Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
This article is about a live jazz album by pianist Thelonious Monk's quartet. It was Monk's first successful live recording, while the album's title referred to his reputation as an enigmatic, challenging musician at the time. Short article, of moderate importance, at least in jazz. Print sources were derived from GoogleBooks previews, such as this one of Charles Fox's "Jazz and Swing" piece in Gramophone magazine that is cited in the article. If a reviewer requests, I can find whichever is needed for verification purposes. Dan56 (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Background comes in a little late in the game; it starts with "After returning to the New York City club scene with his new quartet" without mentioning where Monk had been before or with whom he had been playing.
You've inspired me to dig deeper and add more from Robin Kelley's biography on Monk, lol. Dan56 (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
"and sold for a retail price of $4.98" - Relevance?
"It comprises a single chorus." - Strange wording; if it only appears once, it's not much of a chorus. If you mean that it only includes a chorus repeated over and over again, keep the wording but add "repeated at length" or something to the end.
"is one of Monk's most influential recordings" - Not sure about relevance, at least for this section.
It's a background on the original recording of the song, not this one. Dan56 (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
"impressive saxophone "cry"" - I'd de-quote "cry", as this sentence is quite quote-heavy already. Tezero (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Done, along with better paraphrasing. Dan56 (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Support per addressing of my comments. Nice article! Tezero (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Comments from jeromekohl
Per Wikipedia:FACR 2.c, the references should be made to follow one of the two different formats currently in place. My personal preference is to use the shortened-entry style found in the earlier footnotes, rather than the full-citation style found in many of the later ones, but the main thing is that they should be consistent. I also applaud your use of the term "Bibliography" for the alphabetical list of sources, and urge you to resist any suggestion to change this to "Sources", "References", or the like. If you take my advice, the full-length citations in those later notes should be moved to your bibliography, where they will provide a convenient way for the reader to survey the sources you have used, in an alphabetical list instead of helter-skelter throughout the footnotes. Otherwise, I would say this article looks very handsome indeed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Done, like this, Jerome Kohl? Let me know if there are errors. Also, I wasn't sure about the ordering in #Bibliography--for the citations w/out authors, I defer to the publisher or the article title when ordering A to Z? Dan56 (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
That's the right idea, though it looks like you have got about four more to do. For unsigned items, it is customary to use "Anon." in authpr-date citations, although it is also possible to invoke a "corporate author". The main problem with doing this is that some items may resist such identification, and once you have got one "Anon." in the list, anything else without a personal name looks odd. In case of items without a date of publication, use "n.d." (for "no date"). If you find there are several "Anon." items with the same year, differentiate them with added letter (e.g., "Anon. 1856a", "Anon. 1856b", etc.). I notice also that you have got one item in the bibliography with "et al." This abbreviation should only be used in inline citations, for items with more than three authors. The listing in the bibliography should list all of them before the year of publication. I'm afraid you are on your own dealing with the "sfn" template in such cases, however. I have no experience with this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Unless I missed anything, done! The All Music Guide books that have the "et al." have about a hundred writers (), so I don't know how I could list them all--I chose only Planer because his review/piece from page 895 is being cited. Also, Jerome, do the bibliography items require "Anon." or "n.d."? Dan56 (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding. The All Music Guide book that you name is an example of what is called a "collective work". That is, it includes signed articles from a large number of contributors, all under the editorship of just three people: Vladimir Bogdanov, Chris Woodstra, and Stephen Thomas Erlewine. This is similar to references such as the New Grove Dictionary of Opera or the German MGG. When citing a specific article from such a book, you should put that author's name and the article title (enclosed in quotation marks) in the bibliography, followed by the title of the collective work (italicized), and the editors of the volume. In a reference work with the articles arranged alphabetically by title, it is optional to add the inclusive page numbers of the article, though in this case it may be advisable to do so. I believe you are citing two different articles from the All Music Guide, and so you should have two different entries in the bibliography. Because this particular book collects together "reviews" of individual albums, you may need to modify this simple plan a little bit. Planer on 895, I imagine (GoogleBooks won't let me view that page) must be an album review (of Misterioso?) within the article on Thelonious Monk, and so the entry should look something like:
Planer, Lindsay (2002), "Thelonious Monk: Misterioso". All Music Guide to Jazz: The Definitive Guide to Jazz Music, fourth edition, edited by Vladimir Bogdanov, Chris Woodstra, and Stephen Thomas Erlewine, 895. San Francisco: Backbeat Books. ISBN9780879307172.
