Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/This England (album)/archive1

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) 01:08, 23 January 2017 [1].

This England (album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): --Another Believer (Talk) 03:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an album recorded by the Oregon Symphony. It was created in February 2013 and promoted to good article status in March 2013, and has been reviewed by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. I have four featured articles under my belt, and this album follows Music for a Time of War, which has been promoted to FA status. I am happy to address any concerns by reviewing editors. Thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really seems inappropriate to me as failing under FA criterion 4 (length). (see also WP:AS). Fantastically long, overdetailed and boring for the topic, with WP:UNDUE details such as names of everyone in the orchestra. Descriptions of the pieces recorded are also WP:UNDUE, a link to the main article of each piece is more than sufficient - the pieces tell us nothing about the recording per se. Not the sort of thing we should wish to promote as a shining example of what WP can achieve. I appreciate that the author has (as admitted) a deep personal involvement in some way with this topic (see his/her comments on his/her WP:COI on the article talk page), but few are likely to become as enamoured by reading this overstatement of details about a really rather non-notable recording.--Smerus (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Smerus: Hmm, ok. First of all, thank you for taking a look at this article. I am somewhat surprised, though. I constructed this article in the same way I did several other classical music album articles, including: Joseph Schwantner: New Morning for the World; Nicolas Flagello: The Passion of Martin Luther King, Orchestral Works by Tomas Svoboda, Tragic Lovers, Music for a Time of War, and Spirit of the American Range. Reading your feedback, I am not really sure if there are specific concerns that I can address, or if you just don't think this article is FA-worthy in general. You finding the subject matter "boring" seems a bit subjective and not really something that should be held against the article itself. Is there anything specific I can do to earn your support, or...? Thanks again for contributing to this discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these comments. Please don't misinterpret me; I have specifically not said that I found the subject boring; I have specifically said that I find boring the treatment of the subject in the article. (My words I think were clear: "Fantastically long, overdetailed and boring for the topic".) I see certain generic problems here. Let's take just one - listing all the musicians on the recording. It seems to me that this is unquestionably WP:UNDUE, except for soloists. None of the orchestral musicians listed are notable, and setting out their names does not add anything to our understanding of the significance of the recording. To defend (e.g.) this criticism by pointing out that the same procedure has been used by you in other FA articles simply means that those articles show excess in the same way. Faults in one article are in no way justified by the same faults being present in others. The corollary is that these other articles are also imo unworthy of being featured articles in WP. If I had been asked to comment on them, I would have made the same criticism(s). It seems that there are those who think that somehow a featured article should contain every possible scrap of information about its topic, and they of course will support you. But an article is not a book, or a thesis, or an exhaustive treatise - it should be a distillation of information which makes clear to the reader (even if a novice) the elements of what is important about the topic. And a featured article should therefore be a fine example of that distillation. Overloading it with detail makes it unclear to the reader and turns it into just an indiscriminate compilation of stuff. The proof of the pudding is the very low readership the articles you mention actually get, despite their having GA or FA status, and despite the great amount of work you clearly put into them. Obviously you are carrying a torch for this orchestra, (you have yourself declared the existence of COI which perhaps prevents you from being strictly neutral in your advocacy) and your dedication to providing these articles and pumping up their status smacks highly to me of WP:NNPOV and WP:PROMO. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, but it seems to me a disappointing waste of effort and in general brings down, rather than raises, the standard of FAs and GAs. In a nutshell. "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." A large proportion of what the articles you mention contain would not be found in an encyclopaedia. By this standard they should all be substantially stripped down if they are to held as good or featured examples of encyclopaedic articles and of what Wikipedia is for. That's all. Best, --Smerus (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Smerus: Regarding the inclusion of the orchestra roster. I don't point to my other GAs/FAs as a reason to mention the contributing musicians, I point to the many other GA/FA album articles that include complete lists of contributing musicians, producers, vocalists, and other personnel. We always include personnel lists per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_guide#Personnel. And, with all due respect, I don't think my COI prohibits me from being able to write neutral album articles. I'm not carrying a torch, and I created these articles years ago. I don't care to respond to your comments re: COI, my inability to be neutral, and "bringing down" the FA/GA standard (by the way, I posted a similar COI note on the Music for a Time of War article, and that didn't prevent its promotion). I think my portfolio in its entirety shows a pretty solid understanding and appreciation of how Wikipedia works. I'm not sure I am going to be able to change your opinion about this article being promoted, so I don't know what that means for this nomination in general. Apart from the unnecessary orchestra roster, which actually seems consistent with other featured content, you haven't offered specific concerns to address. I hope other reviewing editors won't take issue with this article's promotion because they find it "boring for the topic" or think it doesn't meet traffic standards. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Smerus: @Another Believer: I haven't given this article a full review (one will be forthcoming), but this article does not fail the length criterion. Personnel sections are extremely standard for album articles. As a matter of course, everyone credited on any album will be listed, even for a large orchestra. A single paragraph on each major work featured on the album is also not undue. If this article included, I don't know, a full biography of every orchestra member, or an article-length description of each piece of music, that would be undue. As is, the article is an entirely appropriate length, one with the details that I would expect from any decent article about a classical music album. —BLZ · talk 23:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brandt Luke Zorn: Thanks for this, and for further review soon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edited this article for the WP:GOCE when it was a GA candidate, and I just checked the prose again to make sure it had not changed significantly since then. It still looks good to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Jonesey95. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, I enjoyed the article and I disagree with Smerus’s comments that it is too long, boring, and about a "rather non-notable recording. At ~29kb with wikimarkup, it is well below limits suggested at WP:TOOBIG, and a list of personnel is traditional in articles about recordings. The descriptions of pieces recorded are all in summary style. Further, the critical reception has been strongly positive, and is documented well in the article text. I support this article for FA. I do have have 2 questions:
1. Could the tense of this sentence be updated to indicate whether the fourth album is forthcoming? "The recording is the second of four albums expected to be produced by the Symphony and PentaTone before the end of the 2014–2015 season"
2. I was confused by the timeline of release, which was after the symphony release party where the album was for sale? Maybe it’s just my ignorance of the promotional timeline for releases…"This England, released by Dutch record label PentaTone Classics on November 13, 2012" but "The Symphony celebrated the recording by hosting a CD release party in late October" with the source indicating albums will be "available for sale".
Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Grand'mere Eugene: Thank you for your kind words and support. I changed the tense of the sentence you mention. Please let me know if you had something else in mind. Regarding the album release party, this was merely the Symphony selling advance copies of the CD at its release party. The album was later available to the general public. I don't think this is too abnormal, or worth going into additional detail, but I'm certainly willing to change the article's wording if you think it's necessary. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the change to the one sentence, as I confess ignorance about release dates and pre-release sales. The article looks very good to me. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Grand'mere Eugene: Thanks for confirming, and again for your review. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Elgar-by-haines-1912.jpg: as noted in the description, the given tags don't match the details of the image. It is quite possible this is non-free in the US
@Nikkimaria: I replaced the image with the one used in the lead of the Edward Elgar article, which has been promoted to Featured status. I hope this means the image is appropriate and your concern has been addressed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I hope I added the right tag correctly. Image policies are definitely not my forte. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My reaction to this article was somewhat similar to, although less strident than, Smerus's. It reads like the author is trying to draw blood from a stone. It is an unremarkable classical album, in an era in which few people buy classical albums. History will forget it, if it ever knew of it. Having said that, I don't think that this gut reaction of mine is relevant to the Featured Article Criteria. Rather, the gut reaction is relevant to the different question of whether there should be an article on this album at all. I am open to supporting its promotion. I have some comments:

