Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Polar Music Prize/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:09, 4 August 2012 [1].

Polar Music Prize

[edit]

Polar Music Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): GoPTCN 17:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the requirements for becoming a featured list. It is a list of some of the greatest musicians of the 20th and 21st centuries.GoPTCN 17:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just a quick one, I think the "reason" quotes border on copyvios since many of them have a vast amount of directly reproduced text. It may be worth asking someone who knows about these sorts of things (e.g. User:Moonriddengirl is extremely helpful) to have a look. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shortened the quotes as far as I could. Moonriddengirl meant that they are ok as long as they are shorter. Regards--GoPTCN 09:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I asked here whether the quotes are acceptable, and I was told that they are. As long as I correctly attribute the sources to a reliable site it is right. Regards.--GoPTCN 13:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What Moonriddengirl said was that she was "uneasy with using that much non-free content from a single source in an article". I don't see any change so far, there are hundreds of words copied in this list that are unnecessary. You could make the quotes briefer. The list currently seems to be a collection of copied quotes and nothing much else. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then what else should be shortened? Regards.--GoPTCN 20:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • "Laureates are awarded 1 million kr.[5][5]" Ref 5 is duplicated twice at the end of this sentence. Only one is needed.
  • Change "Ref(s)" –> "Refs", since there are 2+ sources for each year.
  • "USA" should be wikilinked in the 1993 row rather than the 1994 one (i.e. wikilink the first mention of a subject).
  • As previously mentioned, quotes under "Reason" column need to be a bit shorter (i.e. only keep what is needed and essential).

—Bloom6132 (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – All but one point addressed sufficiently. I'll let the last point go, since it is important to include the full reason as to why the award was bestowed (i.e. you'd rather err on the side of caution by making it detailed than to leave out the essential points). Looks like this list meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "...where it was awarded to" where should be when
  • Replaced
  • "...and 2003, awarded only to one composer" -> "and 2003, when it was awarded to one composer."
  • It is a repetition of the first phrase, but I changed it anyway.
  • "other experienced members of the music industry" this quite vague what do you mean by this? It could refer to a lot of of people in the music industry, I would be more specific
  • I don't know what is meant, but I will ask the person who added this.
  • "and members of the Stig Anderson family selects the prize recipients from nominations" -> "and members of Stig Anderson's family select the recipients from nominations"
  • Reworded
  • "representatives of several international music industry organisations." again this is vague what organisations, providing would provide a bit of context for the reader. Looked at the ref and I find this sentence misleading, the representatives are mainly from Sweden which dispels any notion of international music industry organisations being involved in this. You should reword this to accurately reflect this.
  • The source is [2], which states the organizations. However, most have very long names, and many readers won't understand these organizations anyway. I added one example.
  • I don't think there is any point in having the columns coloured, it is also obscuring the sort buttons so I would remove it.
  • Previously the sort buttons were always present, but now they aren't anymore. I asked at the Village Pump.
  • Personally, I would have each recipient on their own row instead of having them together in one year, this allow better sorting the winners and make it more clear which quotes refer to each recipient
  • I think this is odd, as they are all winners. Also I then have to write the years for each row, which is more confusing.
  • Actually, since you only have two sortable columns, and one is nonsense because it shares people's names (i.e. how do I sort Isaac Stern??), then yes, in this case it would be better to be non-sortable. Having said that, if you use only one rowspan then the software seems to cope okay with sorting, by filling in the cells on your behalf if someone does sort it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...best known as the manager of the Swedish pop group ABBA, with a donation to the Royal Swedish Academy of Music." I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, the meaning of the sentence appears to have been lost. Was the award a donation by Anderson to the Royal Swedish Academy of Music? if so this needs to be made more explicit
  • The source states: "The award was established in 1989 by Stig Anderson, manager of Abba, through a donation to the academy. ". It is clear for me, but you are always welcome to propose a better wording

NapHit (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a non-swede and i don't find this section interesting there is no need for it. There appears to be no relevance to some of the links, in fact some of appear to be there simply because they are Swedish awards. The section needs removing. NapHit (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.--GoPTCN 17:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 2 needs an access date and Nay changing to May
  • Done
Still see 17 Nay instead of 17 May. NapHit (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done--GoPTCN 18:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and support. Regards.--GoPTCN 21:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Support –

  • I've come here as a result of the request at MoS. I think the quotes are far too extensive, amounting to a copyvio and going against WP:QUOTE:
    • Using the original words from something like a prize citation is responsible and we can argue that such a citation was written in order to be quoted. These citations are however rather verbose and in some cases there is a long justification for the prize but no separate citation (right hand column of the web page under the photo if present). Long quotes from every prize description page on the site undiluted by any original content are in my view addressed by: "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." (WP:NFCCEG, policy).
    • Although there is "no need for an arbitrary limit" (WP:QUOTEFARM, essay), "Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose" (WP:LONGQUOTE, essay). If you argue that this is a list so we don't expect lots of original prose, the counter is that we don't expect lots of text in a list, whether quote or original, it's a list.
    • The entries for Lutosławski, Quincy Jones and Springsteen are fine, at part of a sentence from the original source. I think you should present the other entries at that sort of length, for example: "...his achievements encompass almost four decades of constantly changing modes of creativity, ..." is enough for Dylan.
    • On the other hand, the entry for Jarrett does not say enough. Here the source has lots of text but no citation as a separate entity, so I think you need a short entry in original words. Perhaps something like: "The prize was awarded for Jarrett's outstanding musical contributions in fields as diverse as classical interpretation and jazz improvisation."

