The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Rjjiiitalk 09:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Overall: An interesting article covering the long history of this musical establishment in a balanced way (more coverage of recent history, and something on current operations, would be great, but do not interfere in the DYK consideration). New / submitted in good time, quite long enough, well-sourced but no plagiarism found. Hook fact checked - the whole hook-related section is cited to one good-length article, in Italian, which I have checked. The hook is a little long, but allowing for non-counting of the bolded link and {pictured}, passes. It could be abbreviated, if needed, by mentioning only the name, or the designation "art museum" for the alternative home, but I see why both are desired. The picture is valid and properly used. Best of luck! SeoR (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
@4meter4 and SeoR: hook looks good, nice work! Unless I'm hugely mistaken (and I very well could be), though, it seems that a large part of the article is sourced to an interim director of the conservatory, making the source non-independent of the article. If that's the case, the article does need a large restructuring. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Oh dear, that would be an issue, will study later today. It’s an institution of long standing so I’m sure it can be re-sourced if needed, but this would need work, yes. I will try to assess the degree of involvement of the mentioned person. Former staff are often good sources on such topics, but… SeoR (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I don’t think there is a problem. If it were self published I would agree, but this is published in a monograph by an academic press and is probably the best published source on the school. The fact that it was written by someone associated with the school lends credibility in this case. Further, the content is in no way controversial so I don’t see how this would be incongruent with our our policies at WP:NIS and further I would argue WP:BESTSOURCES applies as this is the most detailed and most recent publication and the most substantial scholarly work anywhere on the school by an academic publication. If editors are concerned, you could bring it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard but I sincerely doubt anyone will have a problem with using a scholarly published monograph written by a subject matter expert that is not self-published. 4meter4 (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
The points made above have much merit, especially as the article does not lean solely on the source piece under discussion. So, on the one hand, Professor Iovini was a long-serving staff member, who headed the School for 4 years. On the other hand, he moved on >5 years ago, and is a respected academic / musicologist independently of the Conservatory. I think his monograph is probably a valid source. (Professor at the University of Genoa, critic, engaged with "La Repubblica" and " Il Giornale della Musica", and on RAI radio and television. Director of the "Paganini Centre for Research and Teaching", author of multiple texts. Holder of the "International Luigi Illica Award" for his musicological studies.) Indeed a distinguished figure. And yes, it is material that none of the points are controversial. Maybe one reason the article is light on contemporary information is that the author of the primary source was looking back before his time of involvement. SeoR (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Have your concerns been resolved? If not, what needs to be done to get this approved? Z1720 (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
@4meter4 and Z1720: This is only kind of here or there, but is the publisher really independent of Genoa Conservatory? I'm not convinced, but I also can't be sure. Regardless, I'm okay with non-independent sources being used where necessary – I've used secondary non-independent sources myself – but I don't know that I could get behind the vast majority of the article resting on a non-independent source. Academia is much cosier with conflicts of interest than we are, so I'm not confident that this is more akin to any other monograph than it is to self-published. WP:NIS was written on the assumption that secondary independent RSes define the scope and framework of the article, and NISes fill in the blanks where necessary. That's not what I'm seeing here – the article is well-written, to be sure, but this structure doesn't quite sit right. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron I know you are acting in good faith, but I think this is a misguided bureaucratic objection which doesn't serve the best interests of this article or wikipedia. There isn't really a verifiability problem here. The monograph is published by De Ferrari Editore which is a publishing house associated with the Genoa University Press and is a reliable academic publisher independent of the conservatory and not a vanity press. If I were submitting this to an academic review board for a PhD dissertation or journal article nobody would be raising their eyebrows at using a source like this in the context of a literature review; which is essentially the type of writing done on wikipedia (we summarize what sources say in published literature). Even if we were to consider this a self published source (which I don't), the writer is a subject matter expert and distinguished musicologist with a lengthy list of publications and would therefore pass the criteria for the use of WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources which states " Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications".
Further, it would be impossible to source the content in this article elsewhere with the other resources available online or at a library where I live, as the only other sources of quality (by that I mean detailed sources with big picture overviews published in scholarly writing) are all in Italian and offline and are out of print and would require physically going to a university/conservatory library in Italy to access them (if you can get permission). Unfortunately those sources are only available in snippet view in google books. Access is an important consideration. Lastly, I would strongly oppose removing the content as the result would be a horribly imbalanced article with large gaps in coverage, and strange sections with detailed accounts that lack context because the other sources tend to provide details over one particular person or time period in the school without providing a big picture overview and placing details into a larger context; or they give a very perfunctory overview of the school with large gaps. It would not be an accurate or well written article per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Again this is the WP:BESTSOURCE that is accessible on this topic. Not using it would be irresponsible and a bad editorial decision. I personally will not remove the source as it would result in a bad article. 4meter4 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree with that evaluation. There is no reason to believe the facts from the expert should not be trusted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron: This has been sitting here for a while and I can certainly see your point, I'm inclined to agree that a) Pintacuda is a subject-matter expert and thus reliable, and b) the article is better for it being in there.--Launchballer 11:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment. @SeoR, Gerda Arendt, Launchballer, and Theleekycauldron. There appears to be a WP:CONSENSUS opinion here that the use of the source is appropriate. Four editors, including myself, have expressed support for the use of the source and the article in its current state. Could the article now be approved based on this consensus? I further note that the Leekycauldron is not the main reviewer here. SeoR already ticked the article as the reviewer. Someone needs to WP:BEBOLD and follow WP:DETCON.4meter4 (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm ready to approve if nothing happens until tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I would concur on consensus, if not on outcome :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
An interesting article covering the long history of this musical establishment in a balanced way (more coverage of recent history, and something on current operations, would be great, but do not interfere in the DYK consideration). New / submitted in good time, quite long enough, well-sourced but no plagiarism found. Hook fact checked - the whole hook-related section is cited to one good-length article, in Italian, which I have checked. The hook is a little long, but allowing for non-counting of the bolded link and {pictured}, passes. It could be abbreviated, if needed, by mentioning only the name, or the designation "art museum" for the alternative home, but I see why both are desired. The picture is valid and properly used. Best of luck! SeoR (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
hook looks good, nice work! Unless I'm hugely mistaken (and I very well could be), though, it seems that a large part of the article is sourced to an interim director of the conservatory, making the source non-independent of the article. If that's the case, the article does need a large restructuring. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I would concur on consensus, if not on outcome :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)