Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/April 2011

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

• For promoted entries, add '''Promoted Example.ogg''' --~~~~ to the bottom of the entry, replacing Example.ogg with the file that was promoted.
• For entries not promoted, add '''Not promoted''' --~~~~ to the bottom of the entry.
• For entries demoted, add '''Demoted Example.ogg''' --~~~~ to the bottom of the entry.

Use variants as appropriate, e.g. with a large set of files, all of which pass, '''Promoted all''' is fine, but if one of them didn't pass for some reason, make sure that's clear.

Holst - The Planets

The Planets is a seven-movement orchestral suite by Gustav Holst, written between 1914 and 1916. Each movement of the suite is named after a planet of the Solar System and its corresponding astrological character as defined by Holst. The Suite is widely considered as Holst's most popular piece and magnum opus.

• Not a complete set yet, but I am working on it. The Planets is considered Holst's best work, although I like First/Second Suite better. Regardless, the USAF band does a phenomenal job performing these pieces.
• Nominate and support. --haha169 (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• support you beat me to the punch. I was going to nominate these soon. Great minds think alike I guess. (link and link) cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 23:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Haha, so was I. I was eying it for a while, but the musopen performance of Jupiter was a huge turn-off. Good thing I found the USAF one...I'm still hunting down the remaining ones. --haha169 (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
    • If I see it I will let you know --Guerillero | My Talk 03:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Having played a few pieces from "The Planets" suite myself, the performance by the USAF band is exceptional, though I notice a few static-ky noises in some of the pieces that do ruin the quality of the pieces but only ever so slightly. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 11:53am • 00:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support, once it's made abundantly clear on the SDP that it's a concert band arrangement. I see that this is pointed out in the caption of the sound files in the article, but nowhere is it on the sound description page. I believe the Commons file names should be changed if there's going to be some movement on that front. What happens if a performance of the originals is uploaded? What file-names then? Tony (talk) 11:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Promoted all Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Fireworks

There may be some concerns with this file which I would like to preempt. Firstly, the background noise. Adam says that it will be virtually impossible to remove, so be it. In fact, it does add a measure of authenticity to the audio as it shows the "entertainment purposes" of fireworks that the article tries to represent. Another concern that Adam brought up is that it doesn't give enough to the article. Unlike the picture and videos, which give rather nice visual representations of the fireworks, this file gives an audio representation of these devices that wouldn't be immediately available by reading the article. I think that is representation enough. Anyway, let's hear your concerns.

• Nominate and support. haha169 (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • My point was more that you should check the article and make sure it was well-used. Looking just now, I moved it from a rather poor usage near the start to Fireworks#Noise-related_effects, where it gains a lot of value. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I see what you mean. I will be looking around as well to see if this sound can fit in other articles. --haha169 (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support as Haha169 has said the background noises does add a certain air of authenticity and reality to the audio file. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 11:51am • 00:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I find this to be undesirable as it takes the fireworks out of their context completely. Birdwatchers want to see birds, but bird songs are still appreciated and collected apart from the birds. On the other hand, I've never heard of someone going to a fireworks display to hear the popping, and I don't really thing that it offers much without the visual. I was tempted to nominate File:Fireworks closer view.ogv in place of this, however the attribution captions in video annoy me to no end, especially the middle one, which is bolded and bright yellow. It's a decent recording (although I actually don't like the background noise, 'authentic' or not) but I just don't think it's encyclopedic value is high. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, I have nothing to say about that :P. In fact I was kinda expecting it. --haha169 (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Major Bloodnok. Tony (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC) I like the sounds and the sense of the onlookers. But is there encyclopedic value? I guess it could be used in the article on fireworks. Pity it's so long. Undecided, need to see others' opinions. Tony (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)]
      • Since there is a section on sound effects in the article, I think that a sound recording adds encyclopedic value. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm going to go ahead and support, since the video does not cover many of the sound effects discussed in the article. All of our recordings (save a few historical ones) are subject to delisting if a better example comes up, but I don't see a better recording as particularly likely for a few years, unless this encourages someone to try. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not sure about this one - to echo Sven above, why listen to fireworks when there are videos available? The recording sounds good, FWIW but I'm not sure about the encyclopedic value; it'd be like touching a blacmange rather than eating it, or listening to a trifle... I think I must weak oppose, unless of course it was of an especially notable fireworks display. Major Bloodnok (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is a close one (3/2/1). Currently supports are at 55%, just shy of the 60%-70% supports needed to make this a FS. Since there seems to be no consensus in any direction I will go with the being Not promoted --Guerillero | My Talk 17:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Cantillation

Culture needs documented as well as nature and music. This is a fine example of the use of sound in the Judaism.

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Good quality recording, good EV. No complaints here. Jujutacular ^talk 02:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• I have no idea how to judge this in cultural terms. An expert cantor might well say ... aargh, he rushes this phrase, he buries that, he's supposed to pause here ... can we locate someone who knows? Tony (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As it happens, yes. I'll put this up on WP:Wikiproject Judaism. And ask them for sounds as well, because, hey, we hav obvious systemic bias, and that means we need to do something about it =). Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Does sound a bit rushed, I'm fairly certain it's not meant to be that fast. The breathing's a bit too loud and can be heard clearly. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:01pm • 10:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It sounds right from what I remember from the few times I went to a synagogue with Jewish friends. The breathing is probably a close microphone, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I suppose you're right about the microphone, could the breathing get toned down without ruining the rest of the sound? What's WP Judaism say about it though? —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 5:51pm • 06:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Sounds good, and recorded well. A useful addition to WP. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Further comment: is there feedback coming from WProject Judaism? There may not be a critical musician there. If so, good; if not, I wonder whether someone can be located off-wiki to provide feedback? There must be specialist teachers around. On systemic bias: are there websites with traditional non-Western music, free use? Indian, Japanese, Balinese, Chinese opera? I could ask the FAC writer of an article on an Indian musical genre ... But still the problem will remain of finding people who know the music culture to judge. Hmmm. Do any other WPs have a featured sound process, and are music-genre articles on other WPs well developed, with authors available for comment? Tony (talk) 06:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been run by a rabbi to have the pronunciation checked, if that helps. Also, there are such collections available, but all the ones I've found are very hard to document. Try poking around Robert Garfias' site, e.g. [1] [2] - but be warned; the reason I haven't uploaded his finds is due to the trickiness of finding the necessary cdocumentation. . Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Cantillation Example Aliyah Reform.ogg This passes by the count. I hoped that project Judaism would be able to enlighten us on the technical part of this recording but I guess not. If there are any glaring issues with this it can always be nominated of desisting. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Air Force Marches

I'm a bit too ill to concentrate on coding today - coughing up a lung, and am now out of cough syrup, when I bought the bottle yesterday. So I'm just doing the annoying grunt work. Slightly surly, but none of you will ever hear me shouting about how "WHY DOESN'T THAT REDIRECT EXIST" and all the other expressions of annoyance, so that's okay.

Part one of about 4. It took an HOUR to document the first one I wanted from this CD, but most of that documentation carries over to everything else from the CD, so once I had done that... Hey, lots of other really well-played marches I get for free. ^^{significantly less work, but still a fair amount.} =) ^=/

This should be considered four separate nominations, but I think they're all equally wonderful, so I don't foresee any problems with lumping them. =)

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support all Fanatastic performances, I particularly like Washington Grays and Sweeney's Cavalcade. The Gladiator March and Front Section March has some issues in the brass section near the end of the piece and middle of the piece (respectively), they sound a bit fuzzy - Euphoniums? - but that's not a big problem because they're otherwise great performances. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 12:43pm • 01:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support all. I couldn't find the problems with brass you mention; I'd have to listen repeatedly to find them, perhaps. This band must be among the very top in the world, and perhaps some time someone from it should be interviewed if a lot of tracks are to be featured. My problem is that the music is crap in most cultural/technical frameworks; but it's great outdoors festive music, and its effect is closely anchored to that role. Pressing a button at a computer is a less effective environment for it. (I used to play in a brass band myself; limited original repertory and narrow opportunities for effective arrangements.) Given the quality of the band, a section for brass-band music would be in order, possibly; then it wouldn't look so unbalanced if there are tons of promoted tracks from the US Navy/Airforce Band(s). Tony (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's my laptop since I can hear the same fuzziness on speakers and on other computers. I'm certain it's the euphoniums, definitely not trumpets, French horns, trombones and I'm fairly certain it's not the tubas. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 8:43pm • 09:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

all are promoted --Guerillero | My Talk 02:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

O Canada

It's nice and it has a good article atached to it (O Canada)

• Nominate and support. ~~Awsome EBE123~~(talk | Contribs) 12:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• I fail to find the notability of this particular recording. There are many on the O Canada article. Is this perhaps the first recording of the piece? If not, I find the Edward Johnson recording much more interesting. Of course, this isn't a bad recording by any means, its just that I feel we should nominate the most representative of all the historical recordings we have of the piece. --haha169 (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the French version instead? It's probably the best. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Theres some weird clicking in the beginning, and aside from the unusually loud static, I do like the French version. --haha169 (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. It is not at all a distinguished performance. Particularly troubling is that the dotted rhythm is sloppily handled by some of the musicians. And they cling to some of the detached chords awkwardly. Is the volume supposed to fade away where it does? Bizarre; couldn't have been intended.... It was performed in 1915: is there a particular reason this is of encyclopedic value (first-ever of the anthem)? Just being an early recording alone isn't enough if the performance isn't really good, I think. I certainly wouldn't parade it in an article if there were a good modern recording available free. Tony (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose There has to be a higher quality version of this by either the government of Canada or the US. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Since this is the national anthem of Canada, I can pretty much ensure that the navy has a public domain recording of it. --haha169 (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • http://www.navyband.navy.mil/Anthems/ANTHEMS/Canada.mp3 User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Now commons as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:O_Canada_%28US_Navy_Band%29.ogg User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Good heavens no, too much static and VERY, VERY poor quality sound otherwise. Also, why not nominate the US Navy Band version? That is a sublime performance. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:06pm • 10:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • This is a little off-topic, but I am a bit worried by the number of brass band arrangements of National Anthems we have. For encyclopedic value, a sung performance would generally be preferred. THAT said, they are excellent brass band arrangements... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I believe we have two vocal arrangement of anthems that are featured sound (one for the US and Japan). The site where this original recording is from, there are vocal recordings of O Canada, but we will still have quality issues. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• comment A poor recording. Is it notable in any way though? Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Not promoted. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:58pm • 02:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

JS Bach - Brandenburg Concerto No. 3

Fabulous pieces of music by JS Bach. These recordings illustrate the article about the Brandenburg Concertos, and come from the Al Goldstein collection in the Pandora music repository at ibiblio.org. They are recordings by the Advent Chamber orchestra in a live concert for the small record label that has released its work to the public. They are well played with spirit and would make a fine set of FS. Generally well-balanced although there is the occasional moment when the bass is a bit loud in the mix (perhaps they were sat too close to the mics). They were originally uploaded by Graham87.

