Template:Did you know nominations/Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (march)

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (march)

(

)

John Philip Sousa conducting at the Shriners' National Convention, June 7, 1923

... that Nobles of the Mystic Shrine was first conducted with a band of around 6,200 members, the largest band John Philip Sousa (pictured) ever conducted? Source: United States Marine Band
- Reviewed the following:
  - Canticle IV: The Journey of the Magi (main)
  - Claudia Belk (extra)
  - Daisy (perfume) (extra)

Created by Kavyansh.Singh (talk). Self-nominated at 20:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC).

Hiya. This is obviously new and long enough, and the text fits with policy (no plagiarism, properly written, very correctly attributed); the hook is verified AGF and interesting, as well as properly written. QPQ done, LoC image is properly licensed and free to use, audio sample is in the public domain. I am however concerned about the Ladd source, which is a Masters' thesis, and, per WP:RS, must only be used under exceptional circumstances which I cannot really determine are met here (I'm agnostic on the issue, mind you, but please state your case as to why we can use it here). Dahn (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Dahn – Hi! Thanks for you diligent review, and efforts to check sources. I know that Masters' thesis is generally not considers so reliable, but the way I cite it in the article is not much of an issue. Published by and available from the Kansas State University, it is used mostly as a primary source to quote Ladd in the "Composition and analysis" sub-section. Other instances include citing it for instrumentation and structure. Moreover, I don't think sourcing requirement of DYK is so strict that a source like that would be outright rejected. On another note, it is the most comprehensive source about the topic I could fine, so I want to keep it. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  - Pretty much satisfied with that rationale. DYK is good to go! Dahn (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P7 without image