Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Vladimir Horowitz discography/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 00:30, 11 March 2010 [1].

Vladimir Horowitz discography edit

Nominator(s): Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) and Etincelles (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets the criteria and also has many references to prove its notability Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 11:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - Check External links, and ALT text. Why don't any of the references have any accessdates? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 22:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comments - Most of the refs in place for the album titles have a space, remove the space. If dates cannot be found the Recording dates (as example for the Horowitz Plays Chopin, Vol. 2), then it should be specified that the date is Unknown. Some of the dates I notice such as the Release date on Horowitz At the Met don't comply with WP:DATE. I notice you link some Record Labels but don't link others, I would feel due to the scale of the table that all Record Labels should be linked. The Top I feel needs to be expanded to fit the scale of the table. Just a query should the composers listed be linked? The first listing of the RCA label should be abbreviated as its abbreviated many times, also you list in the Overview "1928–1959: RCA Victor Red Seal" and then list "1975–1983: RCA Red Seal" just a few rows down, which spelling is it? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 21:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Why just the one nominator listed? This article appears to be a collaborative effort and more than one person should gain the credit when it reaches FL status.
    • It is probably worth mentioning Horowitz's nationality in the first sentence.
    • Its fair enough to set a limit on the scope of the discography and keeping to commercially available, non-copyright infringing recordings in modern media makes sense to me. However I think it is worth identifying which performances of works that he recorded more than once appear on discs that do not claim to be complete in some way. http://web.telia.com/~u85420275/alphabetical.htm and the accompanying chronological list allow you to identify when performances were recorded and http://www.vlhorowitz.net/ contains similar information in a database searchable by composer. The DG site also provides good information on the dates and contents of their recordings on their website. I'm not sure that Sony provide so much information online but at least some of their box sets do have other full details on the CD slips. (I'm thinking of a big Mendlessohn set here not of a Horowitz one Im afraid.)--Peter cohen (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having looked at the discogs guidelines I can see that they are not enthusiastic about the listing of the works that appear on a disc. However my instinct as a collector is that I want to know which recordings appear in a particular package. The example I often give to friends is about how Beethoven's 5th+Karajan+Berlin Phil+DG is not a unique identifier of performances and therefore if I see a bargain box that includes this combination I want to know whether it duplicates my collection or not. Therefore I suspect that there may be the potential of Horowitx having multiply recorded the same work with the same company over a epriod of 20 years. Do you know that it is not the case that there are ambiguities in the box?--Peter cohen (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • To whoever closes this: Given that I'm probing a point that asks for more detail than in the Discogs guideline then this shouldnt be a reason to reject the candidate.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the requests have now been finished, can the article be re-reviewed? Etincelles (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Clearly alot of work has been put into this, but this just does not appear to be up to the standards of FL discogs, specifically the standards of MOS:DISCOG. I recognize that this is a little bit different than most of the pop-music orientated discographies we nominated here, but there's still alot that could be improved and a lot that could be borrowed from the more standard discography styles. However, the nail in the coffin in my opinion is the unreliable sources provided. Discogs and IMDB are not considered reliable, since the content is user-generated. Also, Amazon.com and iTunes should ideally be avoided, since it is a retailer and not an encyclopedic source of information. Drewcifer (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although, if you look at this page, it is a featured list but nowhere near up to the standard of this article as it is much less sourced and has less information. Also, although references such as Amazon.com and iTunes have been used, the article is backed up by general references from which the information was originally obtained--Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 22:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amount of information and number of citations are not an indicator of a good article/list. Appropriate information and well-chosen citations are, so I don't think your comparison to the Lang Lang discography holds much water. That, and see WP:WAX. So, like I said, take a look at MOS:DISCOG as far as style goes, and WP:V as far as citations go. Drewcifer (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have began to change the references to Allmusic, if most of the albums are referenced to this will the article still stand a chance? Etincelles (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allmusic is definitely preferable in most cases, so I'd say that's a very good step in the right direction. However, I do have some qualms with some of the rest of the sources, namely the "The Vladimir Horowitz Website". What makes this site WP:RS? Is this a fanpage or an official page? I couldn't find any evidence on the page that made me confident in its reliability, but I didn't dig very deep. Drewcifer (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The Vladimir Horowitz Website" is a fan page, do you suggest it is removed as a reference? Etincelles (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All references to Discogs have been removed. Etincelles (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Improvements have surely been made, but many problems (which I've already mentioned) still stand. WP:RS is still a problem, as is general style-things (column widths, amount of detail, etc, per MOS:DISCOG). So for now I'll still have to stick with my oppose. Drewcifer (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  • Lead is too short, I'd expect it to summarise the article adequately but in some level of detail. Right now it's just a couple of sentences...
  • alt text - "smartly dressed man" is POV - you need to describe what he's wearing.
  • Last sentence of lead repeats "recorded" too quickly for elegant prose.
  • I think you could incorporate that bullet point list of labels easily into prose.
  • Why is 78RPM so capitalised?
  • "all-Chopin, all- Scriabin, etc." spare space there, and I'm not keen on "etc."
  • Seven paras in the Overview, many of which could be merged.
  • what's SHM?
  • Album Title -> title, Recording Date(s)-> date(s) etc.
  • Why is the Recording date(s) col unsortable?
  • I would expect that many of the pieces recorded by Horowitz could be linked i.e. they have articles of their own, e.g. Piano Sonata No. 10 (Mozart)
  • E flat or E-flat (etc) be consistent.
  • Spaced or unspaced slashes, be consistent.
  • Why some cells blank under Recording Date(s)?
  • "recorded at different stages of Horowitz's life." isn't this obvious? He wouldn't have been able to record them all at the some "stage" of his life...
  • IMDB is usually not considered a WP:RS.
  • What's the pedigree of "mayslesfilms.com"?