• Nominate and support. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• May I suggest breaking this up into individual concertos? Reviewing 45 minutes of music is a bit much in one sitting. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough! Sheer laziness on my part - I was doing it rapidly too as RL is quite demanding at the moment. I will divide them into No 3, No 5 & No 6 separately. Major Bloodnok (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The start of the first movement sounds a bit cut short. I can see Tony's point about the audio recording being a little lower-quality than some of our recordings, but it's not too bad. Unsure. I'll come back later. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak support The page-turning and other noises (which dominate some parts), combined with the awkward start, make it hard to fully support, but it's a rather lively performance. The MP3 version is actually rather better for the first movement - grab that and convert it, and I'll reconsider. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I'm not sure I hear quite what is being talked about in numbers 5 and 6, however this seems tinny to me, like it were being played on a cheap 1990s boombox. Does that make any sense? Sven Manguard Wha? 03:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• On the Fence they seem to be on the cusp of FS quality. Personally, I can't feel the emotion that this song is trying to convey. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support I reiterate Adam's concerns, the page turning is very dominant and the assortment of odd noises ruins the liveliness of the piece. The start (not that I consider that a start) is very, very strange indeed. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 2:28pm • 03:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose—This is a great pity. The third movement is closest to promotion standards: the fizziness of the audio-engineering doesn't seem to be as bad is is for the first movement. But there's a problem: the third movement ends half-way through, ahem. The description page does say "Selections from the concert of December 2006". My guess is that this was an encore, since the musicians do appear to slow up very nicely at the "end"; but it doesn't make sense. I can't work out what is happening. The movement normally takes 4.5 minutes. The second movement: harpsichord seriously out of tune. Airconditioning, probably; it's a big problem for early instruments. In a recording studio, you'd stop and retune, which takes at least 20 minutes. I do like their pulse and vivacity. Tony (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The truncated 3rd movement is strange, but the Pandora Records website is riddled with errors, especially in the section with music by the Advent Chamber Orchestra, so I wouldn't put it past them. There are actually two versions of the 3rd movement of Brandenburg Concerto No. 3 on the Pandora Records website: the truncated version that you've just reviewed and a full version, which I've just uploaded over the truncated version of the 3rd movement. They are obviously from different recordings. I've made a note of this discrepancy on the description page, but the wording could probably be improved. I've always known that there were two versions of that file on the Pandora Records website, but I didn't know about the truncated version until now ... thanks very much for pointing it out. Graham87 10:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd have supported the previous upload of the third movement if it had been complete. This is not nearly as good: the bass is very flabby ... probably an engineering problem. The inner parts are unclear in many places. The upper strings have slight ensemble problems in a few places, and their vibrato intrudes occasionally. 3 min 54 s is bad. The tempo is uncomfortably pushed after the first pause. The ending crashes into a heap. Is it the same orchestra? For such a well-known piece, we have to be fussy, IMO. For a far better performance, at baroque pitch, put "brandenburg concerto 3" into YouTube and click on the Frieburg one. But the audio-engineering sucks and the harpsichord really fuzzes the texture somehow. Tony (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, it's the same orchestra, believe it or not. However I agree with you that my second upload of the movement is not as good as the original one ... it's not as polished. Graham87 02:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus of "Meh." It's alright, goodd enpugh for articles, but noone's gettin very passionate about it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Not promoted Consensus stands at 3/2/1, it is clear that there are significant issues with where the first movement starts and the background noises present. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 2:03pm • 03:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

United Republic

It is a very good quality that is expected by the United States Nevy Band. It is used in the National anthem of Yemen article and is in the infobox.

• Nominate and support. Spongie555 (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Sorry to oppose your first nomination, but the music is just so sub-ordinary I don't think any performance of it should be featured. Plus it represents a murderous regime currently under challenge in the streets (not that that counts, but ...). The rall. at the end is misjudged, but the performance is up to the usual high standard apart from that. The musicians must have been embarrassed to perform it. Tony (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

  Even though this my first nomination and I'm not familiar with the procedures I think the music should be judge neutrally and not by your personal opion of the current Yemeni government and protests. Spongie555 (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC).

  • I really don't think that sort of argument is appropriate for something like a national anthem, which has inherent notability. Plus, I thought we agreed that not liking a notable piece was not grounds to oppose? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    • What sort of argument? Musical quality does not equal notability. In this case, it is utterly unsuitable to the genre. Tony (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Never mind. I read "The musicians must have been embarassed to perform it" to refer to the anthem, not the ralletando, and, further, you didn't clarify "this brass band arrangement of Yemen's anthem" when you said "the music is just so sub-ordinary". Please try to be a bit more specific. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think that this piece is at all suitable for Western instruments, especially for a Western military band. It breaks all the rules of melody construction in Western classical music ... the first phrase of a piece shouldn't start with a 5-7 chord, for a start. (The first two chords establish the home key, but do not count as part of the first phrase in my opinion). It would probably sound more at home on traditional Arab instruments. Graham87 08:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose My apologies, given it is your first nomination, my concerns are largely the same as Graham's, the music sounds rather odd when played on Western instruments, the piece probably wouldn't be bad were it the opposite, I wonder if there is a recording of the anthem played on traditional instruments circulating somewhere on the net... —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:24pm • 11:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this even played on traditional instruments? I remember sitting through a video we were forced to watch in class at uni that was a speech by an African leader right after they gained independance. This guy rambles on about how they are free from British domination forever. The ironic thing is that they play the "new" national anthem at the end of this and it is almost an exact replica of a European marching song. Sometimes native and local things are forgotten about. --In actu (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry Tony, but your argument make absolutely no sense. I believe March of the Volunteers is Featured? But Graham makes a good argument here. I was going to stay out of it for a while but I agree that Western instruments don't really work well with this kind of music. --haha169 (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• Although this is played well, I think the arrangement misses the tune and does it a disservice (see this youtube clip for a version which seems to make sense). It is a notable piece of music because it is a national anthem, and if this was how the piece should sound I would be more in favour of supporting it. The micro-tones in the original tune don't get played well by the band (although to echo In Actu the accompaniment part appears to be what was written even though it sounds like a half-understood imitation of a European March) so I must oppose. Sorry Spongie - better luck next time! Major Bloodnok (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Not promoted —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 2:06pm • 03:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Three Four More Christmas Carols

It should probably be noted that the CD apparently has many tracks not available online: the download numbers the songs, and Tracks 4, 6-7, and 21-26 are all apparently missing.

I don't intend to nominate all the tracks; some are just weird arrangements, but there should be enough for one more set.

As before, feel free to vote differently on the different tracks, but, if you do, please state both opposes and supports, not mentioning one of the songs is generally considered a non-vote on that song. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, this is the former recording used in Coventry Carol: File:Coventry Carol.ogg. Thank GOD that's replaced, eh? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and before I'm asked: I believe all of these are more-or-less just the traditional arrangements, with only minor tweaks at most. Correct me if I'm wrong. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• I suppose I support: they are such good performances; the singers are capable of great warmth and colour. It's all too saccharin and hackneyed for me, but that's my problem. The conductor has stomped on rhoticism, but unfortunately some gets through, most noticeably in No. 2. Tony (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Christmas Carols are a little saccharin at times (though I think the Coventry Carol's subject matter - the Slaughter of the Innocents - puts it above such claims), and this far out of season I'm not surprised you're not in the mood - but better to plan ahead a bit. =) I suppose I can hear what you mean about rhoticism in the second, but it's very minor since choral singing is quite forgiving of a few people missing a consonant, so long as most people get it solid.

For the record, I think I can manage one more batch, but they're mostly foreign carols, and I'll need to start articles on them first - for the record, Il est né, le divin Enfant, A la nanita nana, and Dormi, dormi, bel Bambin. There are articles on these in other languages: es:A La Nanita Nana, on Spanish Wikipedia; it:Il est né, le divin enfant is on French Wikipedia, but Italian Wikipedia covers it a bit better for some reason; and, believe it or not, co:Dormi, dormi, bel Bambin is on... Corsican Wikipedia, of all things. More power to the regional wikis? - In any case, my Spanish and Italian aren't great [Corsican is more-or-less a dialect of Italian], but between what I do know and a little judicious use of Google Translate, this shouldn't be too hard. There's also an okay performance of Good King Wenceslaus, but I think I'll skip nominating that one, as it's somewhat duller than I'd like. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support all I especially enjoy this A cappella version Here We Come A-wassailing. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support all good quality performances, particularly liked Here We Come A-wassailing. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 8:52pm • 09:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Suppport all. Well sung throughout. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Promoted all —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 2:35pm • 03:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Three Christmas Carols

Three carols performed by the chorus of the U.S. Army Band. There's more to come, but I want to keep the length reasonable. I'm not going to nominate EVERY carol in the U.S. Army's Christmas Album (a few are in strange arrangements that make them unusable for presenting the carol as normally sung), but there's enough good stuff in there that it's worth nominating a good chunk more than this.

These should be considered three separate nominations, grouped together due to similar quality. Feel free to oppose one, but not another, for example.

Very well performed, and, let's face it, we'll need some stuff for December. =)

• Nominate and support all. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Support all

• Support all - In order of preference: the second item, the third one then the first one. The second file is a beautiful a cappella arrangement, and I agree with Tony that this choir sounds at its best unaccompanied. I adore "Jesu Bambino", but I think it's missing something without the higher voices in the choir, and it sounds better in its original language. However the arrangement grew on me by the end of the recording, and the solo singer has a pleasant voice. The first recording isn't really my style, but it's a good performance. Graham87 06:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support all - though the organ is unusually loud in the first one, I don't really have any major concerns. — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 01:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support all - Superb quality and singing. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:54pm • 07:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support all - Great singing throughout. I didn't "like" the organ in the first one, but for me I think it passes muster. Major Bloodnok (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Support 1, 2, 3 or 1&2, 2&3 or 1&3

• Support first one. Why can't we vote on the separate files? Not up to the superb standard of the US Army Band band. It's still good, though—lovely control of vibrato, dynamics, colour, by the singers, although one of the basses has a relatively dry voice that doesn't mix with the other voices so well. Unlike the voices, the organ is a boring (characterless) sound, and a bit "close", IMO. I wonder why the tech has put a savage diminuendo at the end. The vocal arrangement is nice, although the cadential bridges on the organ are underwhelming (the ensemble sounds much better when a cappella (2 mins +); it appears to be in a 20th-century English churchy style (those whacky modulations in the bridging sections are a laugh), but why is the composer/arranger not given on the description page? Tony (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The U.S. Army doesn't always document the arrangements, particularly if they're done "in house" - as I understand it, it's meant to be be an army thing, not individuals. As for the composer, I don't believe it's known; it's a traditional song from the 1400s. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support 2 and 3 the organ is overpowering and the voices don't mix well on number 1. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Per Adam's request, I oppose the first sound file --Guerillero | My Talk 00:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose 1; support 2 and 3—agree with Guerillero. I find the first one weird, and the organ is a problem. The second isn't a modern arrangement, thank god, but the original, and is excellent. The third is nice enough; I can live with what I think is a vibrato too full-on in the soloist. Tony (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • If either of you mean for these to be taken as an oppose on the first, you will need to say. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Other discussion

