Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laborintus II (2012 recording)/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 not promoted by User:GrahamColm 19:47, 13 April 2014 [1].

Laborintus II (2012 recording) edit

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 07:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Così s'osserva in me l'album concetto. While not a long article by most estimations, this is a comprehensive look at an independent album by three disparate acts, in three disparate acts. The work is a recent recording of a fifty-year-old composition, adapted from a sixty-year-old poem, first intended to mark the septuacentennial of Dante Alighieri's birth. It's not exactly "My Lovely Horse".

The article was given a GA review by Crisco 1492, and a brief peer review by The Rambling Man; it has been modelled on my usual approach for writing album articles, although this would be the first time I've taken one to FAC. As usual, I'll endeavour to respond to any comments promptly and should be readily available for interrogation. GRAPPLE X 07:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review:
  • Prose comments
  • Reason why the choir's opinion is important should be clear at first mention
    Added. GRAPPLE X 11:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link blow-up doll?
    Piped to sex doll, which is where the phrase redirects. GRAPPLE X 11:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for an over-repetition of "piece"
    Changed a few around; should I try to cut out a few more? GRAPPLE X 11:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patton's spoken-word narration is mostly in Italian, with some sections spoken in English - watch for repetition of "spoken"
    Got it. GRAPPLE X 11:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all from me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review! GRAPPLE X 11:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose, images and comprehensiveness. I drove Grapple crazy during the GA review about comprehensiveness, and I haven't found any new sources either. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's really difficult to get any grasp of how this sounds with a sample. It's impossible to get a feel of the music by reading the article. A non-free sample would add significantly more to this article than the non-free identifying artwork. - hahnchen 17:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm perfectly open to replacing the cover with a sample, I just wouldn't really know the first thing about going about it. I'll see if I can comb through a few other articles to get a feel for the expected length and the technical know-how in doing it. GRAPPLE X 18:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to replace the cover. Just add a sample to the composition section. - hahnchen 18:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Uploaded and included. Not 100% sure on the placement, though; I'm contemplating losing the cover image, moving the the dual picture into the section above to take advantage of the reduced infobox, and moving the sound box up a paragraph. I may just be over thinking things. GRAPPLE X 22:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You are. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • You did a nice job covering all the critical commentary. The sound sample seems fine as it's enough for me to tell that it's nothing that appeals to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad I could save you the cover price. :P GRAPPLE X 23:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the prose is hardly "brilliant":

  • the opening sentence has "Belgian orchestra Ictus Ensemble" but "the vocal group Nederlands Kamerkoor". Including or omitting "the" are both fine, but it would be good to be consistent.
  • Dante referred to as "Alighieri". Dante is surely a standard WP:MONONYM -- his article certainly uses it.
  • Unnecessarily heavy use of passive in cases like "The original poem has been described by allMusic's Thom Jurek as ...".
  • Clumsy phrases like "believing these to also be themes present in the works of Alighieri".
  • "Piece" is still over-used. At over half an hour, it would be justified to replace at least some of them with "work".

These are just illustrative. I can offer to do a quick copy edit this evening or tomorrow evening if you wish. --Stfg (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a quick pass to tackle the items you specified, but I'd gladly welcome a copy-edit if you're willing. Thanks. GRAPPLE X 19:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for accepting it. I've done it now, but I'm sorry to say I have been left with so many concerns that I'm forced to oppose this FAC:

  • It is worrying that we have an article about just one of the three recordings of this work, and no article about the work itself. By doing this, are we not tilting the playing field in favour of this recording, i.e. exercising commercial influence? The article certainly doesn't cover the music in depth, and I'd be willing to bet there would be several good sources for that if they were sought. Moreover, the title of the article is also the title of the work, so anyone who might have come here to read about the music is automatically presented with this commercial bias.