Since you are using citation templates with which I am unfamiliar, the exact results may differ somewhat, but in general this should give you the idea. In this case it is incorrect to add "et al." to Planer's name, since she is the sole author of the album review, and note that author names should only be inverted when they are being used for alphabetization purposes. This is why many bibliographical templates have fields both for "author name" on the one hand and "last name" and "first name" on the other. In the above example, the editors' names should be in normal name order; inverting them only creates chaos for the reader.
I am not sure what you mean by your question about whether bibliography items require "Anon." or "n.d.". These are placeholders for items that do not give an author's name or year of publication, respectively, and are therefore used in both inline citations and bibliography entries. Indeed, you should be unable to link from one to another with the "sfn" template, unless they appear in both locations. I currently see six anonymous items in your bibliography: the first two entries, and the four beginning with "Misterioso OJCCD 206 2" and ending with the Original Jazz Classics Collector's Guide. Some of these are undated, and so should have "n.d." The others should have their year of publication, like this in the inline citation for the Original Jazz Classics Collector's Guide: "Anon. 1995" and like this in the bibliography: "Anon. (1995)". Needless to say, they should be alphabetized under A for "Anon.", just as if this were an actual author name, and then sorted by year of publication. You can place the "n.d." items either all before or all after the dated ones, but if there are two or more, it will be necessary to distinguish them with subordinate letters, just as you would do for two items from the same year by the same author (e.g., "Smith 1911a; Smith 1911b", therefore "Anon. n.d.(a); Anon. n.d.(b)").—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Much better. I've fixed the alphabetization problem, and added the missing letters differentiating the three "Anon. n.d." entries. The author last name and date should appear exactly the same in the inline refs and the bibliography. This raises a further issue: I presume the inclusion of a day and month within the parentheses in some of the bibliography entries is forced by the template. Author-date citations should display only the year but, if they have got more than that in the bibliography, then so should they in the inline (i.e., footnote) author-date references.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be so difficult, but at least some of those items require the month, season, or even exact date to differentiate different issues of magazines and the like, all of which within one year may have, for example, page 23s. The normal bibliographic layout is to put the month (or day and month, in the case of weekly magazines or daily newspapers) in parentheses following the title of the publication or, if a volume and/or issue number is given, after that information. When both volume and issue are given for a magazine or journal, this is optional, for for popular magazines and newspapers, volume and issue numbers are rarely available. It is in these cases that the more exact publication date become crucial—it just doesn't belong up front with the author's name and year of pubication.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not problem at all--after all, this is the place to dot my article's I's and cross its T's. Is this in line with your point, Jerome Kohl? I restored some of the full dates I had removed from those popular magazines and newspapers (who did not have both volume and issue information) but I placed the full dates in an "Issue" parameter instead so they don't appear where they would have if placed in the "Date"/"Year" parameter. Dan56 (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Brilliant. You're getting the idea. The only remaining problem is that you should not duplicate the year in the "issue" field—just the month, or the day and month where that is appropriate (as in the Village Voice items, for example).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, everything that really matters is now done and dusted. There are some optional things you might want to consider, in the following six entries:
Anon. (1959). "Thelonious Monk". Down Beat (Chicago) 26 (16)
Christgau, Robert (2005). "Noise on Music Central". The Village Voice (February 22) (New York). Archived from the original on April 12, 2013. Retrieved April 11, 2013
Fox, Charles (1964). "Jazz and Swing". Gramophone (London) 42 (August).
Giddins, Gary (1976). "Two Labels Pull Out the Old Bottles". The Village Voice (September 20) (New York).
