Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Martin Peerson/archive1

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 15:06, 14 August 2007.

---

Martin Peerson

Hi, I'd like to nominate this article for promotion as a Featured Article. I created it, and got it up to Good Article status on 4 May 2007. Cheers, Jacklee 17:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• From a first glance, I'd say it seems a bit short. Are you certain there's nothing more that can be said about this guy? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oooh, that was quick. Well, not a lot is known about this 16th-century English composer, which is what intrigued me to create an article on him in the first place. I consulted Grove Music Online and they didn't have much more about him apart from a detailed technical analysis of his compositional style which was mostly beyond me and, I suspect, not of especial relevance to Wikipedia users. Cheers, Jacklee 17:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's about the same length as Hurricane Irene (2005), if you're after precendent. Still, two minor points:

• With such uncertainty over the dates of birth/death, the opening sentence could use an attached note saying which records were used to get the information.
• All refs using an external link should have a date of retrieval, in case the pages are changed or taken offline at some point down the road.

There's bound to be more changes/additions needed, but I'm about to log off, so I'll leave that to others :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Is there some more you could put in the lead besides "Despite Roman Catholic leanings at a time when it was illegal not to subscribe to Church of England beliefs and practices, he was highly esteemed for his musical abilities and held posts at St Paul's Cathedral" that would give the reader a reason to be interested in this person? Even phrasing it without the negative in the second sentence might improve it by being more forceful. Mattisse 21:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—Is it sufficiently comprehensive to satisfy the FA Criterion? One glaring deficiency is that it says nothing, niente, zilch about his actual music. Needs a description of his stylistic development and of his style compared with those of his contemporaries. Who influenced him; whom did he influence? The article is hardly written to the reequired professional standards. Here are samples of problems.
  • Hate the way the opening of "Biography" is smeared with hedge words ("it appears that"; "it is believed that"; "seems"). Can you recast so we're not hit with quite that density of them?
  • Complying with a church—bit fuzzy.
  • "In order to do so"—Spot the two redundant words.
  • Why supply the abbreviation "B.Mus."? And nowadays, people normally lose the dots, don't they?
  • "there is also some evidence suggesting he was later made a petty canon."—lotsa flab here. "there is evidence that he was later made a petty canon."?
  • I think MOS says "c." is in roman, not italic face.
  • Surely he's referred to in hard-copy ...

Tony 07:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.