Jump to content

Talk:Empty Orchestra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources

[edit]
  • Ward
  • Tate
  • i
  • Shennan

Songs

[edit]
  • Human League - Don't You Want Me
  • Whigfield - Saturday Night
  • Elaine Paige, Barbara Dickson - I Know Him So Well
  • Wham - Wham Rap! (Enjoy What You Do)
  • Rainbow - Since You've been Gone
  • Yazoo - Only You
  • David Guetta (Featuring Sia) - Titanium

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Empty Orchestra/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Given I have begun reading this for DYK I will continue here. Queries to be jotted below:

"Empty Orchestra" follows a relatively simply narrative of co-workers on a night out ..."simple"..?
Yes, fixed; thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sold on the capitalised Deaf I must say, but am not familiar with current terminology so am happy to defer on this...
I wouldn't have capitalised it normally, but I'm following Howlett's own terminology. I think it's generally good practice (and this is enshrined in at least a few policies/guidelines on Wikipedia) to respect people's own ascriptions of self-identity. I suspect she has favoured it because she wants to say that she is Deaf, rather than just being deaf. So, from our article on Deaf culture: "When used as a cultural label especially within the culture, the word deaf is often written with a capital D and referred to as "big D Deaf" in speech and sign. When used as a label for the audiological condition, it is written with a lower case d." Josh Milburn (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point - I've learnt something today :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pemberton drew inspiration from the way viewers "sensed those characters were having fun at these musical events". - f this could be written without paraphrasing and quotes that's be good as not memorable or distinctive. The article has a lot of quotes, but most add something when relayed verbatim.
Rephrased. I appreciate I use a lot of quotes in these articles; something to work on! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, nout to complain about. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to have a look! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:
Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:


Overall:

Pass or Fail: - a nice read Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf

[edit]

Wikipedia style doesn't capitalize "Deaf" (or "Black", etc.), even though other styles do. See MOS:CAPS. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JHunterJ: Could you point to the part of that guideline you are referring to? Searching for "deaf" and "black" reveals nothing relevant. As I have said before, I am not completely set on the capitalisation, and I am open to working out some kind of compromise. As I see it, the considerations in favour of capitalisation appear to be the following: 1) Respecting the self-identity of the actor in question; 2) Following the cited source; 3) Following area-specific norms (i.e., it seems to be acceptable, if not mandatory, to use Deaf when referring to the Deaf culture in Deaf studies). 4) Erring on the side of caution when it comes to writing about a minority group. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lede: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, or for the first word of a sentence. Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." And there's no exception made for "Deaf". I found where it was briefly discussed there: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 20#Use "Deaf" or "deaf"?. There are sources for Empty Orchestra that also use "deaf".[1][2] -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name": And it seems like the sources are in disagreement about whether Deaf (referring to "member of the Deaf culture") is a proper noun, so the guidelines are hardly as clear-cut on this matter as you take them to be. Two further thoughts: 1) I think your certainty that it is inappropriate to use Black is misplaced. 2) I don't deny that some sources use deaf when talking about the character/actress in "Empty Orchestra", but I do deny that they are by Deaf people talking about their own self-identity. Ultimately: I don't think there's much to be gained by arguing about this, so if you definitely feel that it's absolutely completely necessary to decapitalise, I won't revert you. But I'm not going to do it myself. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was inappropriate. I said that Wikipedia doesn't, per its style guide. You've already reverted me without discussion, so you have already definitely acted as if it's absolutely completely necessary to capitalize. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I said that your interpretation of the style guide was not as obvious as you take it to be. I note that there has been discussion, so your characterisation of my revert is unfair- you can see discussion at the GA review above and elsewhere. Even if there was none, my actions would have been consistent with the usual bold, revert, discuss cycle. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Empty Orchestra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Empty_Orchestra&oldid=1207110908"