Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laborintus II (album)/archive2

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 promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 29 November 2021 [1].

Laborintus II (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another attempt for this particular article after the last nomination was declined on prose grounds. It has undergone further copy-editing since and as always I'm happy to respond to constructive criticism as to any improvements. Bit a strange one, it's only the third recorded version of an Italian composition, recorded by a Dutch choir, a Belgian orchestra, and an American ... vocalist(?), but I feel it's worth a listen. Thanks in advance to anyone giving this one a look. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "the Belgian orchestra Ictus Ensemble, the vocal group Nederlands Kamerkoor and the American vocalist Mike Patton" - personally, I would put a comma after Kamerkoor
    Done.
  • "debuted at number 23 on the American Billboard Classic Albums chart" - it's the Classical Albums chart, not Classic
    Changed at both mentions--was this renamed or have I been staring at this one for years?
    Can't say for certain but I would imagine it's always been called that. Classical Albums (recordings of Mozart, Beethoven, etc) are very different from Classic Albums (Dark Side of the Moon, Sergeant Pepper, etc) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an appropriate wikilink for "usury"? It's not the most common word and some people may not know what it means
    Yes, linked.
  • Refs at the end of the first para of Composition are not in the right order
    Rearranged.
  • "spent one week on the Billboard Classic Albums chart at number 23" - same comment as above
  • "the musician has previously produced similarly avant-garde records in the past" - I would change "has" to "had", and also, you don't need both "previously" and "in the past", as obviously anything that happened previously happened in the past
    Changed.
  • What's the source for the personnel section?
    Initially the album notes, which I don't have to hand currently, but I can add a source to AllMusic. Have added as a brief line but can refactor it another way if preferred.
  • First note is a sentence fragment so doesn't need a full stop
    I'm not sure about this--the Dutch is a complete sentence ("the libretto can be read as an indictment against the practice of loan-sharks"), does a full sentence quoted in what would otherwise be a fragment count?
    I would personally say the whole thing is still a sentence fragment...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, removed.
  • Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for having a look at this, I hope these changes address everything, although I have one query above. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • This is more of a clarification question than a suggestion. Was there any coverage on Berio using a blow-up doll during his performance? I fully admit that I'm not familiar with this genre of music at all, but this part seemed particularly strange and I was curious if this received any attention.
  • This is a nitpick, but for this part, being a recording of theatrical music—described the recording as, I would avoid repeating "recording" in such close proximity.

For full disclosure, I participated in the last FAC for this article and supported it for promotion at that time. I honestly cannot believe it has been over a year since that FAC. I have two quick comments right now, and I will read through the article again tomorrow. I do not anticipate finding anything further, but I want to make sure I thoroughly read everything a few times. Aoba47 (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for having another look at this. I've amended the sentence in question by changing the second "recording" to "album". As to the former point, I've had no joy in finding anything further, I've even used my limited dutch to try looking through dutch sources for the Holland Festival to no avail, but it's possible I'm missing something a native might find. It's a curious note so I'd love to be able to expand it more too but I've exhausted what I can find. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response! It could just be a case where it was not discussed in sources or was overshadowed by other elements on the performance. Thank you for looking though! I will look through the article again later today. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find any further issues with the article. I support this FAC based on the prose. Best of luck with everything! Aoba47 (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review as a very non-expert prose and MoS reviewer.

  • "the American Billboard Classical Albums chart." If "Classical Albums" have upper case initial letters, why not "chart"?
    • I hadn't been using it as a proper noun (...the "Classical Albums" chart, essentially) but checking back with the source they include the word in the title of it too so I've capitalised it on both uses.
  • "and contains lyrics from Edoardo Sanguineti's 1956 poem "Laborintus". Were these lyrics in Berio's original? If so, "and" → 'which'.
    • They were, amended.
  • Could we be told what the abstract image at the top of the infobox is?
    • There's nothing in an of the sources to indicate what it's meant to represent, or do you mean you'd like a caption identifying it as the album's cover?
Yep. Otherwise it comes across as a piece of random decoration.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The libretto was provided by Edoardo Sanguineti". Could we have an in line explanation of "libretto", per MOS:FORCELINK.
    • Glossed now as "libretto, or lyric book".
  • "sometimes evoking the style of Italian composer Claudio Monteverdi." It may be worth pointing out that he was not a contemporary of Berio.
    • Have described him now as a 17th-century composer (bulk of his work, including all of the operas, are post 1600 so this felt correct) but I can change this to "Renaissance" or "Baroque" if preferred.
  • Would the quote in "Production", starting "Patton said, regarding the album ..." not fit better in "Composition"?
    • Sure. I've moved it to the middle paragraph there.
  • "the overall effect is one of "dramatic tension"". If you are going to quote, note the MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original. Check for other instances and either paraphrase or attribute.
    • Two quotes attributed now, let me know how they flow with the extra wording. Two other one-word quotes have been removed from quotation marks as I felt a single word is hardly close copying.
Agreed. Or. usually, three or four. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the United States, the album debuted". Does "the album debuted" tell a reader anything?
    • I see your point; the intention was that it debuted at that chart position but then if it was a single-week run that's essentially tautological. Removed.
  • Lead: "It received mixed reviews from critics"; Body: "The album was not well received by critics"?
    • Lead now copies the wording of the article.
  • "Consequence of Sound's called it". Why is the " 's" there?
    • Was intended to precede the critic's name, which has now been added.

Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Direct quotes in the lead should be cited, even if repeated later
    • Added.
  • "Allmusic. AllMusic." is redundant, and generally formatting for this site is inconsistent
    • Combed through these to standardise them; for now I've used the website parameter to list AllMusic but it italicises the title, I can move this to another field if this is not ideal.
      • That's fine, but there's still a mix of "Allmusic" and "AllMusic". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe I've caught the last straggler now.
  • FN6: why not use the direct source for the quote? Ditto FN16
    • For 6, I don't have access to the original source as it's paywalled, additionally the second-hand report translates it rather than me having to provide a translation. I can try to cite it directly if this is preferable though, but in that case would I be best translating the quote differently to avoid closely paraphrasing the current source's take? For the second one, the former ref 16, I could replace this with a cite journal ref based on the original source but without tracking down a second-hand copy of the issue it would be missing a few details (reviewer name, volume number). Which would you consider preferable, the current situation or a slightly barebones ref to the paper source (or both together)?
      • In both cases, I would suggest clarifying per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT that these are secondary citations and the originals have not been consulted. I'm uncomfortable with the latter in particular because of the inline attribution and the possibility that the quote may be taken out of context. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the case of the former, I should be able to access the original fairly cheaply and so I'll replace that with a direct attribution to the original Dutch interview. In the latter case, I'm going to try digging a little more in case I can find the relevant information online, if not then there are a few listings for second-hand copies of this issue so it shouldn't be difficult to obtain one and quote it directly, although it may take a few days.
          • Okay, I've located and added the original Dutch source for this first quote. It's in Dutch throughout the interview--I haven't changed the translation as yet, but if you feel that it's better to translate afresh from this source and leave the original text in an endnote like has been done with the other Dutch quote used, I have no issue with that. I will include the original Dutch quote on the talk page of this nomination for comparison as the interview itself is paywalled.
          • Re: Q magazine, I've added an aside to state that the review was quoted by Metacritic but if this isn't ideal I can obtain a copy of the magazine.
  • What makes Sputnikmusic a high-quality reliable source?
    • This has come up before (here and here, among others), with the general consensus being that the site uses a mix of professional critics and user reviews, the former of which are beholden to editorial oversight and picked up by Metacritic, the latter are not considered reliable. The particular reviewer of this entry is a former staff member who reviewed this as a professional critic at the time of release.
      • Where did that info about the author come from? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was present at the time of writing, although currently it displays a username rather than a real name and a note that the writer is a former staff member. I'm concerned that the archival link doesn't seem to work--that feels very counter to the purpose of archiving, but it appears to be an issue with the archive service. If there is doubt regarding this source I can remove it.
          • The archive link doesn't seem to be working at all for me at the moment - do you recall what the name was? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Eli Kleman, although a search through google seems to indicate that this was the only website he appears to have worked for.
              • K. Think it would be better to remove/replace this. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Removed it, although there are a few knock-on effects where a couple of details needed to be changed based on replacement sources.
  • FN11: don't need department in the title parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed.
  • Thank you for having a look at this, let me know how you feel the above queries should be best resolved. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

  • Did it chart anywhere else?
    • Not that I was able to find; it doesn't seem to have bothered any of the UK specialist charts nor any national charts I could find.
  • "Luciano Berio. Berio's composition" repetitive.
    • Changed to one sentence as "Berio, whose composition"
  • You link usury in the main prose but not the lead, be consistent.
    • Added. Wasn't sure initially if one or both was best.
  • "the Muziekgebouw aan 't IJ. " where is this geographically?
    • Clarified it's in Amsterdam, but a little earlier in the sentence as it felt more natural to note the location of the festival rather than give the impression that only the building is there.
  • "Sputnik Music " our article calls it "Sputnikmusic" and it might be worth context here, i.e. "American music community Sputnikmusic..."
    • Changed to a single word. Not sure on the latter point as it would be the only website given that kind of context, I'm not inherently against it but would that not also mean adding a description of the other reviews for consistency?
  • Patton's image is (on my screen) crushing the refs, so consider using the {{clear}} template to avoid that.
    • I've added the template, it makes no difference to how it displays for me so let me know how it looks for you.
  • AllMusic or AllMusic?
    • Went with italics throughout
  • Are there no more specific categories for the type of music on the album?
    • Added it to "Live contemporary classical music albums" as well. I'm generally leery of delving too deep into genre classifications because someone will find a reason to change them again tomorrow, and the text largely just describes it as influenced by X or with elements of Y.

That's it, a very brief FA review for a very brief FAC. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much appreciated as always; I hope the above fixes or at least addresses your concerns but please let me know if you disagree on anything. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rambling Man—it's been a few days, just want to check if there's anything else you'd like to see addressed? Especially in light of a few changes necessitated by the source review above. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me, just wonder why you're forcing the references column to be 40em instead of just letting the template do its thing? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good question; I've let it default to the template's discretion. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 03:11, 29 November 2021 (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/Laborintus_II_(album)/archive2&oldid=1057745663"