Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Camille Saint-Saëns/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Camille Saint-Saëns edit

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 15:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hot from peer review, another French composer whose article I hope will be found fit to join his compatriots at FA – his friend Georges Bizet, his pupil and protégé Gabriel Fauré, his rival Jules Massenet, his mutual unadmirer Francis Poulenc and one he never heard of, Olivier Messiaen. Unlike these other distinguished musicians, Saint-Saëns was a polymath, a capable practitioner in many fields including astronomy, musicology, philosophy and archaeology, as well as an organist, piano virtuoso and composer. The challenge has been packing it all into an encyclopaedia-size article. I have enjoyed his company while writing about him, and I hope reviewers will enjoy it too. Tim riley talk 15:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support With pleasure, addressed my concerns at the PR. A fine, well-written article on a major composer which thoroughly deserves to be promoted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Doctor, for support here and input earlier. Greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 18:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Gaff --> see concerns below.

Audio file review by Gaff --> see concerns below.

Gaff: do you wish the queried items to be removed? I can do that, but I have no idea how to delete the actual files from WP. Tim riley talk 19:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would hate to see them have to be removed and most (probably all) of this looks fixable. I'll try to help out with it, but am swamped. I'm new at doing these reviews and just following the lead so another more experienced reviewer please double check. --Gaff (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. @Crisco 1492:, I wonder if you would possibly have time to lend your expertise to all this, please? (And to the prose, too, of course, if you're so disposed.) Tim riley talk 22:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaff: a couple things to note for future reviews. France does not have freedom of panorama, so images like File:Saint_Merri_Church_Interior_2,_Paris,_France_-_Diliff.jpg need to include a licensing tag for the building itself as well as the photo - in this case it's almost certainly PD, so just a matter of adding a tag. For File:Le-timbre-d'argent.jpg et al, since these files are PD in the US, they shouldn't be on Commons but we can use them locally without any problem. For File:Corneille-Lamartine-Hugo-Klein.jpg, the tagging reflects that the image is a compilation, but again all four images are okay to use locally. For File:Sept Improvisations - 7. Allegro giocoso.ogg, Somerville Music Society appears to have run the recital series in which Smith performed - they may own the copyright there, but it would be nice to confirm this (Tim riley?). Agree duplicate file should be removed, dead links replaced and missing OTRS ticket added. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Bednarek has kindly dispersed some of the media section around the text and blitzed the rest. All items still dubious after above comments have been removed. Tim riley talk 07:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Latercomer to the peer review, found a few things to quibble about which were duly rectified. The article shows all the characteristics of a well-prepared Riley music biog, beautifully written into the bargain. Two questions: why does Camille as a boy look at least 35, and why, aged 45 in 1880, does he look 75? Honestly, though, this is first-class stuff. I sincerely hope that the audio files all pass muster as "free"; such can bring a composer's works to life more effectively than even the best-chosen prose. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh! Thank you, BB for those very kind words. Coming from one who weighs rather than counts his successful FACs I take them as an enormous compliment. I agree about the sound files but they were there before I started my overhaul, and my ignorance of the subject is flawless. Tim riley talk 19:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support; I was a fellow traveller at PR and my few complaints were dealt with admirably. An excellent and enjoyable article that has only strengthened since PR. - SchroCat (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful for your support here and input earlier. Thank you so much, SchroCat. Tim riley talk 22:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I must echo the comments above; this is an excellent piece of work displaying all the Tim Riley hallmarks. Wonderfully written and engaging; a pleasure to read as somebody with very little prior knowledge of the subject. The detailed overview of the composer's music is a real treat for classical music buffs. I am very pleased to be able to support the candidacy for featured status. Really just excellent. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to need a bigger size in hats. Thank you so much, Cliftonian, for your very kind words. Tim riley talk 08:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As Gaff noted already, the sound file of "Le cygne" is used twice; it should be removed from the section "Media". In fact, my preference is not to have such a section at all. Sound files spread through the article, where they are used to illustrate the narration, are fine, but the appendix "Media" looks to me like a mere collection of works, present only because they are available – IMHO. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much both for the support and for the suggestion. I inherited the media section from earlier versions of the page, and my own clumsy attempts to amend it resulted in what is technically known as a pig's ear, hastily reverted before saving the page. If you, Michael (or anyone else) would care to tweak (or more) I shall be seriously grateful. Tim riley talk 15:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • The "Piano Rolls" link is broken
  • Check alphabetization of Sources
  • FN98, 121: what source is this?
  • Are those Anderson refs meant to have two different dates? The short cites suggest yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All attended to. Sorry you've had to plough through so many titles, but the sources seemed to mount up the more I read, with A referring one to B and so on. Thank you for your sharp-eyed review. Tim riley talk 07:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suppport from Gaff. It looking like the concerns about media license are being addressed. It was a learning expierence for me, which hopefully didn't slow down process. As for the article generally, it is definitely FA caliber and a fine contribution. Nice job! --Gaff (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gaff. We all have to learn our way round, and I hope you have found reviewing this a fruitful and not too daunting experience. Good wishes for your further reviews. And thank you so much, too, for your kind words on the article as a whole. Tim riley talk 15:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – What a joy to read. I fixed a few reference formatting issues with nothing else to report. CassiantoTalk 19:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How very pleasing to hear from you, Cass! I hope all is fine with you, and that your studying goes exceptionally well. Thank you so very much for your support here. Tim riley talk 19:11, 10 March 2015 (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/Camille_Saint-Saëns/archive1&oldid=1136098517"