Talk:Music for a Time of War

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Music for a Time of War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

Music for a Time of War is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 8, 2016.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 30, 2012	Peer review	Reviewed
February 21, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
April 21, 2013	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Lfstevens, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on February 4, 2013.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Another Believer (talk · contribs) has been paid by Oregon Symphony.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

David Stabler (2013-05-11). "Wikipedia a passion for Portland's Jason Moore". The Oregonian. Retrieved May 11, 2013.

There is a request, submitted by --Another Believer _(Talk), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.

The rationale behind the request is: "Featured article on English Wikipedia".

Sources

Used sources

--Another Believer _(Talk) 16:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source to add

Not done

http://www.oregonlive.com/performance/index.ssf/2014/05/oregon_symphonys_music_for_a_t.html#incart_river

--Another Believer _(Talk) 22:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: recent edits

@Nagle: I feel the need to respond to recent edits to the article.

Diff #1: I won't fight hard to overturn this edit, but it does seem like Grammy nominations are worth mentioning. I assume most articles about Grammy-nominated albums note this achievement, even in the lead.
Diff #2: I believe I was encouraged by peers to include context about the pieces, especially in ways that help explain the album's concept, but I suppose these details aren't necessary. (?) Unfortunately, this edit also disturbs the reference naming framework.
Diff #3: Again, this edit just removes some context, but I won't find hard to keep these details.
Diff #4: Not mentioning Grammy nominations in the lead is slightly more reasonable, but not mentioning them in the article's body is completely inappropriate. Surely all albums articles at Wikipedia should note Grammy nominations.
Diff #5: We always include contributing musicians and other artists in album's Personnel sections. Why would we not do that for this article?

I invite other reviewing editors to comment on these changes, too. Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this edit is necessary, either. Are you suggesting AllMusic should not be used at all? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the AllMusic reference problem. On the others, any comments from uninvolved editors of the classical music persuasion? These edits were made in response to a complaint at WP:COIN. John Nagle (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noting User:NatGertler's response re: Grammy nominations. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley, Bruce1ee, Brianboulton, Graham Beards, and Nikkimaria: Pinging those who participated in the Featured article discussion, just in case. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If no one responds on this thread within a week's time, I intend to revert these edits and restore the article to the FA-promoted version. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nagle:, @Another Believer: - Although I have not edited or reviewed classical music articles, I do come from a family of trained classical musicians and one music historian sister who has published books on C. P. E. Bach and Ludwig von Beethoven's scores as well as program notes for the Kennedy Center. None of that makes me an expert on anything, but I do speak the language and I am a solid classical music fan and a collector of classical music discs. I am dismayed that so much has been cut from this article, and I disagree that any of the cuts make the article stronger than it was when it was promoted to FA status. I do not agree that the deletions fall into the WP:UNDUE or WP:PEACOCK pitfalls. I support restoration of the deleted passages because they faithfully paraphrased and summarized and gave context to information presented in independent, reliable, secondary and third party sources. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest putting the Grammy nominations in, but only linking to the program notes material. Material about the album should come from sources not affiliated with the album. In the presence of conflict-of-interest editing, cleanup usually results in a "just the facts" article, as promotional-sounding material is removed. This yields Wikipedia's house style - bland, but well cited. John Nagle (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Nagle, if you could be more specific about which words, phrases, clauses, or paragraphs cross the line to "promotional" it would help me understand what exactly, in the deletions you made, that you consider to be promotional-sounding. Or if your objections are related to the citations from symphony sources, are the citations providing more than non-controversial facts?

On the matter of the orchestra roster being included, the section you deleted should be restored because the WP Album article style guide says, "A personnel section should be included under a primary heading "Personnel" and should generally be formatted as a bulleted list of names and forms of participation, with spaced en dashes between the two (see track listing section). The names should always be linked if an article exists. The forms of participation (for example instruments) should be written in lowercase (except for proper nouns such as Hammond organ or Dobro), delimited by commas, and linked on the first occurrence only."

The rest of your "cleanup" deletions seem excessive, given that this Feature Article underwent Peer review, Good article review and Featured article review before it appeared on WP Main page on May 8, 2013. Another Believer had posted his COI notice November 1, 2012, two months prior to the first review in the process, and reviewers were aware to screen for COI problems in the text. The only changes to the article since then appear to be archiving external links an other maintenance edits.

Thanks for your work, and thanks for any specifics you can provide to enlighten me about the promotional content of this article. Cheers! – Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]