Hentoff, Nat (1959). "Thelonious Monk Quartet – Misterioso". Hi Fi Review2 (May)
O'Meally, Robert G. (1997). "Jazz Albums as Art: Some Reflections". In Bowles, Juliette. The International Review of African American Art14 (1). Hampton University Museum.
Schuller, Gunther (1958). "Thelonious Monk". The Jazz Review (New York) (November)
First, the places of publication given for all of these except Hi Fi Review are not usual, unless there are two or more journals (or newspapers) of the same name that need to be differentiated. Second, there is a sort of "rule of thumb" in bibliographies that page numbers are mandatory for scholarly journals, but are not used with popular magazines (Forbes, Radio Times, etc.). I would judge most of these to be popular magazines, so the lack of inclusive page numbers is acceptable, but I am confused by the last entry, which looks like a scholarly journal, but is attributed to an author (Bowles Juliette). If this person is the editor of a journal titled The International Review of African American Art, then she should not be named (editors of journals are never named in bibliographies); on the other hand, if she is the editor of a collective work of that title (a book, that is), published by the Hampton University Museum, then a place of publication is needed ("Hampton, VA", presumably) and the funny "volume/issue" stuff is probably an error and should be removed. Is it a book, or a journal? The formatting should make this clear. (I rally can't believe this is as complicated as it actually is. I did this kind of thing for sixteen years, and it is all quite automatic to me. You must be going mad!)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Since "Reissues" is a fairly short section, perhaps you could restructure the article with "Release and reissues" and "Critical reception" sections?
"Release and reception" is structured chronologically, so to merge that paragraph from "Reissues" or splice it into "Release and reception" would interrupt the flow, topically and chronologically, at least in every configuration of a merge I considered. Dan56 (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
In the "Release history" section, you might be interested in putting the references in a separate row, although that is purely a matter of personal preference and is certainly not a make-or-break deal.
MOS:ALBUM#Release history didn't show a ref. row, so I just assumed the editors who wrote that MOS felt it would be implied that a citation can be placed in any row, like at MOS:CHARTS, where the citations are all placed next to the chart title. Dan56 (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
These are all very minor suggestions, and I trust that you will address them all as necessary, and I will give my support to the nomination. Good work! WikiRedactor (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
"Release and reception" section: is there a reason why the album ratings template is not used? Not that it has to be there, I'm just curious.
Only the two All Music writers gave it a score, so there's nothing to "supplement" if the two scores are mentioned in prose. Plus, it makes room for an image of Griffin. Dan56 (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Some minor suggestions. Other than that, the article meets the WP:FACR criteria for prose and style very well indeed. Focused on the lead section and went through all the refs that were freely accessible online.
WP:FACR 2a: the lead section doesn't sufficiently explain how/why this record stands out from the rest of Thelonious Monk recordings. In the revision from Feb24 there was still a line "It was his first successful live recording." It was later removed. Would like to see something to the same effect, if possible.
Added "It was one of the first successful live recordings of his music." It had been previously removed because of the existence of the posthumously released 1957 concert recording, as cited in this article. Dan56 (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
In the lead section: "After most of his original ensemble had departed... he returned with his new quartet". If you separate the lead section from the rest of the article, the reader is expected to understand why the old lineup was notable enough to be mentioned in the introduction before the actual recording ensemble. I'd highlight the ensemble from the second residence here and leave the detailed explanation of lineup changes to the actual article below.
Background section: The Kelley book (p. 239) says about Coltrane: "Coltrane was also ready to move on. Miles wanted him back and Trane himself was considering a solo career". Wiki:" while Coltrane left because Miles Davis wanted him to return to his own group." I suppose it is common knowledge that he went back to Davis, but the ref "Kelley (1995) p. 239" isn't saying so. Could this be made more precise?