-- Mirokado (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. I now removed many useful content describing the reason of the awarding. Also it would have been better to respond not so late. Regards.--GoPTCN 08:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that looks much better now (from my point of view, sorry you disagree, and apologies for responding a bit late). I have tweaked a bit and changed to support. Just one point which I will make without the pressure of formally opposing: each Reason entry consists of a bulleted list with a single entry. This adds little to the visual display and means that the user of a screen reader has a redundant level of structure to navigate. Please consider removing those bullets. --Mirokado (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and support. I removed the bullets. Regards.--GoPTCN 09:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. I've tweaked again and another question: Kinnarps is a redlink in the references. Perhaps better to unlink that unless you are intending to create an article "soon"? The redlink is not currently adding value to the reference. --Mirokado (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I delinked it. I won't create it due to lack of reliable sources. Regards.--GoPTCN 09:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lots of little things....
  • Where is "Exceptional achievements.." referenced? Lead says "significant achievements"...
  • The caption is not a quote
  • "Exceptions were the years 2001..." perhaps just "Exceptions were made in 2001.. and in 2003..."
  • Reworded
  • "one inventor"? You probably need to expand on that in the lead as this is a music award.
  • I removed the second award in the first sentence. Hope it is clear now.
  • Isn't "celloist" actually just "cellist"?
  • Corrected
  • "The Polar Music Prize is regarded as Sweden's foremost musical honor.[8]" well, this is out of place in the lead, and if the award really is considered the "Nobel Prize" of music, it's more than just Sweden's foremost musical honour isn't it?
  • Clarified
  • "of the Stig Anderson family" -> "of Anderson's family".
  • Shortened
  • "and members of Stig Anderson's family" ditto.
  • Shortened
  • "In recent years..." more specific please.
  • Removed
  • Refs -> Ref.
  • Shortened
  • For the Baltic States band, why not just Baltic states for nationality?
  • Fixed
  • If you link something once in a sortable table, link it every time.
  • Linked
  • Did Reich really win it twice in 2007?
  • Corrected
  • "Witold Lutosławski was the first classical musician to win..." you mean "solo" musician because "The Baltic States" won it the previous year as classical musicians, right?
  • "Paul McCartney was the first winner." likewise, the first "contemporary" musician to win, right?
  • And likewise the first man to win
  • Stern and Bacharach's citations are still too long.
  • B. B. King -> B.B. King.
  • Corrected
  • "The English band Led Zeppelin became the first musical group to win the award." what about "The Baltic States"? And they're British really since you have UK against their nationality.
  • Laureates template appears to need updating.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(stalking) "The Baltic States" really are the three countries, see the citation in the reference. If the wikilink does not make that sufficiently clear (or might look like an incorrect link) perhaps replace by "the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia)" since that first award was unlike most of the following ones.
I'm aware of that, having visited them all. I'm saying it shouldn't need to be expanded if a suitable wikilink is given in the nationality column. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You refer to "The Baltic States" as a band above. They are not (or if they are that is not what is being referred to), the prize was given to the three countries themselves (and thus WL was the first classical musician to receive the prize). --Mirokado (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. How odd. Point taken. In which case, the winner should be "Baltic states", not "Baltic States"... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lutosławski was a composer (who also conducted his own works from time to time) so I think that description is OK. --Mirokado (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but he wasn't the first classical recipient of the award. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean?
He wasn't the first recipient of the classical part of the award. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The caption says "Witold Lutosławski was the first classical musician to win the award." which is entirely correct, the countries are not musicians. I think it is OK like that. --Mirokado (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check abbreviations, if you don't use them, why abbreviate terms?
  • Reworded
  • I removed the abbreviations.
  • Removed
  • You link pop but not "contemporary" or "classical".
  • I changed to "Swedish band", hope it is clear now
  • "the British musician and one of the founders of The Beatles, Paul McCartney, and the Baltic States." would just say "the British musician Paul McCartney and the band, the Baltic States".
  • It is not a band
  • The point is that he was actually awarded mainly for being the found and a member of an influential band. His solo-career was rather minor compared to the Beatles period.--GoPTCN 20:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does not matter if he was 99 years a solo-artist and 1 year in the Beatles band, he was still awarded mainly for being one of the founders of the group. Also do you really oppose only because I disagree with you? Regards. --GoPTCN 08:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the citation says he was awarded it for the work in the past 30 years, i.e. 1962 to 1992, he was a Beatle for only 7 or 8 of those years. But hey ho. And as for opposing, I did so because the list was unsatisfactory. As you know, I always revisit lists and as you know, I'll revise my opinion accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 17:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Alt text would be nice for the lead image.
  • Added
  • Recipient column should be sorting by last name, not first.
  • Sorted
  • In the caption "Joni Mitchell was the first woman award recipient", having "female" instead of "woman" would be more pleasing for the reader.
  • Corrected
  • More from captions: Both Paul Simon and Yo-Yo Ma have "the most recent winner", which is technically inaccurate since they are both the most recent winner. To fix this, maybe the category that they were awarded for (contemporary or classical) can be added. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added
(more stalking) Agree we need to sort by last name for people: I suggest using {{sortname}} for that, for example replace
[[Dizzy Gillespie]] by
{{sortname|Dizzy|Gillespie}}
which results in Dizzy Gillespie (see template documentation for other parameters). --Mirokado (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I am familiar with this template.--GoPTCN 11:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more note from checking the replies: B.B. King still appears to be sorting by first name, as opposed to last. Everything else from my end looks resolved at this point. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BB King is his stage name, so I think it should not be sorted. Regards.--GoPTCN 11:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Polar_Music_Prize/archive1&oldid=1076196298"