    When creating the article I simply went for the non-disambiguated title as there was nothing currently existing to distinguish it from; if this is considered problematic the current title could be given over to a disambiguation page and the article moved to a title with additional disambuigation (Laborintus II (album)?). Alternatively, to save creating an extra page, a hatnote could be used to refer the reader to the Luciano Berio article if they were looking for information on the composition. I'm happy enough to do either, and I'm open to any other suggestions too. GRAPPLE X 22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A move to some such title is certainly very desirable indeed. A possibility is Laborintus II (2012 recording), since at least two other recordings of the work are also commercially available, and since there's only one work on it. It's multi-movement, but we call a recording of one Beethoven symphony a recording, not an album, don't we? Just Laborintus II should be reserved for the work itself. Even with a move, I have misgivings about the ethics of Wikipedia covering only one recording of a work that has multiple professional recordings available (one of them the composer's), and not the others nor the work itself. Why did you choose this particular one? --Stfg (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your title works for me. I've redirected the original title to List of compositions by Luciano Berio with a hatnote at that target. I came to this subject as a fan of Patton; I've previously worked on articles for other albums he's recorded or produced. GRAPPLE X 22:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing that. Good target for the redirect, but I've removed the hatnote as tending to highlight one recording too much for a list-of-compositions page. --Stfg (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that the Jurek review on allMusic (FN3) says that the work uses Sanguineti's poem for the libretto, and that Sanguineti "appropriates fragments of works by Dante, Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, and the Bible alongside original content". However, Berio's author's note (FN2) states "The text of Laborintus II develops certain themes from Dante’s Vita nuova, Convivio, and Divina Commedia, combining them - mainly through formal and semantic analogies - with Biblical texts and texts by T. S. Eliot, Pound and Sanguineti himself." That is, Berio seems to be saying that it is he, not Sanguineti, who brought the various texts together. These are not consistent. The article takes Berio's view on this, ignoring Jurek, and that may seem logical, but composers' own accounts are not always reliable sources. A featured article ought to go into this, and it requires research.
    As was my understanding of the Berio note, it attributes the text solely to Sanguineti and not to Berio ("Laborintus II, for voices, instruments and tape (1965), Text by Edoardo Sanguineti"); both sources seem to be saying that the text is largely a collage of other sources with additional material written by Sanguineti. GRAPPLE X 22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading them again, I think you're right about that. But both the second paragraph of the lead ("in addition to Sanguineti's work"), and the first paragraph of Production ("In addition to Sanguineti's poetry") are written in such a way as to imply that there is more to the libretto than Sanguineti provided. The sources seem to me to be saying that Sanguineti assembled the whole libretto, combining original work of his own with those other things. The article as it stands seems to imply something a bit different. --Stfg (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Tried to clarify a little more that the intention is that quoted material is in addition to original content by Sanguineti. The second instance you cited may need more comprehensive rephrasing if it's not currently strong enough. GRAPPLE X 22:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've edited to make it clearer that Sanguineti assembled all the libretto. How is it? --Stfg (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Production section we read: "Berio considered some elements of Laborintus II to be "autonomous", capable of standing on their own in addition to serving as component parts of the full work; the composer considered this to apply to both the libretto and the musical score, which he saw as extensions of each other" cited to Berio's author's note. I don't believe Berio was saying any such thing in that note.
    I based this on "Individual words and sentences are sometimes to be regarded as autonomous entities, and sometimes to be perceived as part of the sound structure as a whole" and " The instrumental parts are developed mainly as an extension of the vocal actions of singers and speakers, and the short section of electronic music is conceived as an extension of the instrumental actions" from this source; perhaps either my reading of this, or my paraphrasing of it, is flawed, or both. I can certainly rewrite it if I've taken the wrong meaning from the source. GRAPPLE X 22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that, but I think you are misreading it. How can an individual word be capable of standing on its own as opposed to serving as a component of the work that uses it? My understanding is that those words and sentences are autonomous within the work -- i.e. independent (for example thematically) of what is elsewhere in the work. Also, you say "extensions of each other", but the source only says that the music extends the vocal content, not the other way round. --Stfg (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've given that section a thorough re-write to more closely mirror the original phrasing. How do they compare now? GRAPPLE X 22:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Good on what is an extension of what. On autonomous words and sentences, I suspect you're still saying something different from what Berio said, but he is quite cryptic, so I've just replaced it with a quote from him, and caveat lector. --Stfg (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found instances where critics' comments were presented as being about the album, when they were actually about the music.
    Perhaps I've got the wrong end of the stick here; aren't they one and the same to an extent? I've tried to be clear when it's the actual composition that's being spoken about, rather than the delivery of it, but the critics are speaking about this particular recording in each instance. Is this an issue of drawing this line more clearly (for example, specifying more explicitly if "the piece" is Berio's composition versus the Ictus/Kamerkoor/Patton recording)? GRAPPLE X 22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's a question of drawing that line clearly. Sometimes the critics are talking about Berio's work, and sometimes about things like Patton's delivery. The work and the specific performance aren't "one and the same" to any extent. --Stfg (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've clarified the subject of criticism for a few more of the cited reviews, to make it more evident when the composition or the recording are being discussed. I now get the feeling I may have overused the word "composition", however. GRAPPLE X 22:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty good now. I don't think you've overused "composition". --Stfg (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seemed to say that Berio considered a "catalogue, in its medieval meaning" to be "an enumerated list in the style of Dante". The Berio source says no such thing.