• Since there's differing consensus on each of these, perhaps they should be split? Or at least split the voting section here into three sections? I don't like the interpretive dance of trying to find a consensus among a "choose from A, B, or C, or more than one, or none" style nomination. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I think there is a 2/3 supermajority on each piece anyways even with the individual opposes --Guerillero | My Talk 20:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
    • There's clear consensus to promote 2&3 but not so much consensus to promote 1 - 4 votes for all (inc. Adam's), 2 votes for 2 & 3 so the votes stand at 4 votes for the first and 6 votes for 2 & 3. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 5:55pm • 06:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
      • After a new vote, it's 5 votes, 2 opposes for 1, 7 votes for 2&3. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I think it's fair to say there's clear consensus for 2&3 and significant consensus for 1? —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 8:00pm • 09:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
          • It would be inappropriate for me to speculate, as I'm the nominator. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Closure

• File:U.S. Army Band - This Endris Night.ogg

Not promoted per above consensus, concerns widely stated re. organ. -- Chzz  ►  04:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• File:U.S. Army Band - Lo How a Rose.ogg

Promoted per consensus -- Chzz  ►  04:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• File:U.S. Army Band - Gesù Bambino.ogg

Promoted per consensus -- Chzz  ►  04:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Request

Next time, please just list as three separate noms. (Unless there's 10+ sounds, it is easier to keep things simple, I think)  Chzz  ►  04:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

United States Navy Band - O Canada

The recording and performance is of the high quality that is expected of and maintained by the US Navy Band. Better than the other instrumental that was nominated, I removed that in the article's infobox and used this one instead.

• Nominate and support. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 12:56pm • 01:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support—excellent, as usual. Except that I think they start their ralls in national anthems too early. They end up grinding to a slow halt (like saying to the audience ... "hey, we're going to finish in a minute ... here it comes, wait ... yes ... wait ..."). Tony (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support excellent as usual and that caption it to die for --Guerillero | My Talk 03:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• Conditional support It sounds good, well played and recorded, but this recording doesn't seem to be used on any article page. Once it is, then you have my full support. Major Bloodnok (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It doesn't appear on any article because none of the article's regular watchers seem to think the piece belongs and continue to use that horrid 1916 instrumental, even though it's already in the article further down, not sure about now, I think they might have removed the duplicate just because they felt like it. I think there's a bit of bias here, they're probably Canadians (given the "Rmv American version" edit summary) so they'd most likely prefer Canadian performances. If this passes, which it looks like it will then policy (or is it procedure) states the higher quality piece is to be used somewhere on the article near the top. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 7:48pm • 08:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I tried to add it to the gallery. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe in the gallery would be fine ..Is there a date for this version - this would be an asset and would get my support for Featured sound if found. Moxy (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think mid to late 2000's is a fair approximation since the USNB doesn't date their recordings, well at least not the anthems and ceremonial music. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 7:58pm • 08:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say 03-04. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Using the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, the oldest date I can get for the file itself is October 2004, though the webpage it's hosted on dates back to May 2003. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 08:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• If this stays in the article, it's fine being promoted, but it does need to be in at least one article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • It's in the O Canada article in the gallery. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 5:15pm • 06:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Nice performance; I like it. I always prefer the U.S. Navy Band's renditions of national anthems because the notation is clear and distinguishable as opposed to other bands and orchestras where everything is blurry and muddled. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 08:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Promoted United States Navy Band - O Canada.ogg --MacMed^talk_stalk 21:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Overture on Hebrew Themes

I was surprised Graham hasn't nominated this. I adore this piece, and think it would be an incredible addition to featured sounds.

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support as uploader - A fantastic piece. I was going to listen to other performances to check some things ... the rhythm of the clarinet sounds a bit off to me in some of its solo passages (e.g. at the start), and one can occasionally hear strange sounds from the clarinet keys, for example ... but I got sidetracked. The minor issues don't detract much from the artistic value of the recording, IMO. Graham87 15:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support What a fun little piece. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Fantastic performance, good soli, indeed a fun piece. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:39pm • 02:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Evaluating this candidate is the most interesting thing that I have done while multitasking and playing online poker. I enjoyed it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Prokofiev - Advent Chamber Orchestra - Overture on Hebrew Themes.ogg --MacMed^talk_stalk 21:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Farewell Address (January 15, 1953) Harry S. Truman

I have done a lot of noise reduction to eliminate troublesome static that is now removed from most of the speech except the first ten seconds. The quality is good in my opinion for a nearly 60 year old speech. This file contributes significantly to the following articles:

• Harry S. Truman

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• Nomination withdrawn This is not one of WP's finer works and I don't think I can improve it to a high enough level to be one. Futhermore, unlike the other works I have nominated, it has little EV in terms of complementing focused articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Eventide

Its a fairly famous and well know tune. It seems to be a high quality recording with little imperfections.

• Nominate and support. Guerillero | My Talk 02:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, I regret. The organ builder is having a go, it appears from the sound description page. It's an easy work to play in terms of fundamental organ technique; this was a studio recording, too, so as many takes as they liked. But there are hand and foot issues in this very exposed texture: (i) a repeated note in the tune is not sounded at 11 s (the previous note has to be lifted first ... it's the dominant); (ii) at the end of each phrase (e.g., 15 s), there's a pause, yes, but the new phrase jumps in very uncomfortably before it's due, with a jerking feel—even a non-musical listener will be unconsciously ticking over the beat and the metre; (ii) finger slip at 17.5 s, causing two adjacent notes to be sounded at once (in the tenor?); (iii) in such pure homophony, utter crispness is required in the release and onset of all notes in each chord (see 21 s for an example of the lack of vertical ensemble); (iv) around 36 s, the pedal bass lacks legato (poorly planned heel–toe successions, possibly involving a "black" note); 41 s, unfortunate gap.

  A stronger 16-foot stop in the pedals would have been nice for depth of tone in a hymn of this mood. But ... the tempo wouldn't want to be any slower: a congregation would find itself a little breathless at that pace; but these last two points are just observations.

  The SDP: the work is a hymn harmonisation; the "hymn tune" is just the soprano line of the four-part texture—what the congregation sings. (The "hymn" is not the music, but the words, BTW.) Also, odd that it says "copyright". Tony (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Well, a Creative Commons license doesn't eliminate your copyright, and it's copyrighted to the uploader, who is (or possibly was?) an Arbcom member, if that's meaningful. It may be worth informing him of this discussion. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Support per Tony, but these problems aren't noticeable to the casual listener and it's the only file we have here, or so I believe. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 5:34pm • 06:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Putting a musical performance under the microscope is usually critical to determining its worth—in technical, artistic, and engineering terms. The "casual listener" is not the judge of featured standards, I'd have thought, which need to pass more than a casual examination. Tony (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

True but though these problems exist they don't significantly reduce the quality of the file. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 8:26pm • 09:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - The misplaced pauses between phrases were the first things that jumped out at me in this recording, and IMO preclude it from being featured ... it almost sounds like the time signature changes between 4/4 and 7/8 at the end of the first two phrases. This is completely unacceptable for a sound that aims to show Wikipedia's best work. BTW, for a bit more info about UninvitedCompany's recordings, see this Signpost article from February 2005. IMO the Eventide recording is far better than the recording of the Short Prelude in G minor linked from that Signpost article. Graham87 15:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral The first 35 seconds of the file are fine IMO. Then I think there may be detectible distractions and I am a pretty casual listener.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Not promoted - No consensus. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009) Barack Obama

This was not an official State of the Union address. The speech was delivered on the floor of the chamber of the United States House of Representatives in the United States Capitol in a joint session of the United States Congress. President Obama discussed the recently passed $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 as well as the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the state of the economy, and the future of the country as it emerged from the Late-2000s financial crisis. Transcript and video available at the source. This file contributes significantly to the following articles:

• Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, February 2009
• First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency
• Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama (2009)

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comments WP:FS?#4: The FSC caption is insufficient. Tell us something interesting about the audio, what significance it has etc, otherwise you'll be hard pressed to get anyone interested in it. FS?#5: The file descriptions are pretty weak. "Barack Obama Address before a Joint session of Congress" doesn't tell us anything more than the file name. Try to give more details, such as what a joint session of Congress is, what some of the themes are in the speech. Are there any details on when or where it was recorded? Have any edits been made to the files to remove pops or clicks, to reduce audience applause and other background noise? Transcripts would be good, even though the aren't required by the FS?. If these audio files "contribute significantly", then will the deaf and hard of hearing have trouble understanding the topic of the article without the transcripts? Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose in the face of the video version of this same speech above. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 03:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Not Promoted per the nomination of the video. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 7:31pm • 09:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Fireside Chat 1 On the Banking Crisis (March 12, 1933) Franklin Delano Roosevelt

This was the first of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's famous Fireside chats series made during the Great Depression. It discussed the Banking Crisis and its March 3, 1933 bank run. This article adds significantly to the following articles:

• Fireside chats
• Franklin D. Roosevelt
• History of the United States (1918–1945)

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment—Can't the fizz and clicking be removed? "what we are about": my god, that expression was around in the 1930s? Tony (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I don't think much can be done. I'd be loath to do more than a tiny bit of noise reduction, and I doubt it'd make a huge difference. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support the speech is understandable and important. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 03:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Though the static and clicking is annoying, the clarity of the speech is otherwise quite good. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:17pm • 08:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Ah, the good old days when a kindly gentleman would explain American policy in easy to understand terms and with a minimum of trying to make everyone else look bad. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Fireside Chat 1 On the Banking Crisis (March 12, 1933) Franklin Delano Roosevelt.ogg --Sven Manguard Wha? 03:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC) (Can the name get any longer...?)