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although these points seem valid and reasonable:
  • Lead is too short, I'd expect it to summarise the article adequately but in some level of detail. Right now it's just a couple of sentences...
  • Seven paras in the Overview, many of which could be merged.
  • what's SHM?
  • Album Title -> title, Recording Date(s)-> date(s) etc.
  • Why does the Recording date(s) col not function correctly?
  • I would expect that many of the pieces recorded by Horowitz could be linked i.e. they have articles of their own, e.g. Piano Sonata No. 10 (Mozart)
  • Why some cells blank under Recording Date(s)?
Yes, we are currently adding wikilinks--Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 11:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that this could be compromised:
  • I think you could incorporate that bullet point list of labels easily into prose because I think that the layout looks more effective when the list is bullet pointed and also the information is clear and easy to obtain. Therefore, I feel that this section does not need to be changed
Also, what does this mean?
  • Album Title -> title, Recording Date(s)-> date(s) etc.
Thanks--Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 09:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All issues now fixed. Etincelles (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose from Truco

General
  • Dabs and external links check out fine.
  • You have only 89 edits to the article while User:THD3 has 160 edits andUser:Etincelles 871 edits. Please notify these editors of this nomination.
General
  • Remove the first comma in the first sentence no need for it.
  • He stopped recording for RCA in 1959 and between 1962 and 1973 recorded with Columbia Masterworks, now known as Sony Masterworks. -- comma needed after 1959
  • In 1975 Horowitz returned to RCA, with which he recorded a series of live recitals. -- comma after 1975
Overview
  • These recordings were made on 78rpm disks. -- a link to rpm would be useful
  • "RCA's London based affiliate." -- endash needed between London and based to merge both words
  • WP:OVERLINK of LP album
  • In 1975, Horowitz returned to RCA Victor, then called RCA Red Seal with Victor being removed (it was reinstated in the 1980s). -- the whole name change is not necessary to note, just In 1975, Horowitz returned to RCA Victor, now called RCA Red Seal.
  • He made a series of live recordings until 1982. During this period, Columbia also repackaged their Horowitz recordings with reissues including the named Beethoven Sonatas, multiple-LP sets of Chopin, and so forth. - the last part of that sentence needs rewording for a better understanding of what is being said.
  • In addition, several smaller labels have put out CDs made from pirate recordings from the 1960s onward. -- avoid words like 'put out' and use 'released' instead.
  • Don't start off sentences with "Also", its informal.
  • "does not contain 78rpm, LP, Cassette, or 8-track tape releases." why doesn't it?
Video releases
  • What verifies the prose ?
  • There is no other info on the 1993 entry? Like the other ones?
General question
  • Was any of his works given awards?--Truco 503 19:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have done what you wanted, thanks for all of your comments. Horowitz did receive many awards, see: Vladimir Horowitz#Awards and recognitions. Etincelles (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2010 (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_list_candidates/Vladimir_Horowitz_discography/archive1&oldid=1120116353"