Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Schubert's last sonatas/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 by SandyGeorgia 00:54, 15 June 2011 [1].
Schubert's last sonatas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): mcoverdale (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for featured article because I believe it to be a model of its kind--well-sourced, readable, comprehensive, providing a thorough overview of its topic. I'd love to see more WP articles on classical music aspire to this level of quality.mcoverdale (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article seems pretty good on a quick read-through by a listener-only person like myself , but I can't see that you have notified the two major contributors, which you are supposed to do. Should the title specify "piano" sonatas? There are some more images that could be used - Schubert's last home, his glasses, many portraits & so on. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThanks. I agree with your suggestions, particularly about the title change. I have no idea who the main two contributors are since unlike many of these nominations this is not a vanity nomination--just an article I came across and was very impressed by. My only contribution was to do a cosmetic clean-up of the opening paragraphs after I nominated it.mcoverdale (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It says at the top "Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination." You can find the 2 main editors (perhaps mainly just one) through the "history" page here; both are still active. The nominator(s) of an FA need to be very familiar with the subject and sources, and also general WP issues. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this time. The article looks impressive, but has had little significant work since its GA in December 2008. It really needs another peer review, this time against the specific FA criteria, before being brought here. After a quick skim I can see several areas that require attention: under-referencing in parts of the article; some lack of neutrality in the prose; excessive use of bullet points in prose; the music examples need to be linked to specific sources, not to a portal; MOS format issues, e.g. use of hyphens in page ranges; mixing of source material with further reading, etc... I would also underline the point made above about the need for nominators to have detailed knowledge of the subject matter, which normally means familiarity with the research that underpins the article. I would very much like to see this article in the FA fold at some future time, but as of now the nomination is premature, and should be withdrawn. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close / Oppose - FAC instructions not followed. It's understandable that you would want to see this article recognized, but you're not a major contributor and have not consulted, as you are required to do before nomination. I also agree with the issues raised by Brian above - this article is of good quality, but needs more than a cosmetic clean-up to be of featured quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is an issue with quotation marks. “ and ” should be changed to ". I tried to replace them but something was wrong with my Word. TGilmour (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.