Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:06, 30 June 2014

Of Human Feelings

Of Human Feelings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Of Human Feelings/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Of Human Feelings/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Of Human Feelings/archive3
• Featured article candidates/Of Human Feelings/archive4
• Featured article candidates/Of Human Feelings/archive5
• Featured article candidates/Of Human Feelings/archive6

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman. I attempted to address the previous FAC's concern about close paraphrasing by soliciting another reviewer (, ). I've also cleaned up the references for a consistent citation format/style and copy-edited/rewrote some parts (). Dan56 (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from DISEman

Overall I find this a well written, comprehensive, well-researched, referenced and structured article worthy of a Featured Article but there are a few (minor) points that may improve it further:

• The statement under Recording that "According to him, Of Human Feelings was the first digitally recorded jazz album in the United States" may be true but there may be more details- a quick check of Litweiler, p. 152 states "It was the first time an American label had recorded a digital album in New York, and it made front-page news in Billboard. here is the Billboard front page. Also Litweiler, pg. 153 supports the statement under Release and promotion that "A few weeks after the album was recorded, Mwanga went to Japan to complete arrangements for it to be issued as a Phrase Text release by Trio Records, who had previously released a compilation of Coleman's 1966 to 1971 live performances in Paris".

Done. Dan56 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Critical reception is excellent using the contemporary reviews - I added one from Rolling Stone but the ref may need some editing to fit the article. Any reason for avoiding the rating template?

I've revised and moved the Rolling Stone quote so that it stays in-topic with the rest. That template is optional and didn't seem to suit this article IMO--only Christgau (The Village Voice), Yanow (AllMusic) in a retrospective review, and now Morrison (Rolling Stone) rated the album, and their ratings have been easily worked into the prose, so the template would only be reiterating a few ratings. Dan56 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

All in all you have my Support DISEman (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Support. Article is well-balanced both in structure and content, sources cited seem reliable and plentiful. Friginator (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Semitransgenic

• Comment for a featured article, citing anonymous record reviews directly is not ideal, would prefer to see such content replaced with secondary source citations that make the observations the editor is drawing our attention to. Also, saying how something charted and then citing the chart as a source could be viewed as OR. Otherwise, aside from those minor points, looks OK to me. Semitransgenic _talk. 10:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean the line "...had no success on the American pop charts", Semitransgenic? Because that's attributed to a source that says this. Also, all the reviews cited in #Critical reception include the names of critics/authors of the reviews. Do you mean you'd prefer that there was a book that summarized the reviews itself? Citing reviews directly, however, is the most common practice in WP:ALBUMS articles, and there is a project page dedicated to such sources being cited (WP:ALBUM/SOURCE). Dan56 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Froglich

Oppose This article, while by no means bad, fails at present to (IMO) maintain good criteria. Quibbles: 1) While the article is indeed comprehensive (it's obvious that fans have poured in a lot of effort) it is arguably excessively so given the minimal notability of its subject (a poor-selling album by a musician with five dozen other works, many of which are demonstrably far more noteworthy (e.g., The Shape of Jazz to Come being inducted into the Library of Congress, etc) yet possessing small article size relative to this one. Featured status is generally granted to well-written articles in topics of widespread interest; 2) no references in the lead; 3) grammar and sentence construction less than optimal (e.g., absence of parenthesizing where appropriate, poor deployment of commas and semi-colons, etc); -- My advice is to tighten up the article to hang onto good status -- and be glad you have that in the first place.--Froglich (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Froglich, 1) What "fans"? I'm the only editor who has contributed to this article, which was this before I started working on it. It is based entirely on what reliable secondary sources have written about it--significant coverage establishes notability (WP:SIGCOV), not popular interest. And the majority of the coverage cited here is from high-quality book and journal sources, who've decided it warranted this much coverage, otherwise they wouldn't have written so "excessively" about it. And although I get where you're coming from, "widespread interest" has nothing to do with the FA criteria (WP:FACR), so personal opinions on its notability in relation to other articles shouldn't be a factor in your assessment, only the points listed at WP:FACR. There are top-importance articles that garner the attention of certain editors, and there are articles like this, which I chose simply because the album interested me at the time, as it often the case with FAs--their importance varies and isn't exclusive to top or high-importance articles. 2) If what's written in the lead is written and cited in the body, citations are redundant in the lead (WP:LEADCITE) 3) semicolons before conjunctions like and is an unnecessary, outdated practice () I don't see the reasoning behind this addition/revision with parenthesizing, which deemphasized the line about critical praise, used "featuring"--a present participle--in the first paragraph, and linked "harmolodic" (which is already linked in the first paragraph). Dan56 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• If you've been told that the rules of English grammar regarding sentence composition and punctuation are in some state of flux at present, you are have been led astray. (Grammar-monster at the vanguard of slovenliness does not impress those of us who know what we're doing.)--Froglich (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to sound uppity about this, or refrain from backing up your argument with anything saying otherwise. My point was your change was unnecessary, as Geraldine Woods brings up in Wiley AP English Language and Composition. Preferential grammar changes aren't necessary. Dan56 (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

<shrug> Believe what you want. Reality will intrude soon enough to spank all those bad commas.--Froglich (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• While I understand this article is your labor-of-love, that has no bearing on whether or not it is ultimately worthy of Featured status -- being informative and well-written are not the sole requirements. Only 0.1% of Misplaced Pages articles acquire Featured status. For example, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is a Featured article, yet neither the preceding nor succeeding Beatles album articles are accorded even Good status despite being written in the same format with the same arrangement and depth of information. I would guess Pepper is Featured because it contains A Day in the Life, which tops some industry lists as the greatest pop/rock song of all time. In other words, it is immensely notable as one of it not the most famous song by one of if not the most famous bands in history. -- If any article concerning Ornette Coleman becomes Featured, it will likely be the one concerning his album or single with the most significant historical resonance.--Froglich (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong impression of the GA and FA processes Froglich, and I don't see the relevance of other stuff existing when several other low-importance album articles have been promoted to FA status, including Confusion (album) (one of mine) and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded. If this irks you, then you can choose to abstain from reviewing, but what you're arguing isn't an "actionable objection" and isn't benefiting the review process in any way, to better the article for FA purposes. Please read WP:FACR--the level of importance of the article's topic is not part of the criteria. I'm beginning to feel there's an issue of understanding WP guidelines (WP:CIR) when you've overlooked the criteria page and basic MOS guidelines in your edit to the lead. Ian Rose, am I missing something? Dan56 (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't have time for a long reply now but it's quite correct that the perceived 'importance' of a subject has nothing to do with its potential to become a Featured Article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"Potential" is arbitrary wishing-for-ponies; I referenced an actual Featured article. Dan brings up two more (which shoot down his own notability-is-unnecessary argument: Confusion (on at least one Best 100 Album lists) and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded (which had two Grammy nominations) are considerably more successful and influential than Of Human Feelings. To reiterated a previously made point to Dan56, he should concentrate on improving the article concerning Coleman's best known and critically acclaimed work, or that of Coleman himself.--Froglich (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose, this reviewer's obstinacy and lack of competency are becoming an issue, as are his smug responses to every point I make in response to his arguments, which unlike mine, cite nothing to back up his claims. Disregard his review, because there are no actionable objections. Dan56 (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

And yet it was your bright idea to bring me in here, wasn't it? (Competence: having the brains necessary to realize that I wouldn't immediately club you with that upon the first hint of fallacious argumentum ad hominem.)--Froglich (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)