State of the Union (Four Freedoms) (January 6, 1941) Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Edit:

• This speech was made to the newly-seated 77th United States Congress as the State of the Union Address and expressed fundamental universal rights that went beyond those expressed in the United States Constitution. These freedoms were incorporated into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nation at the urging of United States First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. The freedoms inspired Norman Rockwell to create one of the most widely purchased series of art ever created in the Four Freedoms. The transcript is available at the source. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

• Four Freedoms
• Four Freedoms Award
• Four Freedoms Monument
• Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)
• Franklin D. Roosevelt
• State of the Union address
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• Eleanor Roosevelt

• Nominate and support edit. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comments WP:FS?#2: Can any of the hissing be removed or reduced? There's a fair bit of racket at the beginning of the recording. Yapping off mike, pops, clicks, etc. WP?#4 The FSC caption is insufficient. Tell us something interesting about the audio, what significance it has etc, otherwise you'll be hard pressed to get anyone interested in it. FS?#5: The file description is pretty poor. "Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Four Freedoms State of the Union Address" doesn't tell us anything more than the file name. Please give us more details on the contents. Are there any details on where it was recorded? Have any edits been made to the file? Transcript would be good, even though the aren't required by the FS?. If these audio files "contribute significantly", then will the deaf and hard of hearing have trouble understanding the topic of the article without the transcripts? Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not going to be possible to remove all the background (unless you want Roosevelt to sound like he's speaking from the bottom of a well. But some cleanup is possible. There will still, by necessity, be racket at the beginning (unless cropped). Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I have cropped the file by 15 seconds (9 at the beginning and 6 at the end), which may have gotten rid of some of the racket that was noted by Matthewedwards (talk · contribs).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Right. Here's what I did:

• Went back to the original (it's always best to edit from the original) and selected the period between 3 and 4 seconds, as seemingly typical of the background noise in this recording. Went to the menu under Effect->Noise Removal, and chose "Get Noise Profile" - this analyses the section.
• Edit->Select all. Edit->Duplicate
• Muted one of the tracks (there's a button on the left), and selected the other. The easiest way to do select just one track is to click anywhere on it, then hit Home (which sends you to the start of it), then hold shift + End.
• Effect-> Noise Removal. I played with the sliders, and, after a little fiddling, chose something about one-third of the way to the right.
• Did a playthrough. Failure: contained too many humans talking in the background. Retried above steps with a selection around 21:59.
• Success! One thing I might have had to do was adjust the noise removal slider - too little and you get strange high-pitched mechanical noises, but you want to apply as little as possible. It sounds a bit tinny, but that's alright because the next step will fix that.
• I now unmuted the original and used the volume controllers left of the tracks to blend in the original, unedited track. Since Audacity's noise removal tool is so very harsh, this is required. I ended up choosing -6dB for the unedited, -3dB for the edited
• Sounds good! Listen through, check for any clicks, which can often be carefully removed. Make sure to edit both tracks at once, so they won't get out of alignment. Do not use the click removal tool, which is awful.
• Cut a bit at the beginning, added a fade-in. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

N.B. The edit isn't in articles, and will need to replace the original if it passes. I think it came out pretty well, though I do need to grab a new pair of speakers, as I couldn't listen to it as loud as I'd have liked to without blowing them (old speakers get that way, alas.) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you notice that your version is only 5 minutes and 28 seconds?

Fixed - Upload error. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If I want to do this myself, choosing the section between 3 and 4 seconds is a task can you describe how I do that? For example, if I copy the first few seconds, I can not figure out how to past it into a separate track and fit it for the whole width so that I can see more clearly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops, failure in upload, my original is full length. That'll be fixed in a few minutes. As for your other question, can you restate it? It's not very clear what you're actually asking. Perhaps you want View->Normal? Note, though, that the section between 3 and 4 seconds was a complete failure, muting whole portions of Roosevelt's speech. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If I want to do this myself, choosing the section between 3 and 4 seconds is a task. Can you describe how I do that? For example, if I copy the first few seconds, I can not figure out how to paste it into a separate track and fit it for the whole width so that I can see more clearly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you just use view to zoom in in situ?

Now that you have got me up to speed on the view, how about the select. I can't figure out how to select ranges instead of resetting the start of the playback. Also what do you think about the 18.5-19.5 and 5-7 second ranges?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Is that in your trimmed version? Those make no sense in the original. But let's take this to my talk. I'll walk you through your choice of file, within reason (some files just aren't newbie files). =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Those are times working from the original where the first words "Mr. President" occur at about the 10.5 second mark. I am not sure why you trimmed the beginning and left a 6 second lead. If you feel that you have achieved maximal noise reduction with the edit that you have posted above, I would suggest trimming another 5 seconds off the beginning and a few off the end and then posting it towards the top of this discussion as an alternate, unless that is abnormal in FSCs. As for other files, we could either do the JFK Peace Corps speech or the FDR fireside chat.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

[Unindent] It takes a while for the noise to settle down after he begins speaking. If I cut it too close, the context would be lost, and it'd just sound odd. Oh, yes, support edit Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have added this file to a lot of articles. Feel free to point out any where it does not belong.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support edit Important speech, adds to the article significantly. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:58pm • 08:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed the names from what they were to before to File:1941 State of the Union.ogg and File:1941 State of the Union - Edit 1.ogg. <<Insert clever jibe about putting the entire file summary into the file name here.>> The redirects still work, by the way. No reason to delete them, per se. This is just easier, and will standardize things in case more edits need to be made.

On the subject of more edits, it sounds like FDR is speaking through a towel some of the time, especially early on. Any way to fix that?

Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 02:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't care for the change: descriptive filenames are just better, given that category lists only give the filenames. Admittedly, it doesn't do that very well either, but there's at least potential that'll improve, whereas there's no chance that information not in the filename is ever going to appear in such gallery-based lists.

As for the towel - you can either have the extreme static, or the muffled voice. It's very much a trade-off between those options, and the goal is to find the right balance. There is no way to do both. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

New names are File:FDR's 1941 State of the Union (Four Freedoms speech).ogg and File:FDR's 1941 State of the Union (Four Freedoms speech) Edit 1.ogg. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 02:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Promoted FDR's 1941 State of the Union (Four Freedoms speech) Edit 1.ogg --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 16:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Ich bin ein Berliner Speech (June 26, 1963) John Fitzgerald Kennedy

"Ich bin ein Berliner" is one of John F. Kennedy's more famous speeches. It occurred at the Rathaus Schöneberg on his visit to the Berlin Wall on 26 June 1963. This file contributes significantly to the following articles:

• Ich bin ein Berliner
• John F. Kennedy
• Berlin Wall
• Rathaus Schöneberg

• This file creation was difficult. Of the three video filetypes at the source, only one plays audio and video remotely synchronously in the software that I trimmed the length in. Then when outputting the trimmed file, if you output to .mp4 the audio does not make it through the .ogv conversion so one must output the trimmed file to .mov. I did not attempt to clean the original file of any defects other than trim the beginning and end, making a 9:37 original 9:01.9. There is an audio version of this speech that is already a WP:FS. There is also already a JFK color video of another speech that is sharper in its audio but has a much more remote camera angle. Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• The following text from the audio file FSC discussion apply here:

There are indeed some sound artifacts in the recording. The reason for this is that we do not have the complete recording of the Kennedy speech in this recording. We are missing about half of it; most of the German translation is missing , and some of the English. The "cuts" in the original audio file introduced a variety of clicks and other strange sounds. This is not the fault of Wikipedia editors, since this edited version is the only public domain version that is available. From the Kennedy Library website [3]:

This text is the version published in the Public Papers of the Presidents: John F. Kennedy, 1963. Both this text and the audio version of this speech ommit the words of the German translator. This audio file was edited by the White House Signal Agency shortly after the speech was recorded. The White House Signal Agency was charged with recording only the words of the President. The Kennedy Library has an audiotape of a network broadcast of the full speech, with the translator's words, and a journalist's commentary. Because of copyright restrictions it is only available for listening at the Library for reasons of private study and scholarship.

Of course, filters could be created to reduce the size of these clicks and other audio discontinuities, at the cost of actually obscuring some of the information content. In particular, it is important to note that about half of this speech is missing. The clicks and other audio artifacts are a reminder of that, and are of historic interest. --Filll (talk | wpc) 22:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment File:Jfk berlin address high.ogg is already a FS. I don't think that the video part adds anything that the audio can't --Guerillero | My Talk 22:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • In each of its uses, do you expect the reader to select the video or audio more often?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• The vid adds so much more to the readers' experience than the audio alone. Any reason both couldn't be featured. I'm not (yet) commenting on the audio artefacts, though. Any easy way of removing the black strip down the left side? And finally, structurally, how does one determine whether this should be a FSC or a FPC? Tony (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • That one's easy, at least from my understanding. Videos where the main focus and encyclopedic value is in the audio, such as a presidential speech, a recording of a piano performance, or (in the case of the two Russian videos) a performance of a song overlayed with patriotic imagery get put in the FS pile. Videos where the main focus and encyclopedic value is in the visual, such as a video of aurora borealis, a technical animation, or a butterfly in flight go in the FP pile. Videos with substantial encyclopedic value in both the sound and the imagery, such as a fireworks display, a bird performing a bird call, or if we're wonderfully lucky, a professional film piece (assuming Disney ever stops playing with copyright laws) then I see no reason why one file cannot be both an FS and an FP. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

N.B. this is up for discussion at Commons deletion requests.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Edited to fix a page wraparound error. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose the audio version of this speech is easier to understand and listen to. While the video add to this speech it can not overcome the clarity issue.--Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 03:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm going to try to screencast the video (but not audio) from the presidential library and overlay the clear audio on top of it. All I need is a good screencaster. Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 07:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Not promoted --No consensus. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Kyrie eleison

This is a good example of plain chant. The only issue I have with it is the reverberating in the background. It sounds like this was recorded in a Basilica or Cathedral and it may actually add to the recording. After all, plain chant is meant to be heard inside a church.

What appears to be a full mass was recorded. I can expand the nomination out to that if need be.

• Nominate and support. Guerillero | My Talk 03:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Can you provide the longer version for comparison? It may or may not be valuable to hear how it differs (or doesn't) for different parts of the mass - but we'll need to hear it to judge. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • It appears to be fragments of a vespers. There is a Deus in adjutorium meum intende, Antiphona et Magnificat, Pater Noster, Oratio de Saint Vincent Pallotti, and Ave Maria. All of these sounds could stand on their own technically. *jumps for joy at the sweet sound of plain chant* --Guerillero | My Talk 02:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Okay, sure, Support, then. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Good clarity and unity. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 5:37pm • 06:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Sound description page issues. No date of composition is provided. It seems to be saying that Vincent Pallotti composed it (19th century). So this is a chant interpolated into a work from the romantic period? I'm confused. The Pallotti article mentions nothing about music or chant, and does not include the sound file. Tony (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I can't find any information about this outside of whats on the file page. However, I do think it would be reasonable to believe that St Vincent wrote this. The Kyre was the first prayer when he celebrated mass just like today[4] and recording was made at a monastery of the religious order that he founded. Unless we know of any Pallotine monks/priests this is all we have to work with. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support This of course reminds me of Kyrie (song), which I now finally know how to spell.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Can someone do something about the date? The question above wasn't answered completely. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I suspect these things tend to be passed one person to another. Like the Cantillation example recently, they are very hard to pin down to better than "traditional" unless you get very lucky. It's very similar to the Ambrosian chant recorded here, so I'd suspect it's from the same initial source, with the modifications you'd expect in something likely taught generation to generation of monks, instead of by sheet music. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Alright, I won't hold it up any longer then. Either stick it in undatable or round to the nearest century, I guess. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Sounds great, adds to the page its used on, and the unclarity about the date it comes from is appropriate given the nature of the piece. I think it should be trimmed though; while there is echo at the end given where it was recorded, there seems to be far too much silence. Not a deciding factor, however. Major Bloodnok (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Schola Gregoriana-Kyrie eleison.ogg --Sven Manguard Wha? 23:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Soler's Sonate 84.