    That one I can't account for; I can only hold my hands up and call the use of "Dante" a mistake; the source does give a different author as an example (which I see you've added) so I seem to have put the wrong thing down in error. I'll attempt to seek out a source review in case I've made any similar mistakes. Thanks for your copy-edit and your frank comments; I'll endeavour to resolve them as I can. GRAPPLE X 22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected such errors as I found, but I only consulted five of the sources and I cannot be sure that there aren't more. Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm much happier now the changes discussed above have been made, but I'm still shy of supporting. Partly this is because of the fandom and commercial bias here. Normally with a work like this we would have an article about the work, which would include a Recordings section to describe them all. It's a bit different from commercial albums. A Beyoncé album, for example, features music and arrangements written specifically for her. Articles about such albums don't tilt the commercial playing field; this one does. But this is the first time I've seen this issue, so if other editors want to pitch in with different views, I'll defer to them. The other issue is the need for source checks. --Stfg (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly understandable; would it assuage the issue any if I could put some information together for an article on the original work? With the sources already present I'm sure there's already the kernel of something viable and I would highly doubt it would be difficult for me to track additional material down. GRAPPLE X 22:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry not to have replied quickly. I'm on unfamiliar ground and needed to think about it. For me, it would improve the situation, but the problem of featuring one performance over and above the others would still bother me. That's about all I can say at present. It's an issue that needs wider discussion, I think, unless it has already happened somewhere, --Stfg (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of reviewed content, the closest analogue I can think of immediately would be 2012 tour of She Has a Name, which focusses on one particular production of a play in a separate article to the play itself (which is located at She Has a Name); I didn't see anything else at WP:FA, but I didn't check WP:GA. I suppose it is an uncommon case, to cover such a lengthy piece instead of just one song. In all honesty, though, I don't really know how to address this other than, as suggested, creating an article on the original piece too—is this a notability concern (why is one album more notable than other versions?) or how should I approach it? GRAPPLE X 19:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The tour is a bit different, in that it's over and so can't cause commercial prejudice. I don't think we have a concept of greater of lesser notability, and our concept of due weight relates more to viewpoints than to things that have a commercial value. I really don't know how you should approach this. I've said that I'm willing to be overruled, and that's about as much as I can say, honestly. Sorry not to be more helpful. --Stfg (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- I've let this review go on longer than I might normally because I'm not sure that we'd gain much by archiving it without resolving Stfg's concerns. It's true that we're used to seeing pop album article nominations, but not specific recordings of 'classical' works. That said, if such an article passes notability criteria, I suppose why not? Were an article to appear focussing on Solti's recording of The Ring, would we be having the same discussion? Unlike this case, it's just one of a multitude of recordings of the work, but then it's probably the most famous and the work itself also has an article (though one that could cerainly stand some improvement). I would like to see if we can resolve this quickly one way or the other, so I might ask for another opinion or two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I passed this as a GA and have supported above, so my opinion is fairly obvious. However, to make it explicit: yes, this is a recording of a classical composition. That is not indicative of notability, or indicative of a lack of notability. What makes something notable is sources. This has several sources, including six or seven reviews. This has coverage in a variety of trade magazines and popular magazines, showing the planning process and describing the creative aspects of the work. This was released to the mass market. We have articles on compilation albums and cover albums, which do not feature "new" material, just classics and/or covers (Dekade being the only one I've written); why should this be any different? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, been a busy day and I'll be away for the most of tomorrow as well. As Crisco says, the article itself does indicate its notability as a separate subject. I've made some steps towards distancing it from the original work in terms of visibility—the title has been ceded to a redirect, the target of which doesn't mention or link to the article (which means the incoming links are from articles already about the performers, preventing a reader reaching this article first if they initially wanted to look for Berio's work); and while I'm happy to work on an article for the original work in the coming week, after that I don't know how else to favour it. I'll admit it's a niche case, but I don't think it's wholly unique—we've also featured multiple commercial adaptations of a work which currently is not featured, for example. If a wider consensus on the issue is needed, I'd be happy to start an RFC on the article's talk page, or to ask editors from related wikiprojects to chime in, whichever would be seen as the best way to resolve the issue. GRAPPLE X 00:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not me you need to convince, guys, and I don't think an RFC is called for. The nom simply doesn't have consensus to promote according to FAC convention -- if that can be achieved in fairly short order, well and good, if not I'll have to archive it and it can be renominated some other time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Thanks for giving time for this question to be aired. I don't want to take more of a view than I already have, but to answer your question, yes, I'd have raised the same issue if it was Solti's (or anyone's) Ring. I had a similar thought about Barenboim's Hammerklavier. I don't dispute this one's notability; I only ask whether it should be featured.. The issue arises only where there is a question of commercial competition. None of the examples given so far (other than the classical recordings) raise it. --Stfg (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think "commercial competition" is something we need to be too worried about. If another recording of Laborinuts II passes notability, it is just as viable a candidate for being featured. There are several films based on the legend of Tangkuban Perahu: would we not feature any, just in case we give more credence to one than the other? In that case I'd better put Tjioeng Wanara on the backburner. Ian, I don't quite think "The issue arises only where there is a question of commercial competition" is really actionable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Having been asked to comment, and after reading through the review comments to date, I have a few issues:

  • This is clearly not an "album" in the accepted sense of that term in recorded music, a fact that it seems was acknowledged by a title move in the course of this review. It is a recording of a composition. Yet I see it is repeatedly referred to as an album in the text. Is it an album, or isn't it?
