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 promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Music for a Time of War[edit]

Music for a Time of War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 15:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on this article for nearly six months and I am so proud to finally be nominating it for Featured article status. I have been upfront about my COI (see article's talk page) from the start, and other contributors have reviewed my work with this in mind. Please see the following timeline:

Please see the article's talk page for additional commentary and history. I am happy to address concerns as they arise. If successful, this article would become the second that I have promoted to FA status, following Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall. Thank you so much for taking time to review this article. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Article now includes alt text. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I took part in the peer review, and my queries were thoroughly dealt with there. Since then, I see, the article has been further polished, to excellent effect. It seems to me to cover its subject comprehensively and in a well-balanced way. The prose is good and the article is admirably referenced. I don't comment on images (WP's policies being too recondite for me) but as to the text, this article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. The nominator has reason to feel proud of it, if I may say so. – Tim riley (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, Tim. --Another Believer (Talk) 14:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As the GA reviewer, I found the article well written and well referenced with a good coverage of the subject. It appears to meet the FA requirements. —Bruce1eetalk 15:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support, Bruce1ee, and for catching this! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I helped to peer review this article last December. I think the article is in generally good shape, but it's a while since I looked at it, so I'd like to read it again, dropping any odd comments on the way. Here are a few relating to the lead:

Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I am trying to say is that the album recording, which was the product of two audio recordings from separate performances in Portland, was released in CD format by PentaTone. Accordingly, I changed the text to: "In October 2011 the recording of the Portland performances was released on CD by Dutch record label PentaTone Classics. The album marked the orchestra's first release in eight years and Kalmar's first with the Oregon Symphony." I hope that is better. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More soon. Brianboulton (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

Program
  • I removed the quotes around "existential", and linked the word to Existentialism. I am not sure why the work is considered existential... I am just going by what the source states. I think "ambiguous" should remain in quotes, as this seems more like an opinion than a classification. Please let me know if this concern needs to be addressed further. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're not sure what the source meant by the term, it's perhaps wise not to include it. Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. I might be wrong, but I believe someone else included the word "presents" (that is not a word I would typically use in this context). --Another Believer (Talk) 21:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Performances and broadcasts
  • I do think the debut is noteworthy. Accordingly, I have changed the wording to: "On May 12, the Oregon Symphony repeated the program at the inaugural Spring for Music Festival, marking the orchestra's Carnegie Hall debut. The festival invites orchestras..." This is similar to the updated wording in the lead, but also mentions the debut. Again, please let me know if this needs additional work. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Including the other ensembles provides context. Otherwise, how would readers know who the Oregon Symphony was "competing" against. (I say competing, though the festival was not a competition. Point being, readers should know which other orchestras were participating if we are going to include festival highlights in the reception section.) Also, in this sentence I see no problem with the inclusion of the word "presented". --Another Believer (Talk) 21:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wondered why the reader needs to know who the Oregon Symphony was competing against, particularly as it wasn't a "competition" – but I won't press the matter. Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you requesting removal of "their own somber take"... perhaps remove the quotation and replace with "WQXR's Q2 Music provided their own take on the Oregon Symphony's war-themed concert..."? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, "sombre" not "solemn". I think your alternative suggestion is better (still finding it hard to follow exactly who broadcast what to whom). Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See diff. I think the flow is better now, which hopefully eliminates some of the confusion. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
Should the caption for Carnegie Hall be changed to "a positive reception" as well? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second invitation to Spring for Music and cancellation
  • Again, I think this section provides additional context. The program earned the Symphony a second invitation to the festival. I assumed the second invitation was worth mentioning if multiple publications did as well. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The invitation is perhaps worth mentioning; it is all the detail that I think is superfluous to this article. The Oregon Symphony wasn't proposing to repeat the "Time of War" program, and in the event didn't go at all; peripheral information diverts attention from the substance of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps trim down to just the following?: "The orchestra was invited to perform again at the 2013 Spring for Music Festival as one of two returning ensembles. Kalmar said of the return invitation, "To be invited once is a thrill. To be invited twice is clear proof that we are in the artistic big leagues." The New York Times highlighted both returning orchestras when the publication included Spring for Music on its list of anticipated classical music events for 2013. In October 2012 the Symphony announced it would not accept the invitation for financial reasons." This eliminates the proposed program and the bit about the Detroit Symphony. Would you recommend keeping the section heading, or perhaps combining the trimmed down version with the above paragraph (beings with "Elaine")? --Another Believer (Talk) 19:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would eliminate the sentence beginning "The New York Times..." to leave you with: ""The orchestra was invited to perform again at the 2013 Spring for Music Festival as one of two returning ensembles. Kalmar said of the return invitation, "To be invited once is a thrill. To be invited twice is clear proof that we are in the artistic big leagues." However, in October 2012 the Symphony announced it was unable to accept the invitation, for financial reasons." Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Should the section heading remain, or should those few sentence be combined with the above paragraph? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