It was originally "in pursuit of a solo career" in the article, before another editor revised it here. I assumed he was going to review here as well, but if not, would the original revision--"in pursuit of a solo career"--suffice? Dan56 (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, Coltrane was back with Davis in January 1958, but he recorded Soultrane in February 1958 and kept recording and releasing his own work while with Davis until April 1960. I understand why Kelley wanted to highlight both joining Davis and his solo plans, as both avenues existed and were notable in Coltrane's career. Could both of those be combined here? --Sk4170 (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Schuller 1958 is here Couldn't find the explanation to the album title there. Is it the correct version of the full review or is there something missing? Hard to say, as the Google Books version is not accessible.
My fault. I had the Schuller and the Keepnews (original LP notes) sources mixed up. Fixed. Dan56 (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Clicking "Keepnews 1959" from the list of references didn't point to the Keepnews entry in the bibliography section.
The title track "Misterioso" "first recorded in 1948". I wonder if it's worth clarifying here that there indeed was an early Monk recording of the piece for Blue Note. The ref "Kurtz 2008" says that "it was recorded by The Seer in 1948". I have no idea what "The Seer" is, other than confusing.
Kurtz had been referring to The Seer (the painting used for this album cover) as an artistic representation/metaphor for Monk at the beginning of his review for Jazz.com. Kurtz was being fanciful, but he was referring to Monk in that sentence too. Dan56 (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't clear enough, Kurtz' fanciful play with words managed to confuse me! What I was trying to say, when looking for the missing Down Beat ref from Google Books, I found a Down Beat review (Down Beat June 17, 1949, p.14) of a single release "Misterioso/Humph" (tracks listed in this order) from The Thelonious Monk Reader (p. 32) and was wondering if something like this "first recorded for Blue Note in 1948") was an improvement. --Sk4170 (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I looked up p. 32 at GoogleBooks, but couldn't find where it said that it was recorded in 1948. Is the recording year on a different page? Either way, I've added a different source to verify the improvement you've suggested. Dan56 (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
"Beginning in July.." -> "beginning in July 1957" to clarify the timing of his first residence, as it is at the beginning of a paragraph.
My bad. I clicked the original link in error, thinking it was the archive link. --Sk4170 (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
In the Composition section: "one of Monk's newer compositions at the time", Keepnews 1959: "There is one new piece: Blues Five Spot". I think it is more correct to say like Keepnews that there was one new composition on this record. --Sk4170 (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Done, although this revision was originally there before being brought up in Tezero's comments above. Dan56 (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Everything in this album is over five decades 'old'. This track was 'new' in comparison to the rest of the tracks on the record. It's good as it is now. --Sk4170 (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I kept reading the Reissues section over and again thinking something was missing, until I realized that only the 2012 release is mentioned there, but the first digitally remastered album release with two bonus tracks from 1989 is not. Both releases are included in the Release history table below, but I feel that both should be mentioned in the Reissues section, too. Without checking the table, it suggests that Tarantino remastered the recording in 1989 and it wasn't released until 2012. --Sk4170 (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Added "also" to "On May 15, 2012, Concord Music Group also reissued the album"--"remastered on CD" suggests it was a reissue as well. Dan56 (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
To me, this sentence "In 1989, Misterioso was digitally remastered on CD by mastering engineer Joe Tarantino, who used 20-bit K2 Super Coding System technology at Fantasy Studios in Berkeley, California" describes the remastering process, who did it, when, where and how. That's why it didn't occur to me that the release info was already in there. --Sk4170 (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Revised to "...digitally remastered for its CD reissue..." Dan56 (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Hope this helps! --Sk4170 (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I hope I've addressed your points, Sk4170, the best I could. Dan56 (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, Dan56! I added a couple of comments above, a new one regarding the Keepnews ref, and one more thing from my notes that I forgot to bring here. --Sk4170 (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The snippet verifies the above, but not the year 1959 in the release history table. Is it correct to assume that p. 56 is about Down Beat's 1959 jazz critic's choices of records released the same year? Using that as a source for the release year is perhaps a little random. --Sk4170 (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Replaced ref. in release history table. Dan56 (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