  • I am uneasy with the assertion that notability is simply a matter of sources. For example, there are over 60 recordings of Bizet's Carmen available, all of which have been reviewed at one time or another in the press and journals. Are they all individually notable, and would it be acceptable to have separate articles for them? If so, within WP rules there would be nothing to stop each and every one of them from being presented as a potential featured article. But that is the way that Wikipedia works: absurdity tempered by common sense. Personally, I think that individual recordings should only be considered notable if the particular circumstances of the recording are themselves notable – as indeed they were in the case of the Solti Ring cycle quoted above. However, I accept that this is a personal view; the WP bar of notability is set low, and I think it's too late now to start questioning the notability of this particular recording.
  • The "question of commercial competition" should not be applied on a piecemeal basis to individual articles. If there is an existing policy that tackles this issue, bring it out and let's see whether this article falls foul of it. Other than that, and the clarification of the "album" nomenclature, I think this article can be considered for promotion in the normal way. I'm sorry that these comments are somewhat hurried, but I'm on my way out, the taxi is almost due and I have got to finish packing. Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In a similar rush myself; looking at this on a lunch break. In regards to the first point, I'd say the record does constitute a live album, having been recorded at a concert and released by a record studio known mostly for studio recordings (and the occasional soundtrack); it was also tracked for sales by a US albums chart (which I would also point towards in regards to notability). I'm happy enough to change the title if it seems incongruous, the intention with the move was more to do with weight and focus rather than nomenclature. I would also put forward that the mere existence of sources isn't the only indication here of notability; they also represent attention being paid to the release by relatively mainstream music press—these are sources just as likely to be reviewing number-one albums by pop acts, rather than being niche classical or genre oriented press. It'll probably be tomorrow evening before I can get back to this, however. GRAPPLE X 13:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

  • Crisco 1492, Brianboulton: films "based on" a legend presumably have their own scripts and are essentially separate works, not performances of the same work. A legend is not a work in that sense. Laborintus II is a work with its own score. But anyway, I'm convinced by everything that Brian said, including the point that we shouldn't set a precedent ("piecemeal") in a place like this. So my earlier comments on commercial competition can be ignored here.
  • To be a live album, something must not only be recorded live, but also be an album. My understanding of an album is that it contains a selection of separate pieces. This recording is of just one work. I agree with Brian here.
  • In any case, the need for a source review remains. I found these further issues just now:
    • FN15, the Billboard page used as the source for the first paragraph of the Release and reception section, no longer carries that information (or any useful information).
    • Mincher's review (FN1) does indeed mention "the occasional English" as stated in the article, but Jurek's review (FN4) says that Patton "speaks in Italian throughout". Who is right? Whoever is wrong becomes a dubious source, doesn't he?
    • In any case, "the occasional English" is not the same as "some sections in English" as the article puts it. To many people that would imply whole elements of the sectional structure of the work.
