Pet Sounds here a "masterwork". Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should probably more explicitly make the connection between "It sold poorly, peaking at number 126 on the US Billboard charts, the group's lowest US chart performance to date" and "Bruce Johnston described the album as a conscious attempt to make something "really subtle ... that wasn't concerned with radio." Spell out the band's situation and Wilson's thinking, then add the Johnson bit, then the chart numbers.
I'm not sure what you mean. They weren't deliberately making an album that would bomb. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing establishing the apparent cause and effect, deliberate or not; "subtle" + "that wasn't concerned with radio" = "sold poorly". The sequencing is out here Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That point already comes across in the lead's second sentence (" ... its calm and peaceful atmosphere, which contrasted with the prevailing music trends of the time ... ").--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first and third paras of the reception section open with the 2017 MOJO review.
That is on purpose - one claim is concerned with the contemporary reception and the other is the author's opinion.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if you paraphrase the first para as recommended below it wont be an issue. Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jardine remembered: "I really valued that time that I had with [Brian]. I felt that he still had a lot to offer. ... We wrote [most of the Friends music] at his house right under that beautiful stained glass Wild Honey cover window."[12] - Maybe begin the quote with "I felt that he [Brian]..."
  • According to a Mojo retrospective, the group's remaining fanbase reacted - over attribution. The statement is fact, so we dont need "According to a Mojo retrospective", and thus "any hope that Brian Wilson would deliver a true successor to his 1966 masterwork," Pet Sounds.[2] would be better paraphrased as "stopped believing that the Beach Boys would release an album as commercially accessible as "Pet Sounds", or something.
That cannot possibly be a factual statement unless the author surveyed every Beach Boys fan in 1968. That paraphrasing would also be distorting the author's meaning. The implicit suggestion is that most fans of the group were already turned off by Smiley and Honey.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sales figures give a pretty solid indication, as ever. Also it's established in pretty every Beach Boys book I've read. I think you may be over cautious and over thinking. My wording was a suggestion only, you might be able to do better in paraphrasing. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a connection between the poor sales of Friends and whether anyone believed that the group would make another Pet Sounds. They could have potentially made 10 more albums like Pet Sounds if Brian didn't get sick. The public had no idea what was going on within the group at the time - most people probably thought Cabinessence and Our Prayer were brand new when they were released on 20/20. You really shouldn't take music critics and biographers as gospel when it comes to questions like this, and especially for these kinds of vaguely hyperbolic/generalized claims. XTC's Nonsuch is a good example - most people who write about this album contradict each other on whether it was loved or loathed at the time. And that album only came out 25 years ago! The only way we can confirm what the critical reception was like is by finding the original reviews. As it happens, the two I could find for Friends were both positive. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok accepted. Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "ignominy" sits uneasily in the lead.
Done--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Was credited" is an obtuse way of saying "wrote".
That is on purpose. Honey was the last album where he was "primary composer", Friends is the last where he was credited for most of the songs - he did not write most of the album. It's a nitpicky but important distinction. This is why some people get confused about whether Honey or Friends was "the last Brian-led album".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes sense. Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is overwhelmingly sourced to websites and magazine articles, rather than books, of which, of course there are stacks. Could this imbalance be addressed; ideally we would have a "notes" and "sources" sections. As it stands there is no handy guidance as to dead tree reading.
  • ??? There's 8 web citations, 16 book citations, 8 magazine citations, and 4 liner notes citations (lost count of what the remaining 5 are).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I say, I prefer a split between footnotes and sources so I immediately know what I'm dealing with. But regardless this is a content and prose review, not the source review, so fine. Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean now. The reason it's like that is because most of the books devote less than 2 or 3 pages to the album, so it seemed unnecessary to incorporate harv referencing.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting doesnt at all imply harv referencing, but the point (to me) is not substantial or deal breaking. Ceoil (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JG66

[edit]

Surprised to see this one nominated for FAC – in my opinion, it seems pretty rough and under-developed. I'm talking mainly about the handling of the Maharishi tour, since I came here from the '68 BBs/Maharishi tour article.

I suppose it's partly because I recognise much of the text from the other article, but the Maharishi tour section reads as if it's been inserted without much effort paid to addressing the subject in the context of this album article. Similarly, Legacy gives over almost a whole paragraph to the fallout out from the tour, but it's not really established how this has a bearing on the album's legacy. The tour is relevant through being contemporaneous with the release of Friends, and both projects reflect the Beach Boys' public association with the Maharishi, but that text under Legacy focuses solely on the legacy of the tour itself. Aside from this issue, though, the section's more like "Aftermath" – a preview of Beach Boys history to follow. Strictly speaking, only three sentences in the third para there ("In 1990, biographer David Leaf wrote that Friends had 'grown in stature …' Among cover versions of the Friends tracks … Lo-fi musician R. Stevie Moore ...") strike me as album legacy-related.

I also find the Background section unfocused. In the same way as Legacy gives way to BBs subsequent history, it seems that Background mostly takes the form of BBs history pre-Friends: both sections appear to be giving details for the sake of it, almost, rather than with a clear focus on how the events described actually fit in the context of the album article. I appreciate the importance of Smiley Smile and Wild Honey, because of their place in the lo-fi trilogy, but I'd say the writing could be tighter and more focused. Given that I know more about the Maharishi tour than I do about Friends, I'm aware that I might be attaching too much significance here to the association with the Maharishi. On the other hand, the lead includes three references to the Beach Boys–Maharishi association, which seems to suggest it is important.