"Kelley p. 243" verifies only "Keepnews returned to the venue on August 7". No word of attendance, nor whether it was an evening show or matinee or whatever. I suggest replacing the ref with "Anon 1995 p.70" where "over-crowded" and "recording equipment" are mentioned and moving "Kelley p. 243" right after "August 7". --Sk4170 (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Done. Mistakenly reversed the order for this paragraph. Dan56 (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Tesser 2012 liner notes,
Press release from Concord here mentions Tesser's quote in the 2012 liner notes. Dan56 (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Hentoff's critic was verifiable from the Google Books snippet view, with some effort. However, couldn't verify the release year detail. I couldn't see the release date from the snippets and can't assume the release year of the publication is also the release year of the record. Could that ref be replaced with something else. --Sk4170 (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Wow! Absolutely appreciate you pointing that out! Major change--found a better source, which verifies 1958 as the release year. Dan56 (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Um, there's a space where the release year should be, unlike most other entries there (Anon 2001 p. 304). Also Monk in Action has no release year listed there. But I found something better! Googled with "Riverside RLP 279" and found "Monk, T. Quartet Misteriose" (yes, the spelling is incorrect) listed in the "LP new releases" section on the Billboard Magazine December 1, 1958 issue (p. 41). Is it safe to assume that it was released in time for the Christmas market, and this entry on Billboard magazine is not advance info on a 1959 release. On a different note, the "Hentoff 1959" ref is still there: "Misterioso was released in 1958 by Riverside" in the Release and Reception section. --Sk4170 (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
In that particular book, the space implies its the last year listed above it (for consecutive entries), but doesn't matter at this point--great find! I've added it, Sk4170, and removed the Hentoff cite from "Release and reception" (). Dan56 (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I see that you changed the Misterioso release date to the date of this Billboard issue that I was lucky to find from Google Books. Are you sure about this ??? I don't know how things were done back in the day, but as long as there is no solid release date for the record given in any of the sources we've been able to read this far, isn't it a little bold to assume it was released on the same day it was mentioned on Billboard mag new releases page. I think it's good evidence on the release year being 1958 instead of 1959, but are you really sure it's the actual date? --Sk4170 (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Couldn't verify the page# of the publication. Again, Fox's review is used as reference to release year in the Release history table. Could that be replaced with something more appropriate. --Sk4170 (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Fox: "Although this LP was recorded — 'live' (as the saying goes) at the Five Spot Cafe in Nov York — in August 1958, it has never been issued here before. It's hard to know just why there has been this delay, for the music is well up to standard." (p. 202). Best source available for UK release. Dan56 (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
1964 it is. No need for another source. --Sk4170 (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Yanow 2001. --Sk4170 (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Can't access the Yanow review, couldn't verify. --Sk4170 (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Odd, but I'll transcribe it for you anyway Dan56 (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
"Tenor saxophonist Johnny Griffin's hard-driving style perfectly fit pianist-composer Thelonious Monk's music and their 1958 quartet (with bassist Ahmed Abdul-Malik and drummer Roy Haynes) was well documented during one night at the Five Spot Cafe; a second CD (Thelonious in Action) is take from the same evening. Of the two releases, this one gets the edge due to Griffin's memorable improvising on a heated version of 'In Walked Bud.' Other highlights include 'Nutty,' 'Let's Cool One' and 'Evidence.'"