I can't find the year; I suspect that Soler is one of those composers where there's not a lot of documentation for when he actually wrote things, just big stacks of manuscripts that later scholars had to organise. However, as Soler lived between 1729 and 1783, mid-18th century should be accurate enough.

We have very little organ music, we have very little 18th-century music, and we have very little Spanish music.

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support A quality example of the diversity of WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Musical genius! Megodenas is superb, I couldn't find a problem with the clarity or quality of the performance. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 5:41pm • 07:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support—good one. Tony (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Soler Sonate 84.ogg --Sven Manguard Wha? 00:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Siegfried

These are major pieces from one of four operas composed by Richard Wagner to make up the Der Ring des Nibelungen. These files significantly enhance the following articles:

• List of works for the stage by Wagner
• Siegfried (opera)

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The 20-minute Siegfried Fantasie is a pastiche. It's not from the opera. Possibly arranged by Arthur Seidel [5]. Not Wagner. The 10-minute Siegfried Funeral March and Finale is an arrangement commonly played in the concert hall — not the opera house obviously — though in this case without a full orchestra. The music is not from Siegfried but from Götterdämmerung. These files do not significantly enhance the articles they have been placed in — the reverse is true! --Kleinzach 07:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Why would Siegfried Fantasie be on the album it is on (Music of Richard Wagner) if it is not by Wagner? Are you sure. I am not a classical music buff. Feel free to move files to articles you think they belong in and remove them as necessary. Just let me know what you are doing. You sound like you might know how to make it complement Götterdämmerung.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, I am sure. Arrangements are commonly made of music to fit new situations — in this case a brass band. Pastiches are also common — joining up pieces of music that were written separately. The music here is representative of brass band music, rather than Wagner. --Kleinzach 11:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose As Kleinzach has pointed out, one of these is mislabelled (it's from Gotterdammerung) and the other isn't actually from Siegfried but is a mashup of themes from the opera. On top of that, they are not in the original instrumentation. I think that to suggest they are "major pieces" from the operas is therefore misleading - you might as well claim that my famed kazoo renditions of Tristan und Isolde represent major excerpts from that opera :-). We do have a real need for excerpts from all the Wagner operas in Wikipedia, but I don't think these help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogbertd (talk • contribs)
  • Nomination withdrawn.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Dial-up modem

Surprisingly iconic sounds. While the oldest ones, from the 2600 baud era and maybe going up to a factor of 100 above that are perhaps the most iconic, this is a good example of the sounds of a dying bit of technology that was once part of our everyday lives. I'd love to have more of this type, covering the little variations between baud-rates. But then, I am a huge geek.

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support iconic sound.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Good quality sound with historical significance. Reminds me of when I got my first computer, dial-up was all the rage! Ah, good memories :) —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 5:25pm • 07:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support My dial up sounded a lot like this, until 0:14. After that iconic up-down sequence I just got a long beep. Ah well... Hey, anyone remember when AOL was still dominant and relevant? Good times... good times... Sven Manguard Wha? 07:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support I just heard a bit on NPR about how iconic this sound is. Very nice. Jujutacular ^talk 10:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Oh very good. This is main-page stuff, definitely. I can see an image of an old clunker of a modem next to it at The Signpost. Tony (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Dial up modem noises.ogg —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:26am • 00:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Reopened - This needs to run for seven days, feasted processes do not use wp:SNOW closes. You also voted in this one, we generally don't do that except in extreme cases. I am not, however, going to expend the effort to undue the promotion, unless of course this manages to fail somehow. We'll just close it in six days, and more than likely all that'll change is it's order in the monthly log. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support: high EV, good quality, historical significance. Ah, the eighties... only you could make us wait twenty minutes for our porn and be happy about it. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Bahamut... umm... the 80s ended when you were five... Sven Manguard Wha? 21:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support I'm glad you found something like this. I've certainly was looking at some point. Great recording! --haha169 (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Since enough time has past I'm reinstating the promotion. Yay following process even when it's inefficient and has no bearing on the outcome. (At least we can claim to follow a process, believe me that beats plenty of parts of Wikipedia...) Sven Manguard Wha? 01:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Thunderer

The Thunderer is one of John Philip Sousa's earliest successful compositions. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

• The Thunderer
• John Philip Sousa

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not well recorded, even for 1896. It documents the fact that The USMC Band made an early recording of the work, but is not very listenable. There were other cylinder and disc recordings old enough to be public domain which would be more representative of how the march should sound. Edison (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Edison is slightly wrong: the problem is actually a hideously bad restoration; you can get far better out of a reasonably-well-preserved cylinder. The U.S. Marine Band insists on offering restored versions; they don't actually know how to restore them, but this doesn't stop 'em. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

  Comment I thought it was just the ineptitude of Columbia rather than bad restoration. One particular note is FF while all else is pianissamo. Edison (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Adam, sounds like restored phonautograph sounds. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:26pm • 04:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose It's good to see TTT staying with us and branching out from speeches, goodness knows we need more sound hunters to nominate things. However this recording itself is tinfoily. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn per WP:SNOW.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

SITOR idling pattern

I thought I'd throw this out there - it's an interesting little educational file, though not at all pleasant to listen to. I am, howwever, serious about the warning. If you're wearing headphones, please, please, turn the volume down a bit first. Should we edit it to provide a quieter version?

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• This reminds me of an idea I had a while back for a featured sound, a morse code of "Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia". Alas, I don't have a transmitter. As for this, are you sure it's right? There seems like a ton of background noise. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I believe the background noise is the signal. I'm sure I've heard something liek this on TV shows about the coast guard. As I understand it, this is basically the equivalent to those old modem signals. Which would be a fantastic featured sound. I wonder if we can still get a signon with a low-baud modem to record? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Historically significant sound. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 5:31pm • 07:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strong opposeWhy is it necessary to have it so loud? Edit it and reduce the volume, then resubmit. Edison (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw for now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ave Maria (Gregorian Chant)

• Nominate and support. Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 03:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Good quality and clarity, excellent recording (is reverb on or are they singing in a church/cathedral?) —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 4:23pm • 06:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment—I do find it difficult that the SDP has no reference to the fact that this music would have been composed during the mediaeval period; probably in the 9th–11th century. Do we know from where it emanated? It would have been anon., but is there an original source containing the score? On the matter of the performance: it is not smooth, creamy; one of the singers has a raspy voice as though he needs to clear his throat. It's intrusive. I'm wondering whether there are lots of these tracks to choose from at that Polish source, and whether a better one or more can be identified. Tony (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support I'm not a specialist in Gregorian chant, but I enjoyed hearing this. The ambience is lovely, and I have no issue with the vocal qualities. This melody is much used, for example in a sublime setting by Victoria, beautifully performed here. (Click track 1; then get that CD, or download the MP3; light a candle in the dark, and wind up the volume. If the hairs don't stand up on the back of your head, check that you have a pulse.) The candidate sound provides valuable background to such settings. I have no objection to acceptance as a featured sound, provided the provenance is well documented. –_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to Support on the basis of Noetica's comment, although I still have qualms about that rasping (to my ears). Could I stress that now these items will be queued for main-page exposure, we need to supply good contextual information about each. Hundreds of thousands of visitors will suddenly want to know more about such an item. The SDP is vital. Tony (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I am looking for things tony. I can't find anything about the vespers in the EBSCOhost of catholicism --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 05:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Fine quality. Among WP's finest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Schola Gregoriana-Ave Maria.ogg ' Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A la Nanita Nana

Original

Edit

Split this off from the below nom. Easily fixable problems (probably caused by a mispositioned microphone) should not make it into FS.

• Nominate and support edit. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Much better. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:10am • 23:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support either I can't tell the difference.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Since there are three votes for the edit it is being promoted --Guerillero | My Talk 21:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman's Farewell Address

I think this speech sums up Truman's presidency in a very compelling way. It has the bias of being autobiographical, but that's an obvious bias, so forgiveable. It greatly adds to the article by giving an example of Truman the person, as opposed to Truman the historical figure, and thus helps humanise the article.

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support I don't think the government still has the morals and values he talks about, the government's effed up a lot after Truman stepped down, the Contras, Panama, Iran-Iraq disputes, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda etc. that's off-topic though... The speech is of a good quality considering the time, however, could some of the static be reduced or removed completely? —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:04pm • 08:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • This has already had heroic efforts to reduce static. Let me upload the unmodified original. Any further edits would probably make it sound really, really tinny and incomprehensible. Sometimes, you need to leave some static in. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• • • I see what you mean, boy that's nasty. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 8:10pm • 10:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. Oppose unless (i) an abridged version is produced for the main page, or (ii) there is consensus that this should not appear on the main page. Well done in the reduction of static. It could be better, but it's acceptable in that respect. However, I want to raise a quite different matter. I'm trying to imagine a 25-minute speech on the main page. If WP had been around in the 1940s, maybe. But not now. The scope and pacing of the speech are both on the slow, rambling side, more suitable to that decade that ours. Doesn't it need editing down to, say, 10 minutes? Five minutes would be better still, perhaps split up. I admit that I didn't listen to the whole file, but when I heard him go on about the renovations to the White House, I drifted off. Tony (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. People can listen or not listen, but the transcript's there, and we can always give minute and second marks for the different topics. I also really don't think that's a valid reason to oppose, particularly given we have about 20 other speeches of the same length or longer, already promoted. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What Adam said. If it's really the only issue against promoting, I would say promote it, then when we start placing things in time slots, we can have an FS group meeting on what we should pass over for the main page and whether those things should be desisted or not. Let's not go case by case, we should adopt a unified policy. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Interesting for many different historical reasons. There is a blip at about 9:35 or so - was the original tape / disk disturbed? Can the brief bit of duplicate dialogue be removed? Well done on the edit otherwise! Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed. I just uploaded over. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Harry S. Truman's farewell address 1953.ogg as of right now the polls stand at 75% in favour. Thats about the 67% needed to pass. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Last of the U.S. Army Christmas Carols

...Well, last of the ones worth nominating. There's a couple more which are in articles, but just not good enough for here. Also, I'll need to nominate That Endris Night (5 supp, 2 opp, closed as not promoted) again later, but I'm sure you don't want to see it again so soon. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The third of these, A la Nanita Nana is withdrawn to simplify this nomination. See Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/A la Nanita Nana.

Frankly, I think it's important we cover Christmas traditions outside of the English-speaking world. We're meant to educate, not regurgitate the user's pre-extant knowledge of Christmas. A la Nanita Nana is probably the weakest of the three performances, though I think it's still of a quite high standard. Articles'll need beefing up before they go on the main page, but, eh, there's foreign-language articles to use to that end, and these aren't going up anytime soon. =)

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support these all sound like good representations of WPs finest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support all I like the tenor and baritones in the first and the tune of the third is superb, the third is mediocre, I found the baritone to be a bit too dominant, he was the ONLY thing I could hear clearly, it didn't matter what the others were singing because the "la, la, la, la, la" etc. got monotonous and boring, he doesn't even have the melody :S —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 5:34pm • 07:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • You're right. And, what's more, you're right on something I know how to fix. I'll withdraw that one and move it to another nom. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Both sound great, and contribute significantly to the article they illustrate; but the articles are one-line stubs.... Major Bloodnok (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm assured the translation project will get to them eventually. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted all --Guerillero | My Talk 21:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Wind that Shakes that Barley

It appears is Reel (dance).

