Talk:Joseph Schwantner: New Morning for the World; Nicolas Flagello: The Passion of Martin Luther King/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
COI
In accordance with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, I have chosen to disclose that I have a personal connection to this subject. I will spare details, but my main purpose in writing this article is to benefit Wikipedia and its mission. I believe this article is written from a neutral perspective and has been constructed from independent, reliable sources. The second link above provides the following summary, which I believe I have followed appropriately:
- Be transparent about your conflict of interest (
Done) - Subjects require significant coverage in independent reliable sources. ( Done)
- Your role is to inform and reference, not promote or sell. ( Done)
- Be extremely cautious about the risks of editing articles about yourself or your clients ( Done|N/A)
- If writing a draft, write without bias, as if you don't work for the company or personally know the subject. ( Done)
- State facts and statistics, don't be vague or general. ( Done)
- Take time to get sources and policy right. ( Done)
- Get neutral, uninvolved, disinterested editors to review your draft. ( Done)
- Work with the community and we'll work with you. (
Doing...) - Communicate, communicate, communicate. ( Doing...)
My goal is to promote this article to Good status. I understand this will require review and assistance from other members of the community, which is great. I invite all to examine this article carefully to make sure the content is fair and accurate. Feel free to contact me if you have any concerns. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Update: I have requested feedback from WikiProject Oregon members and submitted a copy edit request from the Guild of Copy Editors. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe this article now meets Good article criteria. As I mentioned previously, I have submitted a request for a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. The Good article reviewer is more than welcome to wait until after the copy edit has been completed, if preferable. Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Removal of content
I removed the following text from the article since no source was provided for verification: "DePreist had requested certain modifications of the work prior to the 1974 premiere. The original version of The Passion was released by Naxos American Classics in 2012 in a performance originally recorded in London in 1969. Ezio Flagello, the composer's brother, was the bass baritone soloist." Further investigation required. --Another Believer (Talk) 14:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Adding this content back to the article, with appropriate referencing. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- This section on the Passion has become confusing. It says that the Oregon Symphony version was the recorded premiere, and it also says that the Naxos version was the recorded premiere. I've tried to provide a copy edit that makes sense of it, but it's still a jumble. Have a look at it, fix it up, and put a note here. I'll come back to it to make another copy editing pass. Jonesey95 (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
(Doing...)--Another Believer (Talk) 17:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)- Looks fine to me! Thanks. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- This section on the Passion has become confusing. It says that the Oregon Symphony version was the recorded premiere, and it also says that the Naxos version was the recorded premiere. I've tried to provide a copy edit that makes sense of it, but it's still a jumble. Have a look at it, fix it up, and put a note here. I'll come back to it to make another copy editing pass. Jonesey95 (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Nitpick department weighing in
This reads well and makes sense to me, no expert on symphonies. I noted a few things as I went, but all are from the very bottom of the nitpick barrel. In the first paragraph of "Composition", you use "in length" three times; would "long" be preferable? In the second paragraph of "Composition", you mention Jim Svedja; I wondered who he was (is). Would it be useful to another word or two about him; e.g., "critic", "professor", "Portland author", or whatever the case may be? In the third paragraph of "Composition", you write "aunt Marian Anderson". If she was DePriest's only aunt, her name should be set off in commas. (This is probably the least or lowest of my nitpicks.) In the "Reference" section, "N. FLAGELLO" appears in caps; I would change that to "N. Flagello" regardless of how the source writes it. I think this is what WP:ALLCAPS suggests. Finetooth (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Replaced the second of three uses of the word "length"
- Provided description for Jim Svejda
- Not sure if Anderson is DePreist's only aunt or not. Replaced with "...and Marian Anderson (DePreist's aunt) attended..."
- Made FLAGELLO lowercase, per house MoS
Thank you for taking time to review the article and offer suggestions. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:GOCE Copy edit, first pass
First, good work, as always. A few notes:
- I have copy edited the whole article, but it still needs work from someone who knows the subject. As above, take a look at the Passion section under Composition; it needs clarification.
- The Reception section indicates that Bazemore performed in the Flagello work, but under Personnel, he is listed as performing on track 1 only. Please clarify.
- Bazemore is credited as a bass vocalist in general, but as the narrator for track 1. Some personnel only performed on one composition or the other, and some played different instruments for the two works... I will have to check your edits to the Personnel section to make sure they are still accurate. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Personnel section should be good to go (see below comment)! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- I put semicolons into the personnel sections to indicate where people have different roles on different sets of tracks. Did I get the separations correct?
I will have to review this once I have access to the liner notes again. Doing...--Another Believer (Talk) 16:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)- I removed semicolons from the list. I have included forms of credit in alphabetical order, separated by commas, with tracks following each form of credit (instrument, etc.); this format is based on the roster included in the album's liner notes. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please review all of my changes. I tried to clarify where I could, and sometimes I had to infer the meaning of a sentence and clarify based on that inference. I may have changed the meaning of one or more sentences to something inaccurate.
- Will do. Thanks. I think your changes to the prose are good, I just need to review changes made to the Personnel section. Thank you, once again, for taking time to review this article. Much appreciated! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- The only thing left is the Passion section under Composition; it needs clarification. Specifically, the section says (as I read it) that the work was composed in 1968 and premiered in 1974. It then says that the Oregon Symphony's version was the first recorded version published. It then mentions DePreist's requested changes to the work in 1974. It then mentions a recording of the "original" (not sure what that word means in this context) version being released in 2012 and that this work was recorded in 1969 (but I thought the premiere was in 1974). I find this whole section about the history of The Passion confusing. I think maybe the sentences would work better in a different order, but the whole story is not clear to me, so I don't know what order they should be in. Maybe say this: the work was composed in 1968 and first recorded in 1969, but that recording was not released until 2012. Then say that DePreist asked for changes to the work before he conducted the NSO in its first performance of the work in 1974 (or leave the "asked for changes" bit out, since I don't know if it adds value). Then say that the Oregon Symphony's performance was the first published recording of the work. I'll rearrange the sentences in that order. Can you check to see if it makes sense?
- Your rearrangement makes sense to me; thanks for the restructure! The only thing possibly worth including is that the DePreist version was "revised"? --Another Believer (Talk) 16:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- The only thing left is the Passion section under Composition; it needs clarification. Specifically, the section says (as I read it) that the work was composed in 1968 and premiered in 1974. It then says that the Oregon Symphony's version was the first recorded version published. It then mentions DePreist's requested changes to the work in 1974. It then mentions a recording of the "original" (not sure what that word means in this context) version being released in 2012 and that this work was recorded in 1969 (but I thought the premiere was in 1974). I find this whole section about the history of The Passion confusing. I think maybe the sentences would work better in a different order, but the whole story is not clear to me, so I don't know what order they should be in. Maybe say this: the work was composed in 1968 and first recorded in 1969, but that recording was not released until 2012. Then say that DePreist asked for changes to the work before he conducted the NSO in its first performance of the work in 1974 (or leave the "asked for changes" bit out, since I don't know if it adds value). Then say that the Oregon Symphony's performance was the first published recording of the work. I'll rearrange the sentences in that order. Can you check to see if it makes sense?
Also, I see why you separated the Passion section into three paragraphs, but would it be more appropriate to keep as single paragraph since none of the three are very long? --Another Believer (Talk) 16:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done. I left out the bit about the revisions (it seemed too far into the weeds to me, and not relevant enough to the subject of this article, which is the 1995 album); add it back in if you can find a way to insert it elegantly. This copy edit is complete. Good luck with the GA nomination. Jonesey95 (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Great. Thank you, again, for your kind and constructive assistance. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)