— Scott Yanow
Dan56, finished checking the refs, some comments (diff) above. --Sk4170 (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Great job pointing those out! Hope my response and corrections will suffice, Sk4170. Dan56 (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Dan56! Mystery about no access, but now "Yanow 2001" is checked. Added some comments (diff), i.e. on Hentoff 1959/Anon 2001/release year issue above. Once those two points are fixed, I can give my strong support for this fine article. --Sk4170 (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
One more comment above Dan56, regarding the release date. --Sk4170 (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Good job! Here's my strong Support for this article. Thanks for asking me to review this Dan56, it's been an interesting journey into the world of Thelonious Monk. --Sk4170 (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm interested in the Giddins article from which you extract "hard bop" as a genre. I was unable to find this article, even in library databases that index Village Voice back to that year. Can you provide more information on this article, including page number, and how you obtained it? Is there a scan of it online somewhere? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I cited "hard bop" on back in June, when I found the Village Voice article through Google News Archive, before it was shut down in December (Google_News_Archive#History). Fortunately, though, I was able just now to use google.com/newspapers to find it again (). As far as verification, in discussing the albums recorded by Monk--naming Thelonious in Action and Misterioso from the Five Spot recording by Keepnews--and other Keepnews-produced jazz artists on Riverside Records, he writes, "With few exceptions, the music is East Coast or Chicago style hard bop." Dan56 (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Google to the rescue. I'll have some more comments tomorrow. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Spike Wilbury, are there any more concerns or comments, or do you support this nomination? Dan56 (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dan, I skimmed the article and didn't see anything of obvious concern, but I'm afraid I didn't get a chance to scrutinize it to the point that I would feel comfortable supporting. Sorry! --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Clunky prose repetition of "twenty years of career struggles and obscurity" in the lead section and " twenty years of career struggles and obscurity" in the article body. Same with "vividly" and "enthusiastic crowd". The lead section should not repeat the article text! Rather, it should summarize article text.
I don't see any guideline that says material can't be repeated in the lead. If anything, I've found "... the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body..." (WP:LEADCITE). Dan56 (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Featured articles are supposed to contain prose that rises significantly above the average. If clunky repetition is to be defended rather than fixed then my !vote is to oppose the FAC. Binksternet (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure the guideline I cited had the average article in mind. Could you please tell me where it says, if anywhere, that something that's in the body cannot be repeated in the lead? "Released in 1958 by Riverside Records" should be excluded as well? This, along with the "twenty years of..." (important as background), seem like significant enough points to include in the lead. The sentence with "vividly" and "enthusiastic crowd" would be significant since this is a live album and the atmosphere or setting would be of great interest to readers, especially since the background section discusses the venue and Monk there. Again, significance I suppose can be debatable, but I don't feel like words being repeated a few times in the lead is an issue, especially if no guidelines or policies don't look at it as an issue. Dan56 (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The guideline WP:LEAD says to summarize; it does not say to repeat. The strict following of the WP:LEAD guideline should have been a requirement for this article to attain GA. More to the point, the guideline WP:Featured article criteria seeks "engaging" prose, even "brilliant" prose. The repetition of such words is clunky prose. If you want to keep the repetition, then you are holding the article back from FA quality, and I will not recommend it be promoted. You are free to choose. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, then there's a conflict with how WP:LEADCITE is worded and what different editors find to be engaging prose per WP:FAC. I don't see how repetition of a few words disqualifies something as a summary per WP:LEAD--naturally, a summary will repeat at least some words, and the "According to Keepnews" bit isn't even repeated in whole. Would these tweaks suffice? Dan56 (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Your changes have neatly fixed the "vividly" repetition but not the "career struggles and obscurity" repetition. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
That works, but "career difficulties" should suffice. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
What do you say aloud when discussing the group of Miles Davis? Do you pronounce it as "Miles Davises group" or "Miles Daviss group"? If the latter then no change is necessary. If the former then it should be written "Miles Davis's group", with the apostrophe followed by an ess.
Is that a question of personal preference or is there an actual way of verifying how to pronounce it properly?--Because I honestly wouldn't know. I've seen sources use either/or (Marc Antomattei, Scott Yanow) Dan56 (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm seeing more authors using "Davis's group" than "Davis' group". Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Kk, changed to the former, removed "uncertainty" (). Dan56 (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Some textual separation should be introduced to tell the reader that Monk's "Just a Gigolo" is not quoted within the song "In Walked Bud". The context is that the previous paragraph was about a single song which contained quoted bits of other songs. The reader now expects the next paragraph to be about one song with inserted quotes of another song. The reader should be told that "In Walked Bud" has ended, and a new song has begun, the solo piano piece.