--Stfg (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Managed to find another section of the Billboard site with the same information; they seem to have overhauled how their site works in the interim. The confusion as to the lyrics featuring some English or being all Italian took me a while to figure out, but it seems the AV Club source has mistaken English-language taped samples for Mike Patton; the album's booklet labels these as "Eduardo Sanguinetti on tape". As such I've removed the mention of English, though if you prefer I could reinsert it with the clarification, citing the album's booklet, that speaker and choir use Italian exclusively and that English is solely the domain of these samples (the full libretto is printed inside this book). As for the issue of album vs recording; should all the instances of "album" be expunged, or should the word just be used much less frequently? GRAPPLE X 22:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The new Billboard link gives the peak position and the number of weeks, but seems not to have the date. Have I missed something? Or is the previous version archived? On the lyrics, I think it would be better to clarify the full situation, otherwise someone might spot the Mincher mention and be confused. On album vs. recording, I'm of two minds, because I think Brian is right, but some sources do call it an album. I prefer "recording" throughout, but not strongly. @Brian, what do you think? --Stfg (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bugger, you're right about the date, they've taken it off. The weekly breakdown of the chart only goes as far as #10, with the full thing being behind a paywall. I've rephrased it to remove the date, as (understandably) the page hasn't been archived, and I'm not comfortable assuming it's present in that paid link without being able to see it myself. I've also added a bit more about the language issue, clarifying that the English is another voice and not Patton's. GRAPPLE X 00:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So a comedy album (such as a recording of a live performance by Chris Rock or alumni) is not an album, Stfg? Those can be a single "performance", containing several jokes. This is a single "performance", containing several movements. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that unsourced stub of an essay need detain us for long. Crisco 1492, once again you're not comparing like with like. The movements of a composed piece of music aren't comparable with the jokes in a stand-up routine. And you're misrepresenting what I said: I said "My understanding of an album is that it contains a selection of separate pieces. This recording is of just one work." No semantic argument about what constitutes a performance. Instead of trying to shoot down my comments, which I have put forward tentatively enough in any case, why not carry out a full and independent review of your own? --Stfg (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reviewed this article at the GA and FA level. Or did you miss that? Or do neither of my reviews qualify as a "a full and independent review of [my] own"? If not, how so?
Fine. You want to shoot down every comparison I come up with. Then answer me this: how does this recording not count as an album? When it was released as an album and charted as an album? When it was performed with its own interpretation, its own timing, its own emotion, its own flaws and mood, enough to cross the threshold of originality (TOO; a copyright term, but one I think is applicable here). That TOO is, for the understanding of an album in general (not a studio album, just an album), quite low. Compilation albums have little creative input (I dare say less than this), yet are still styled as "albums". Cover albums (probably the closest comparison there is) are still styled albums, and have a similar level of originality.
I have explicitly noted, on several occasions, why I think this passes the bar for notability. I am prepared to argue it at an AFD, if you think this should go that far. Frankly, I am surprised that the delegates are even giving your concerns the weight that they are, and their actions disappoint me greatly. There is no separate bar for notability for FAs. Never has, and should never be one. If this is notable enough for an article, then it is notable enough to be an FA assuming all the criteria are met. If this is closed as non-notable, yet survives AFD, then in the future I will treat FA as I am currently treating the FOUR Award. This is ridiculous. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely apologise for forgetting your reviews here and at GA. My bad. As for "shooting down", I have been replying to your challenges to my comments, which I feel entitled to do. I think I have explained why I believe that "recording" is a better term than "album" for this. We appear to have a difference of opinion on it, but I won't repeat myself. I have never said that this article is not notable; in this edit I said "I don't dispute this one's notability". The issue I raised was about its effect on commercial competition, and yesterday in this edit I said "... my earlier comments on commercial competition can be ignored here". I have also mentioned that while copy editing the article I found several instances where the text here did not reflect the sources, which I either corrected or raised in my review. I found a further batch yesterday and recorded them above. After I first pointed this out, in this edit Grapple said he would ask for a source review. IMO whether this article passes should depend not on notability but on whether it is believed that the article now accurately reflects its sources. --Stfg (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I agree that the issues with source representation should be looked into further. My spot checks during the GA review (here) turned up only one issue, but it was a random sampling, so more things may have slipped through. I will post at WT:FAC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or not. Apparently I missed that Grapple has already posted there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for that. I need to know if you now accept that I have never questioned this article's notability; that, even though we disagree about it, my preference for a word other than "album" was expressed tentatively and in good faith, recognizing that some sources use it; and that I did correctly identify some cases where the articles did not accurately reflect its sources, at least four of which are identified on this page. In light of your statement yesterday that "I am surprised that the delegates are even giving your concerns the weight that they are", I feel the need for this clarification. --Stfg (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose:: I won't bother to go through striking things out, but provided the source check turns up nothing new, I have no objection whichever way you decide to take this FAC. Call me neutral, if it helps. I'll trust you on the usage of "album". --Stfg (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment - We have not reached a consensus and there has not been much activity here lately; so I will be archiving this nomination in a few minutes. Graham Colm (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2014 (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_(2012_recording)/archive1&oldid=1138465485"