| Revision as of 12:36, 9 April 2012 editKablammo (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers50,413 edits →Marian Anderson: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:54, 9 April 2012 edit undoDrhoehl (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,038 edits →Copyright violation alert: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| An infobox has been added to this article, which had a hidden comment at that top requesting talk page consensus first. I have restored (twice) the prior version. I have opened a discussion at the article's talk page. ] (]) 12:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC) | An infobox has been added to this article, which had a hidden comment at that top requesting talk page consensus first. I have restored (twice) the prior version. I have opened a discussion at the article's talk page. ] (]) 12:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == Copyright violation alert == | |||
| As usual, trying to put together a new article proves to be a COW (can of worm). Still working on my Edison artist, and in the process just discovered that the "History" section, at least, of ] directly cribs from the organization's Web site: http://www.schubert.org/history/. The article hasn't yet been tagged with this project's banner, but I'd say it falls within the porject's scope. What's the next step--delete the offending text? Slap on a copyvio banner? Refer the matter elsewhere? All guidance deeply appreciated! ] (]) 18:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:54, 9 April 2012
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
FA status in Piano music of Gabriel Fauré
Does this article deserve FA status? Please see this comment. Best wishes, Gidip (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Where does it say that FA articles must be beyond improvement? Please tell me that this post is an April Fools Day prank... Though I fear not. —MistyMorn (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- It was a featured article six weeks ago (Feb 13th). Read the info in the talk template. Peer reviewed in November, candidate reviewed in December. It seems a moot point to discuss it now. As MistyMorn says, you can always keep improving it.DavidRF (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to associate myself with Ssilvers's considerations on the article's talk page—way more constructive than my rather tetchy remarks above. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Since I play this repertoire, I took a look at the article. I find the method of quote mining from Nectoux and others unhelpful in describing pieces. Whatever happened to paraphrase? Moreover some of these pieces have been analysed musically: any analysis of that form is at present totally absent from the article. I looked in particular at the later works, like the preludes, the later barcaroles and the 11th and 13th nocturne. What I read was not particularly helpful compared with the sources. And whatever happened to Norman Charles Suckling as a source? Mathsci (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Omaha needs our help
After a long hiatus, I'm once again trying to cobble together an article about an Edison recording artist, and in the process I came across evidence of a performance for the Tuesday Morning Musical Club Concert Series, now "Tuesday Musical," in Omaha, Nebraska. Checking to see whether that organization had a Misplaced Pages entry, I found that not only does it not, but that classical music receives no coverage in the section on music in the city's article Omaha, Nebraska, the "main article" about Music of Omaha, the article Culture of Omaha, Nebraska, or the article about Music of Nebraska, although each goes on at great length about every conceivable flavor of popular music. Now, surely there must be at least some classical music activity worth mentioning in that city and its environs aside from the rather sketchy article about the Omaha Symphony Orchestra (which, by the by, cross references some of those other articles that make no mention of classical music); after all, the Tuesday thing, if you credit its Web site "about us" description, has been active since 1911 or before and brought in artists of the caliber of Bauer, Feuermann, Louise Homer, Ashkenazy, Milnes, Fodor.... I don't know enough about the area to recitify the situation, but somebody closer to Omaha really ought to have a look. Drhoehl (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking as a native of Omaha, I can assure you it needs more help than all editors on Misplaced Pages combined can give it. As I recall, polka music was about the only important genre in my youth. OK, OK, kidding aside—my grandfather played cello on the Omaha Symphony, I have a sister who played violin in that orchestra for a couple of seasons, and my own musical education started in that city. Two relevant Misplaced Pages articles to add to the ones you mention are ARTSaha! and Opera Omaha, though this latter one is in need of much attention.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Marian Anderson
An infobox has been added to this article, which had a hidden comment at that top requesting talk page consensus first. I have restored (twice) the prior version. I have opened a discussion at the article's talk page. Kablammo (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation alert
As usual, trying to put together a new article proves to be a COW (can of worm). Still working on my Edison artist, and in the process just discovered that the "History" section, at least, of Schubert Club directly cribs from the organization's Web site: http://www.schubert.org/history/. The article hasn't yet been tagged with this project's banner, but I'd say it falls within the porject's scope. What's the next step--delete the offending text? Slap on a copyvio banner? Refer the matter elsewhere? All guidance deeply appreciated! Drhoehl (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)