Album
  • Somewhere along the way, punctuation was removed. I inserted a semi-colon. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Boston-based recording company. See the first paragraph of the "Performances and broadcasts" section. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
  • Changed to: "On November 19, BBC Radio 3 reviewed the album on its program "CD Review", which discusses and recommends new classical music recordings." --Another Believer (Talk) 15:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing... (But changed to "Brian Horay, a classical music critic for The Huffington Post,..." and changed "disagreed with" to "questioned".) --Another Believer (Talk) 21:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In re-reading the article, I think your criticism is of Horay's writing and not my interpretation. Horay "call[s] bullshit", then just after includes the quotation that I provided in the article. I am not sure how to summarize Horay's commentary otherwise. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed quotes around outstanding, excellent and subtle. I admit to being paranoid about quoting and close paraphrasing, so you might want to point out other instances of unnecessary quotes or make the changes yourself. Thanks. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't have time to do this. Now you're aware of the problem, be alert. Brianboulton (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article mentions gift ideas. I am not sure why this mention of gift recommendations is any different from the others in the paragraph. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think one critic's suggestion that the album would make a decent Christmas gift is enough; we don't need to have Ross making the same point (if that is what he is doing - the wording is so vague that I can't be sure). It's an unimportant point, but the wording jars in reading and I don't think the phrase is worth keeping.

That concludes my review. Please ping when these points are addressed, and I will revisit. Brianboulton (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your incredibly thorough review. I am happy to continue the discussion until all concerns are addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have addressed almost all my points satisfactorily, and I appreciate the attention you have given them. The two outstanding are the "included" sentence that I mention above, and the "gifts" point just amplified. In the former case, we need to know what you mean by "included": "included excerpts from"? "included discussion on"? etc. Brianboulton (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry, I overlooked the "included" concern. See reply above. Removed the gift phrase, as requested. Thank you, again. --Another Believer (Talk)
I am honored and feel grateful for your assistance and kind words. Thanks again. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- like to see image and source spotchecks pls. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a request for me, or for other reviewers? --Another Believer (Talk) 17:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the reviewers or any other editor. I have completed the (satisfactory) spotchecks. Graham Colm (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

No issues. Graham Colm (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I have fixed the link to the album cover, but I suggest you move the infobox to the top of the article because you have used a per-prepared template for the FUR that cannot be edited without affecting other articles. Otherwise, you will have to write a new FUR from scratch. I don't see a problem in moving it. I suggest deleting the composite image of the composers. It's causing more problems than it is worth. Graham Colm (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggested another possible solution for the FUR above. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you decide to keep the composite, here's what you need to do: first, try to update the source link for Ives - check the source website, Internet Archive, or alternatives to see if you can find the image again. Second, see if you can figure out when/where the image was first published. The source site might have details on that. For the Britten, if you can get access to the source you can find the page number; however, given the dates you've given the image is very likely still under copyright, so a better option would be to sub in a different image of Britten in the composite. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to include images of composers, but I am not comfortable completing the above task. Therefore, I have removed the composite image. What a shame. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, someone is welcome to delete the composite image if it no longer serves a purpose (I can't imagine another article would be able to use the same collage). --Another Believer (Talk) 16:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a left any reviewers' concerns unresolved? Just checking in since the review has been quiet for a few days. --Another Believer (Talk) 06:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More