• Nominate and support. Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 03:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Support very lively music, good performance and quality, but per the issues raised by Graham and the wrong note/bad timing at 1:11-1:14. I find that these ruin the performance. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 4:34pm • 06:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Good performance overall, but I find the drum kit intrusive ... it's timbre doesn't fit well with the other instruments. There are a few timing issues with the drum kit and bass near the start. Graham87 09:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm sorry, the drum kit just ruins it. =/ Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not Promoted per issues with the drum kit, no clear consensus. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:40pm • 04:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, this should not have been closed by James, as he already voted (as Ancient Apparition). However, I will certify this as being a legitimate close, mostly because I'd have opposed this if it were still open, and so there's little chance of the outcome changing anyways. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

State of the Union Address (January 27, 2010) Barack Obama

This was United States President Barack Obama's first official State of the Union address. The speech was delivered on the floor of the chamber of the United States House of Representatives in the United States Capitol. The theme for President Obama’s speech was “Rescue, Rebuild Restore – a New Foundation for Prosperity”. Among the topics that Obama covered in his speech were proposals for job creation and federal deficit reduction. Transcript and video available at the source. This file contributes significantly to the following articles:

• 2010 State of the Union Address
• State of the Union address
• Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama (2010)

• Nominate and support (video preferred). TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support iff a video version of this same speech does not appear. (It was broadcast by c-span so one should exist) --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 03:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Video file exists at the Miller Center, but neither of the filetypes were editable in Moyea because of loss of synchronicity of the audio and video. I have only been able to work with .rm file types (see Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009) Barack Obama (video) to understand successful possibilities.). At Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/File:Ich bin ein Berliner Speech (June 26, 1963) John Fitzgerald Kennedy, I explained that only one of the three common Miller center video file types is editable in the software I was using. This file only has the other two video types.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
    • P.S. Probably, people with high end software can make something of those other file types. I generally don't pay for software and only do so when it is essential. Otherwise I try to find freeware.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Anyone else hear clicking around the 26 minute mark or so? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I hear it now. I will try to isolate it separately from the applause and reduce it tonight.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
    • It seems to be some sort of static reverberation that does not occur in the absence of other sounds. I am having trouble finding clicks that do not occur either during speech or applause.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I can hear clicking at moments when the audio peaks - this is on the source file at the Miller Centre and nothing to do with TonyTT (great work by the way). I assume it occurs throughout, but I have not yet had the chance to watch the whole hour + of the speech. It's a shame that there is not a better version which we can get a clean audio / better video quality from. On the whole I am in favour of supporting, but given I have not yet watched the whole thing I don't think I should really. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Just thought I'd let you know that the Whitehouse.gov version has the same problem on its audio version. I assume you might not be able to get a PD clean version. I encourage you to consider this version before the nom closes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have been unable to get rid of the click in the audio, but I was able to produce a video. I started with a 865MB file and to get it below 100MB, we lost some quality. However, it is recognizable. I could make the display size smaller and try to boost the quality in other ways.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose video: Audio sounds really muffled on it. That kind of goes against the basis of Featured sounds. I'll Support audio, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment I'm now inclined to agree with Adam on this one; a video is no doubt valuable, but we hit the 100MB file size issue when it comes to long speeches, and quality deteriorates as a result of trying to include (as we should) all of the hour + on this. I've been thinking about this video issue and the fundamental problem is the one of quality - which is something which FS (and FP come to that) treats as an important part of the test of assessment standard. In an ideal world there would not be the technical file size issue, and we could have the quality we wanted. Even though there are reasons why we can't have it hosted in WP, I'm not sure that we can accept a lower quality of video given that there is a higher quality source out there already. I'm verging on oppose for this one, and will have to consider whether to change my vote on the other Obama speech.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Major Bloodnok (talk • contribs) 13:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I tinkered with the Video4Web converter custom settings to remain under 100MB output. I increased audio quality features and reduced video quality features.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support There are issues to do with quality of video in files which last a long time, and here is not the place to solve that. The video is of historical interest and illustrates an important event. The audio on the most recent version sounds better than it did before. Major Bloodnok (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• I'll Support the new video. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted State of the Union Address (January 27, 2010) Barack Obama (WhiteHouse.gov-reedit).ogv -- (the second edited one) -- Sven Manguard Wha? 20:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ross's Reel

This is a high quality version of an early jazz song. It is from 1921. It almost borderlines on Dixieland.

• Nominate and support. Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 03:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Too monotonous for jazz... I'm not getting much of a vibe, a few wrong notes on the guitar, but nonetheless for a recording this old the quality is superb and the performance isn't that bad either. Very nice find! —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 4:39pm • 06:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Is the trumpet really meant to be that soft? It's a melody instrument, after all. Graham87 09:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I think it's just an artifact of the recording equipment of the time. There's only so much you can do when everyone's trying to cluster around a recording horn. This is asttoundingly good for the time, and I'll happily Support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support surprising clarity for its age.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Ross Reel.ogg --Sven Manguard Wha? 22:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Amazing Grace

According to the article, "Amazing Grace" is "without a doubt the most famous of all the folk hymns, making these files important. These files add significantly to the following articles:

• "Amazing Grace"
• John Newton

• I am not sure if there is a reason not to have three different versions. Therefore, I nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• I would choose the one you thought was the best. This could get very messy very fast. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 02:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I am really a newbie to all of this and not well-attuned to the tastes of the FS community. In fact, given the current collection of FSs, I am not sure that they would not prefer the preexisting version in the article because of its age. Is there a consensus that given songs should only have one version at FS?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The issue is that the jazz version is a dramatic reinterpretation of the piece --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 10:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Please forgive me, but am I missing something at WP:WIAFS about reinterpretations? Also why can't people vote Support both instrumentals and Oppose vocal version if they like?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't vote at featured sound or featured anything anymore, but I wrote the "Amazing Grace" article and these don't really add anything significant to anyone's understanding of the material in the article. In fact, I've hidden them and started a discussion about their relevance on the talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been traipsing through dozens of song articles this month. Basically, the reason for your statement is that the article is comparatively deficient (especially given its depth) of an explanation of what the song sounds like. The article is more of a History of Amazing Grace article than an article on Amazing Grace. Thus, musical sample depicting what the article is devoid of seem malplaced. However, if there were an to explain musical chord sequences and such, the added content would not be malplaced. Hiding it was not proper. You should have moved the various samplings to the section entitled recorded versions to give the reader an understanding of the diversity of types of recorded versions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Although I consider it more useful at the top where people might figure out what it sounds like, it is adequately placed next to text such as "The ability to record combined with the marketing of records to specific audiences allowed "Amazing Grace" to take on thousands of different forms in the 20th century."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I understand the delicate nature involved when it comes to making significant changes to WP:FAs. I did not mean to cause any stress.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Tony, the article is a summary of the best information written about the song. Unless you can cite a source that I missed addressing a particular issue not covered in the article, then perhaps you should not be making statements about what you think is deficient in the article.

Mahalia Jackson, Judy Collins, the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, Rod Stewart, Johnny Cash, and Aretha Franklin are all mentioned by sources. Several different styles are also mentioned, some of which had a direct bearing on how the song was made popular in so many places. There are almost 7,000 recorded versions of the song. I've removed information about U2's version because in the entirety of all recorded versions, U2's isn't really that important. Neither is the US Air Force Band version, unless you can find an authoritative source that highlights it above many others. --Moni3 (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

My point is that many well-structured (and even half-arsed ones like Manhattan Beach (march) and The Gallant Seventh, which I will add samples to tonight) song articles have sections titled "Musical Structure". Without citing sources, it would be fair to say that a highly discussed song like this could have a musical structure section. The fault with the current article is that it neither discusses nor depicts the musical structure of the song. The examples that you keep removing depict the musical structure even though you fail to discuss it. Musical structure need not be depicted by the more notable examples, which likely are not PD. Any example by a reputable musical group, such as the one presented could depict the musical structure. It is inconceivable that you consider the article better without depiction or discussion of musical structure. Even if there is no discussion of musical structure depicting it is encyclopedic and should be done and I don't understand why you refuse to depict the musical structure.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Once you can find a source that indicates the US Air Force versions are notable, then discuss it on the talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I am writing and not being understood. I previously used the term musical structure, which may not be precise. What I attempted to say above is that the casual reader wants to know "what this song sounds like" (Is this the song I am thinking of?). The musical sophisticate wants to analyze musical structure at a higher level, with a discussion of the elements of the score and such. Both types want a section that shows them "what the song sounds like" (which the current musical sample does a poor job at). According to WP:NFCC we are suppose to substitute free use for fair use whenever possible. Since the article states that the first recording of this song was in 1922, most of the notable recordings were published after 1923. Thus, although you might be able to explain to the reader what the song sounds like with fair use samples of notable recordings, it is not necessary. There are plenty of PD examples of "What the song sounds like" in its variety of forms. A large proportion (if not majority) of WP:FS are non-notable versions by military musical ensembles. They complement a vast array of WP:SONG articles and are commmonly accepted on wikipedia even though notable recordings of many of these songs exist. The fact that you have a WP:FA, does not mean you should toss aside valid examples of "what the song sounds like".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, please note that the current musical sample in the article is a poor example of how the song should sound. Earlier today, I got feedback on another nomination. I should use that feedback to describe the current musical sample by saying "This is not well recorded, even for [its age]...It...is not very listenable. There were other...recordings old enough to be public domain which would be more representative of how the march [song] should sound." I have provided three.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Suspended I am going to move this to the suspended section until this issue is worked out. For this to be a FS it needs to be in an article.