  • On what basis is Music for a Time of War twice described as "highly successful". What is the difference between "successful" and "highly successful" and what criteria does the album meet to be described as either? It might have been critically acclaimed, but did it sell? Should sales be the metric of success, or critical acclaim? (You see what I'm driving at here).
  • I removed "highly successful", which I understand is subjective. Previously, the article mentioned the album's Grammy nominations, but since those details were deemed not necessary for this article, I think it's appropriate to remove the superlative. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The recording was the second of four albums expected to be produced by the Symphony and PentaTone by the end of the 2014–2015 season..." Did this expectation come to fruition? If not, it is not worth mentioning. If so, the other albums should be listed.
  • It did not. Spirit of the American Range was released in 2015, so 3 out of 4 came to fruition. I don't think it's worth mentioning that only three out of four came to fruition, but multiple sources describe the orchestra's plans to release 4 within the designated timeframe, so I would think this is worth noting. I am definitely open to adding to, or amending, the current article's text if reviewers think Spirit of the American Range is worth mentioning. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the blood-from-stone theme, some of the information presented borders on the trivial: the CD release party and the local radio station offering it as a thank-you gift.
  • Brian Horay's credentials look dubious to the point that I don't think his views should be represented. He describes himself as a "recent convert to classical music". Benson and Ritter seem legitimate; I haven't been able to find out anything about Campbell. Syek88 (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Horay is writing for The Huffington Post and The Portland Mercury, shouldn't his commentary be included regardless of his "credentials"? Both are notable publications, and the article doesn't go into detail about Horay himself... it just offers a summary of his commentary. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Syek88: Thank you for reviewing this article. I've replied to your 4 comments above, and addressed 2 of your concerns. Happy to discuss other concerns further. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that the album is truly notable. There are no notable compositions/charting and the sources used for notability are not great either.