No, not really. I don't see an explicit closing of the previous song before the next song is raised. Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
But it says "the only song on the album", and there's no mention of "quoting" in the paragraph. Furthermore, the track listing makes this evident--I don't see how a reader would make that mistake. Dan56 (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Hentoff did not really "pan" the saxophone playing of Griffin. It's true that he writes "There is, for one thing, too little space for Monk's soloing and somewhat too much for tenor saxophonist Johnny Griffin." He continues by saying Griffin is "impressive by means of his unabashedly emotional 'cry' and his excellent timing. He does not always, however, convincingly tie together solos as long as those he takes here. He has improved in that the sustained cohesion of his solos in 'Misterioso' [the tune] is particularly memorable." Hentoff's review is mixed, not wholly negative.
I did not use the word "pan" or "negative" anywhere in the article, apart from the photo caption, which did not have it either until I responded to this edit summary raised by another editor. Dan56 (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Hentoff's review does not say that Griffin's "cry" and "timing" are the features which "diminish his solos." Rather, Griffin's failure to tie together his solos is related to their lengthiness, per Hentoff.
I wouldn't agree than him saying "as long as those" means the length of the solos is a point of criticism, but I hope this change will suffice as a safe assumption. Dan56 (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that Hentoff's review can be summarized as saying Griffin's "saxophone cry and timing are more impressive than his solos". Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
It is somewhat presumptive to provide the reader with a piped link to Musical development inside the quote from Fox: "attempt at development". In any case, wikilinks are deprecated within quotes.
Well, both "development" and "quotations" are used by Fox in a music context--I don't understand what the former would mean otherwise. I've removed the quotes and paraphrased to a simpler sentence. Dan56 (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Fox in his review does not really "pan" Griffin either; it's more mixed. He says that Griffin is "something of a virtuoso in his own unbuttoned way" but that Griffin "never really integrates himself" into Monk's quartet. Fox says "the result is that most of these performances [the tunes on the album] tend to be outings for Johnny Griffin rather than examples of Monk the composer. Which is all right in one way, for Griffin has an infectious exuberance about him." Elsewhere Fox says that Griffin is "prolix" (long-winded) on the album, and thus has "overshadowed" Monk's playing. So Griffin is a virtuoso with infectious exuberance... this is not entirely negative.
I did not use the word "pan" or "negative" anywhere in the article, apart from the photo caption, which did not have it either until I responded to this edit summary raised by another editor. Dan56 (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Not enough is explained about the partner recording Thelonious in Action being released "first", despite both albums being released in 1958. How much time passed between the release dates? What was the reception of Thelonious in Action? Or was it still too early to know what people thought of Thelonious in Action, when Misterioso was released? Certainly more can be found written about the comparison of these two albums.
As the above editor's comments might show, sources for the release year, let alone date, are scarce and some inconsistent. The sources that discuss Misterioso in-depth do not touch on these points. For that reason, I don't think it's very relevant to this article. There wasn't even a source that explicitly says whether Misterioso was well received or not by critics, only the handful of reviews I was able to mine from GoogleBooks. Dan56 (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with the photo caption: "Johnny Griffin's playing on the album was panned by contemporary critics, but praised in later reviews." Contemporary critics gave Griffin a mixed review. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
If you'd like, I can restore the caption to before this? Dan56 (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The "ambivalently" solution is okay. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Support per prose review and subsequent fixes. Binksternet (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Images are appropriately licensed, fair-use rationales are sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
It's been a week since the seventh and last support was given by a reviewer. GrahamColm, would it be fair to say or at least appropriate to ask whether a consensus has been built? Dan56 (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the first sentence of the Composition section merits a quick description of hard bop for a jazz novice.
None of the sources on this article's topic discuss hard bop, and a quick GoogleBooks search (and a look at the hard bop article) explain it as something in relation to bebop, which wouldn't really help readers any more than just leaving "hard bop" linked to its Wikipedia article for jazz novices to look there. Dan56 (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, that's fine then.
"... critic Nat Hentoff said that the album is "not one of his best" and observed "too little space for Monk's soloing and somewhat too much" for Griffin, whose saxophone cry and timing are more impressive than his solos." There appears to be a misplaced quotation mark, double check.