As a rule of thumb I try to stay away from FAs. Editing one without the nod of the main writer is like getting between a mother bear and her cubs. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 00:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Closed, without prejudice to a future nomination - I don't see this getting sorted anytime soon. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Speech Before Congress on Voting Rights (March 15, 1965) Lyndon Baines Johnson

This legislation helped protected rights outlined in the Fifteenth and Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It ended the widespread disfranchisement that prevailed in many regions of the United States. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

• African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968)
• Voting Rights Act
• History of the United States (1964–1980)

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Very very influential. You are impressing me Tony --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 02:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose While clearly important, I think we'd be better with the audio-only version for this one, as we can edit that to reduce the background noise, but it'd be hard to do that with the video. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Adam. I have an idea, if it bears fruit I'll post back in a few hours/days. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere in the mean time. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry 'bout that. Forgot that LBJ library doesn't put video on their site. Hmm... Sven Manguard Wha? 05:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Not promoted No consensus. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:58am • 00:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

JFK Establishment of the Peace Corps

This speech describes John F. Kennedy's original intentions at the time of the announcement of the March 1, 1961 signing of Executive Order 10924 which marked the establishment of the Peace Corps. The transcript is available at the source. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

• Executive order (United States)
• List of United States federal executive orders
• John F. Kennedy
• Peace Corps

• Nominate and support edit. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments for original

Comments WP:FS?#2: The speech isn't that old or unique that I wonder if a version can't be found with the hissing and clicks removed. WP?#4 The FSC caption is insufficient. Tell us something interesting about the audio, what significance it has etc, otherwise you'll be hard pressed to get anyone interested in it. FS?#5: The file descriptions are pretty weak. "John Fitzgerald Kennedy speach announcing the establshment of the Peace Corps" doesn't tell us anything more than the file name (and there are two typos). Please give us more details on the contents. Are there any details on where it was recorded? Have any edits been made to the files to remove pops or clicks, to reduce audience applause and other background noise? Transcripts would be good, even though the aren't required by the FS?. If these audio files "contribute significantly", then will the deaf and hard of hearing have trouble understanding the topic of the article without the transcripts? Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Honestly, this sort of thing is relatively easy to edit yourself. I'll have a go on Monday, and post instructions as to what I did. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Yeah, but from the discussions at WT:FSC, I assumed Tony might not have the software to do it. Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC) What kind of software is necessary?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Try Audacity. I use Goldwave but its shareware. Audacity is open source. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC) I can barely figure out how to convert the file. I don't know what all the gadgets are on that thing. Do you recommend a tutorial?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC) For Audacity I often refer to n:Wikinews:Audio Wikinews/News Briefs/Show/Guide#Removing Background Noise. I've used it only a couple of times, though, so there might be better guides out there. Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Be warned that Audacity's noise reduction tool can very easily make things sound like it's coming from the bottom of a well. While the advice given there is fine for a modern recording (where there will be very little hiss anyway), with a historic recording, it's absolutely necessary to blend an attempted noise reduction back with the original. It's far better to have some remaining hiss than to ruin the recording (which is why I DREAD when Internet archive starts talking about "GRINDING noises removed" (inevitably capitalised that way), because I'll inevitably be left with some horridly ruined recording, that nothing could be done to save, since they edited out so much of the original using all-or-nothing tools intended to remove a tiny, tiny amount of hiss from a modern recording. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC) This is a great find! Starts out good in the beginning, but all the clinking in the background should be fixed as well as possible. --haha169 (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's an edit.

This vastly reduces the hum. I haven't removed the sneezes, which are, at least, authentic. Again, if promoted, it'll need to replace the other in articles. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Support edit. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support edit Great quality and easy to understand --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 03:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose both Sorry, but that high pitched noise/whine in the background is just too prevalent. Ultimately if I have to choose between not having a featured sound and not getting a migraine, I'm going to choose the second, and in this case you can't have one without the other. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that's one of the notes only audible to the very young. =/ Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support The edit sounds better. Interesting and it adds to the pages too. Major Bloodnok (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support There is no high pitch sound. Zginder 2011-04-17T01:07Z (UTC)

Second edit, now deleted

Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC) What happened to the file? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Got G7'd. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:22pm • 02:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Would {{FSC}} have kept that from happening? Should we put this nom on hold until you can get your file properly posted?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC) G7 means Adam requested that the file get deleted himself. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Soerry, I initially forgot to link, then fixed it, but showed it to Sven on IRC and he said it didn't fix the issue (which I either can't hear or don't understand what to look for), so I asked for it to be deleted. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted File:JFK Establishment of the Peace Corps edit.ogg —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:19am • 01:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

William Tell Overture

Gioachino Rossini's "William Tell Overture" includes a finale that is known as the "March of the Swiss Soldiers" and that starts at the 7:30 mark of this United States Marine Corps Band recording. It is inseparably associated with The Lone Ranger as its theme, making this a highly important sound file for FS. The third part of this features a notable example of a Ranz des Vaches from 5:14 to 7:30. This file significantly augments the following articles:

• The Lone Ranger
• "William Tell Overture"
• Gioachino Rossini
• William Tell (opera)
• Ranz des Vaches

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe just a little over-focused on the Lone Ranger in the description; The overture is notable for far more than just that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Added Ranz des Vaches mention.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, as failing #3 "The file helps readers to understand the topic of an article." In my view these brass band arrangements of classical works not only fail to help readers understand the topic of the article, they positively mislead them. The composer did not intend for these pieces to played this way at all and with this kind of intrumentation and arrangement. The overture needs a full orchestra. This version is almost unrecognizable. It's like using a cartoon to illustrate the Mona Lisa. At most it's useful for illustrating brass band music, or possibly The Lone Ranger, although the recording used on the television series also uses a full orchestra and doesn't really sound like this one at all. It definitely doesn't belong in Gioachino Rossini, and I'm removing it from there. It's a travesty of his style. Even allowing for the goofy arrangement, it's also a pretty pedestrian performance, although that's of seondary importance. I also agree with Adam re the simplistic nature of the documentation, but I'm not sure if it's worth fixing at this point. Voceditenore (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose I am disappointed to see the continued proliferation of these brass band files after the objections of the Wagner project editors etc. Little attempt has been made to document the arrangers and check the completeness of the arrangements etc. This is just becoming a waste of time. --Kleinzach 02:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, it doesn't sound complete without a full orchestra. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:46pm • 02:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I am subject to the availablity of PD versions. This has vastly upgraded the articles from the prior poor recording, IMO. However, I may have done something wrong replacing the file. Please let me know if the prior version, which only had the last two of the four parts, was musically preferable even though of poor sound quality.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I further apologize for my inability to make decisions that you feel are easy. I am not a music student other than elementary school musical instrument lessons and "Music for Poets" (pass/fail) at Princeton (or was it "Music for Jocks", hmm now that I think about the nicknames were "Rocks for Jocks", "Physics for Poets" and "Music for something or other". I probably remember the course material as well as I remember the nickname for it.). I am just presenting PD music in places where no versions exist on WP. If no version is better than what I add feel free to remove. I will refrain from adding any Brass band versions of Wagner to any articles if nothing is better than brass band versions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    • It would be really appreciated if you could refrain from adding brass band recordings to any opera or classical music articles. By all means add them to brass band articles. Thank you. --Kleinzach 05:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm going to go ahead and WP:SNOW-ball close this. I don't think we can use that for promotes, really, but not-promotes shouldn't be controversial. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Erm -- excuse me, but that is not a “brass band,” but rather a woodwind ensemble. No trumpets, trombones, or tubas to be heard. They stoically soldier through the Storm section with Rossini’s trombone brilliancies entrusted to the bassoonists, and the listener who suffers through the first 7½ minutes in anticipation of that famous blast from the trumpet as it highjacks the final ‘B’ of the oboe to change the key from the pastorale’s G major to the galop’s E major, will be sorely disappointed to hear instead – clarinets? The overall effect is abjectly pitiful, and certainly not a fair representation of what Rossini accomplished. 71.62.176.189 (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Randall L., Craigsville

Not promoted. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yankee Doodle (choral)

"Yankee Doodle" is a classic patriotic song. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

• "Yankee Doodle"

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Aye, sure. This has a lot of variants, so I don't think it probematic that only a couple verses are sung. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose As missing the most famous verse and as not being used in context with any articles. The article consists mainly of different versions of the song, however I was unable to find the version being sung. Parts of it are found in one or different versions, and one part is not in the article at all. It is also completely missing the macaroni verse which is the most iconic part of the song. However good the quality of the sound is, this isn't what it is supposed to be, by any stretch. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • You didn't look very hard then. Last version, verses 2 and 3, from memory. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
    • His objection is largely about the omission of the most famous verse that is prominently mention in the early part of the text at Yankee_Doodle#History_and_lyrics and to the fact that the text of the article omits the verse that you and I seem to know and recognize in this version that starts with:

And there was General Washington

Upon a strappin stallion--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wait; I see - it mixes two versions. on the page. Awkward. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Although the article notes the wide variety of verses in use, the verses that would be most useful to us are those that serve as the state anthem of Connecticut, which probably don't vary. I don't know which verses those are however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Nomination withdrawn after further thought. I don't think we should feature this version.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Deck the Halls

"Deck the Halls" is a well-known Christmas carol for which we should have an FS. This file adds significantly to the following article

• "Deck the Halls"

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose It's actually a mixture of "Deck the Halls" and "'Tis a gift to be simple", "The Twelve Days of Christmas", and maybe a couple others. While well-performed, it lacks encyclopedic value as it could mislead listeners as to what the song contains. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Adam, also WHY do they not play a note at 0:23 and 0:25? WHY!? It's like taking a huge breath when it's only a semiquaver rest, BIG no-no. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 8:47pm • 10:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The rest isn't that weird - it's a fairly common sort of variation on a theme. Unfortunately, however acceptable musically, it could, again, confuse the naïve listener. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Nomination Withdrawn--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Siegfrieds Funeral March and Finale

This piece is commonly presented outside of opera houses and separately published from the entire work. Thus, it is a good candidate in isolation. This piece adds significantly to the following articles:

• Der Ring des Nibelungen
• Götterdämmerung

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• P.S. could the cognoscenti explain why {{Richard Wagner}} does not include Der Ring des Nibelungen, Das Rheingold discography, Die Walküre discography, Siegfried discography, and Götterdämmerung discography.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any need to clutter that template with links to discographies; these are only one click away via the link to the opera. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I can't support it without knowing more about it. When did the Marine Band record it? I could not find that information at the file. Edison (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • It is unclear. According to an Amazon.com search on the term "Music of Richard Wagner Marine" an MP3 Download of the album was released on October 15, 2006 and an Audio CD on June 12, 2008. Metadata from the downloaded file read by Audacity has a 1981 date for this track, but a 1989 date for track 4 from the same album. Advice?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I just found a source.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
      • When in doubt, worldcat usually helps: http://www.worldcat.org/title/music-of-richard-wagner/oclc/22397798&referer=brief_results says recorded in 1981. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Good performance, can hear some background noises at the start (page turning or something like that) but it's barely noticeable. Very high quality. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:04pm • 04:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose per Kleinzach and Micahel Bednarek. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 1:53pm • 03:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Description issues - This is an arrangement. [6]. You cannot act as if it isn't, nor fail to mention the arranger. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Although other pieces on the album have arrangement credits, this one simply has transcription credits. Commons description page has been amended for those credits.
    • My apologies. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose I thought this had already been withdrawn per my comments and those of Dogbertd. I am surprised that this kind of brass band music is still being suggested for non-brass band articles. Clearly this is the work of an arranger, even if he is unknown. --Kleinzach 07:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I have no opinion regarding the suitability of this recording as a Featured Sound. I do object to its placement in any article about the Wagner operas, because it is not an opera excerpt. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Nomination withdrawn--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Four more U.S. Air Force Marches

These pieces are just fun, and very well played.