  • In his review for The Huffington Post, Brian Horay wrote that the orchestra delivered "knockout" and "beefy-yet-restrained" performances of the Peter Grimes compositions. - I managed to find the source and it is actually a contributor article, not a staff article. Contributor articles (like at Forbes) are not subject the same editorial checks (Views on RSN has generally been against using these). Essentially these are considered WP:SPS and I wouldn't include them.
  • Classical CD Review's Robert Benson called the Elgar performance "brilliant" and appreciated that "Passacaglia" was programmed before "The Storm". Again, Classical CD Review seems to be a self published site. I don't see a need to include this review
  • Steven Ritter of Audiophile Audition wrote that the Symphony performed "with a brilliance and verve equal to any on record"... - I don't see any indication that Audiophile Audition (online magazine) is a notable source.
  • Several Oregon publications included This England on their lists highlighting local products. Portland Monthly included the album on their list of "November's Best PDX Stuff", which showcases Portland's "coolest products and ideas" - The list seems to a regular non-notable list. It doesn't seem worth mentioning in the article
  • The Oregonian included the album on their list of "25 local gifts under $25" - "25 local gifts under $25" is trivia. At this point, it seems like barrel scraping.
  • Oregon ArtsWatch contributor Brett Campbell recommended the album on his list of Oregon classical music I unclear about the notability of Oregon ArtsWatch. It seems to be a local magazine, the kind who also publicise events (such as this). If this is not a major magazine, then it should be removed.
  • The Portland Mercury invited local music industry professionals to list "Portland's Top Five Records of 2012"... - This is trivia as well. The source consists of multiple lists by many people, and none of them are notable.
  • CBC 2 - Would it be possible to find a reference. I am unable to find one.

That's all that I saw for now. My main issue is with the quality of sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl942: Would it help if the article's prose noted which commentary was made by guest contributors and/or local publications? Isn't local coverage of a regional organization needed in order for the article to be comprehensive and meet criterion WP:FAC 1b? Do sources need to notable, or just reliable? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Withdraw nomination: Given Lemongirl942's sourcing concerns, I'd like to withdraw this nomination. I removed all of the above sources from the article (in preview mode), and have decided I'd rather keep the article in its current Good article state than eliminate tons of details for the sake of a star icon. I want to thank everyone who contributed to this review. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Wait, before closing I'd appreciate a reply from User:Lemongirl942 for future reference. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl942: Pinging again as a reminder, thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I think it's time to act on the withdrawal request; Lemongirl942 can always make further comments on the article talk page -- or at a Peer Review, which might be the logical next step -- prior to any future FAC nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2017 (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/This_England_(album)/archive1&oldid=761627855"