So, my solution to all the above would be to cut down the backstory given in the first two paragraphs of Background (just a thought, but perhaps mention of Brian's "reduced involvement" in Wild Honey could go to Recording instead). Then, in the third paragraph, give more on the band's initial embrace of the Maharishi's teachings. For instance, when writing the tour article, I remember reading Brian's reaction to meeting the Maharishi in January 1968 and how he was intending to introduce TM to his father. This would better establish the relevance of Maharishi so that the association becomes more of a foundation from the start. (Whereas, currently, we have a brief mention under Background and then mention of the Maharishi influence in some of the songs, before dedicating a full section to the tour and then, under Legacy, giving the impression that the tour and the album are as one.)

I find the discussion of post-Friends musical activities also lacking focus in terms of relevance to the album. One expects to read about the band's activities around the time of the album's release but everything from "Around June, Dennis befriended Charles Manson" onwards seems to have that same history-for-the-sake-of-it feel without a clear relevance to the album. This is especially the case with mention of "Do It Again", and I get the same feeling with the sentences dedicated to that single in the lead, in fact. I mean, in the lead and in the article body, the implication's there but it's not stated: was this "self-conscious throwback to the group's early surf songs" a reaction to the bad PR caused by the band's public association with the Maharishi and the commercial failure of Friends? And were the July and August US tours undertaken in support of Friends? Did songs from the album feature heavily in the setlist – or did the group deliberately put the experience behind them in an effort to reconnect with their US audience, and instead stick to the much-loved hits? It's this sort of implication and/or omission that I meant above by "under-developed". In much of the Background, Maharishi tour, Release and Legacy sections, the details sit on the page without anything really tying them into the whole. That's not the case at all in the Production & style, Content and (first half of) Release sections – and they're great because the text there is engaged and engaging.

I'm sorry these comments aren't of the bulleted-list variety, but it's hard to nail it in a list of quick-fix items, which is an indication of how, in my opinion, the problems are much deeper. I just think the article needs a bit more time and care given to it. JG66 (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some of those points are kinda weird. The article is about the recordings the Beach Boys made and released in early 1968, and so naturally there should be much supporting details regarding the state of their career in that point in time. A lot of the rhetoric about the album concerns two things: 1) the Beach Boys became more of a group effort while Brian took a back seat 2) The album was a bomb and its music didn't fit in with the times. Both are also true, to an extent, of the albums that directly precede Friends. So, to paint a comprehensive picture of the historical context of Friends, there ought to be some acknowledgements that the band were going through a transition.
The "Release" section details the band's activities from June to August while the album was making the rounds on the charts. Note that all of the contemporary reviews were published after the "Do It Again" single was issued. And "Legacy" is, as you said, a kind of "aftermath" section. It summarizes how Friends was the beginning of numerous trends for the group. All of this, including the lasting effects of the tour and the band's continuing association with TM, helps put the album in context.
Here's some of the concerns I share: there could be more info about the Maharishi's influence on Friends, but I couldn't find much. I remember reading that the Wilson brothers were nowhere near as interested in TM as Love or Jardine. That isn't noted, but should be. Other details, like the group incorporating Friends songs in their set lists, would also be good, but the sources that note that kind of thing aren't available to me. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm relieved to hear that. I think the article still needs some more work. I came here on 3 May to add a link to the tour article and noticed it was pretty flimsy on content. You started expanding it on 24 May, and I'd agree it's now a B on the quality rating, but here it is, up at FAC just days later. I'll add anything else I come across that might help alleviate the problems I mentioned. I think a thorough copy edit from a fresh pair of eyes might be a good idea.
  • Incidentally, are you sure that the non-specific citation method is acceptable for an FA? I was surprised to see you adhering to the approach whereby each citation contains multiple pages from the same book source. For instance, refs 8, 9, 10 and 12. JG66 (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't think most of the books would cover Friends for more than 2 or 3 pages, and they don't, so spreading out the page citations seemed like it would just clutter the refs. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surprised you say that – I would've thought the multiple pages for each book, bundled into a single ref, was worse. It's only when we get to the album guides under Critical reception that there are books we delve into just once (although, I just noticed a second page needed for the RS Guide). Before then, the reliance on Badman, Matijas-Mecca, Gaines, Carlin, Love and Dillon, with many pages from each one, is noticeable. Up to you, I guess.
  • I've been looking for something more on the album cover, because I remember reading some commentary on the design, somewhere. I notice that Johnston is shown on the cover (for the first time on a BBs album, perhaps?) yet he's not listed under Personnel. Maybe this deserves a mention in the text; he is quoted early on in Production & style. JG66 (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: I'm going to archive this nomination, as it feels like significant issues have been raised that should not be addressed at FAC. Please open a Peer Review and work with JG66 and others to resolve content issues, and resolve the citation/footnote issues. You may renominate after a minimum two week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/June_2018&oldid=848131513"