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Fantastic performances, I like Troopers Tribunal and The Outlook most of all, what lively pieces, USAF's marches are superbly played. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 5:04pm • 07:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• I am not sure why these are all grouped together, but I Support them all.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • They're grouped togther because it saves Adam roughly two minutes and seventeen seconds to set up and saves the closers upwards of five times that. When these are promoted they should be counted as four items (in four parts). Sven Manguard Wha? 16:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• The first one, is the volume fluctuation on purpose? Sven Manguard Wha? 16:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't hear any volume changes particularly untypical of marches. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support 2 Still on the fence on the other ones. My concern is with their use. Do the pieces not have articles? If so are the pieces themselves notable? Can these be spread around anywhere else? I don't know enough about marches to know if there are genres that these fit into or where else these could be placed. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • They're reasonably notable, but coverage of marches on Wikipedia isn't that great. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted all since sven didn't fully oppose 1,3,& 4 --Guerillero | My Talk 17:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wilson - Address to the American Indians

Good quality for the time period in which it was recorded. Fantastic noise-reduction efforts by User:Adam Cuerden.

• Nominate and support. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:56pm • 02:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support, naturally. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Interesting certainly, and it sounds good. It illustrates the Wilson article, but the article doesn't explain how significant this event was. But that's a problem for the editors of the article, not us. Major Bloodnok (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Wilson - Address to the American Indians edit.ogg --Guerillero | My Talk 20:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Suite du Premier Ton

A fine performance of a piece by a notable 18th-century organist.

Another fine performance, on a different organ.

• Nominate and support either or both. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support what a delightful performance. Very high quality recording. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 5:46pm • 07:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll leave a message on your talk page. It's been pointed out we have two, and both are very good. 17:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support both or either--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• I think both are very nice performances; if we really want to choose just one to feature, I prefer the first file, as the second sounds muddier (perhaps due to the characteristics of the room it was recorded in). Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Second The first is performed better than the second, which does have rather unfortunate pauses in between phrases and seems to be uncertain over some of its phrasing (eg 0:22-ish and 0:35-ish). However, I don't like the sound in the first, which if memory serves was done by the same person who did the now delisted Toccata and Fugue in D Minor. The key problem in the first one for me is that it sounds as though it has been done on an artificial organ on a computer with echo added later - the "Trumpet" noise which starts at around 0:28 sounds terribly artificial. There is no indication where it was recorded, which makes me suspicious. Weak oppose for the first tooMajor Bloodnok (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a close one

• One: (Support: 4, Oppose: .5, Neutral: 0)
• Two: (Support: 3, Oppose: 1, Neutral: 1)

Since one got more supports and less detractors I am going to promote that one. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement on the Panama Canal Treaty Signing (September 7, 1977) Jimmy Carter

The Torrijos–Carter Treaties (known in the United States as the Panama Canal Treaty) turned over control of one of the key conduits for international maritime trade. This file adds significantly to the

• Torrijos–Carter Treaties
• History of the Panama Canal
• History of Panama (1977–present)
• History of Panama
• History of the United States (1964–1980)
• Jimmy Carter

• Note that although the audio is an FS, there is no reason why this could not be also. Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The first minute of sound in the video is actually better than the current audio only version (which has that high high pitched noise only I seem to be able to hear, and is a bit tinny otherwise). However at the 0:57 mark the audio in the video becomes low and hollow, and persists that way throughout the entire remainder of the video. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No Consensus - No prejudice against a renomination later. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter's Remarks on Joint Statement at Camp David Summit (September 17, 1978)

The Camp David Accords drastically impacted the Egypt–Israel relations and world history. This file significantly improves the following articles:

• Camp David Accords
• History of the United States (1964–1980)
• Jimmy Carter

I am also contemplating adding the file to Egypt–Israel relations, Foreign relations of Israel, Foreign relations of Egypt, and Israeli–Palestinian conflict

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Video damage is non-negligible. More importantly, there is just a massive amount of background noise. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No Consensus - No prejudice against a renomination later. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to the Lewinsky Allegations (January 26, 1998) Bill Clinton

This video involves a press conference that includes one of the most well-known quotes of the Presidency of Bill Clinton. The file adds significantly to the following articles:

• Impeachment of Bill Clinton
• Presidency of Bill Clinton
• Lewinsky scandal
• History of the United States (1991–present)

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: The whole thing is valuable, but the title refers only to the last half minute. Why not split it to that the relevant articles have a vid that relates just to that part? Then rename the file that comprises the first six minutes? Tony (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I will reiterate my response to your concern in another nominee here: "I am new to FS and am unsure what is proper protocol. It seems to me that presenting part of a speach might be like doing a panorama of a notable skyline and saying "Well I only like the buildings in the middle of this notable skyline so I will just present those when the entire skyline is a more encyclopedic contribution." In prior successful FSCs, have people chopped out portions of speeches? Choosing part of a speech like this just seems POV." I think in this case there is political context to the fact that he only responded to what people really wanted to hear for the last 30 seconds and then blazed off. Presenting that context actually is more encyclopedic than chopping it in my eyes. Of course, it could be chopped, however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
    • And please stay, Tony: you are adding a whole new dimension to FSs. Can you see my thread on the talk page about the notion of speech length, scope, and vid editing? Tony (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Valuable and historically interesting. However, I think the title should be changed to reflect the fact that most of the speech was about education and the State of the Union, not the Lewinsky Scandal. Major Bloodnok (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support, a little reluctantly - lots of background noise, which means this is ripe for delist and replace if we get better at video editing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)

N.B. This will need a better description before it can be closed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Response to the Lewinsky Allegations (January 26, 1998) Bill Clinton.ogv. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:14am • 00:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Remarks upon Signing the Civil Rights Bill (July 2, 1964) Lyndon Baines Johnson.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a monumental achievement for Lyndon B. Johnson and all minorities who it protects. This file significantly adds to the following articles:

• History of the United States (1964–1980)
• African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968)
• Lyndon B. Johnson
• Civil Rights Act of 1964

• Although the audio version is already a FS, there is no reason why this could not be also, since many readers will probably prefer to see the video. Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Original Over half of the video, a full fifteen minutes at least, consists entirely of the president handing out pens. I see this video as being significantly less valuable than the audio portion. Also the first minute or so on the right side you can see damage to the recording. That, however, is a much lesser concern than the whole pens thing. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll clip it at about 10 minutes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I posted a 9:50 version over the previous 26:37 version.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• • • Support Edit - I'd have cut it two seconds earlier and gotten rid of all the clapping or two seconds later to allow for more of it, but that's personal preference. This is better. I'm still really not sold on the virtues of doing this by video, but as long as the audio quality is the same with or without the visuals, I guess I don't mind one way or the other. Sven Manguard Wha?
      • Sven, I have clipped 1.2 seconds off of the prior version. I took .2 off of the beginning (starting at 10.2 of the original and now going to 9:59 of the original instead of 10:00).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I think we could clean the audio a bit more. Contact me. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I emailed you on issues regarding this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Not Promoted. The issues raised are primarily in regard to the audio quality, cleaning up audio quality on a video is hard as Adam said in another nomination, the video is good, but that doesn't amount to much if the audio quality isn't the best it can be. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:00am • 01:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Four ruffles and flourishes, hail to the chief (long version)

These songs are commonly played as fanfare to the United States President. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

• "Hail to the Chief"
• "Ruffles and flourishes"

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support This is great --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 15:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Would be nice to have the lyrics, but that would be more of a curiosity, really, as this is what's played. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support So that's what it's called. I like the performance, superb quality and clarity! —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:57pm • 04:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• It's fantastic, but is there any point in splitting the two components or are they traditionally together? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • They are traditionally played together as an honor. To see a list of similar honors you can go here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
    • each number of ruffles and flourishes give honour to diffrent people. See this table for the whole list --Guerillero | My Talk 12:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
      • And since Hail to the Chief is President-only, and 4 ruffles and flourishes for heads of state... this is the proper thing to play before Hail to the Chief. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Right then, I'll close this guy in a few hours when I'm done writing my term paper. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Four ruffles and flourishes, hail to the chief (long version).ogg --Sven Manguard Wha? 00:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Das Liebesmahl der Apostel

Das Liebesmahl der Apostel was written by Richard Wagner in 1843. This contributes significantly to the following article:

• Das Liebesmahl der Apostel

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Needs to mention it's an arrangement in all usages. As it is, you're acting like the singing actually happens, when there's no vocal in this vocal and instrumental piece. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't understand your point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
      • You describe t as a "vocal and instrumental piece" when, of course, itðs an instreumental arrangement of a vocal and instrumental piece. The distinction needs made. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Is there a recording of a performance of this circulating on the internet, the music's not bad but like the one above it would be better if there were vocals :P The performance isn't bad, though, nor is the quality, it's superb. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:20pm • 04:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This 16-minute abridged arrangement for brass band by M Pohle misrepresents Wagner's music (though it may represent brass band music perfectly well). Members of the Wagner project have already explained that these abridged brass band arrangements are not appropriate for Wagner articles. (In this case the real work lasts about 26 minutes.) --Kleinzach 07:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Nomination withdrawn--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Silent Night (choral)

"Silent Night" is a classic christmas carol. This is our only choral version. This file adds significantly to the following article:

• "Silent Night"
• Joseph Mohr
• Franz Xaver Gruber

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• I wish that the second verse didn't take as many liberties. It reduces the Encyclopedic value a little. I'm somewhat inclined to say it'd be significantly more valuable cut to the first verse only. The arrangement is good, don't get me wrong, but for people who don't know the song, we want a really conservative recording. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but I'd probably support a truncated version. Just think that, for a listener who doesn't know the song, the second verse is far too creative with the original. Sometimes encyclopedic means being boring. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Reluctantly - It's that same baritone with whom I had issues with in A la Nanita Nana... he's just too noticeable and out-of-tune with the rest of the chorus, making the piece sounding disjointed, I'm starting to hate that GOD-DAMNED baritone... —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 8:38pm • 10:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Either the coordination between the voices is slightly off or their sound room is lined with damp socks, because parts of this are just impossible to understand. I've worked in a mall, so through sheer repetitiveness I know the lyrics well enough, but I'm struggling to hear them say those lyrics; the performance is very hard to understand. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not promoted Guerillero | My Talk 23:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Attention

This file adds significantly to the following article:

• At attention

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support But I should warn most of these bugle calls are getting grouped into one day on the main page. They're too short to do otherwise. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Very nice :) 1 day of bugle calls, my heaven :P —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 8:34pm • 10:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Is there any chance we can date this one? If not, tell me and I'll run this through promotion as undated, I just don't want to do that if I don't have to. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd say mid 2000's. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:04am • 01:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Don't we date by composition and not performance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
      • That's true, I thought if the composition date was unknown it'd be dated by performance. It could always be added as an unknown. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:46pm • 04:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Zginder 2011-04-19T23:49Z (UTC)

Promoted Attention.ogg --Acather96 (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Amar Rabbi Elazar

A fantastic performance, which has aged fairly well. Plus, it's a type of music we need far more of.

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Quality is there. Headline file for one page, headline sound for another, so usage is good. It's a pet peeve of mine that copyright templates are in the "Permission" section, but none the less the description page checks out. Sven Manguard Wha?
  • Way I figure it, if they didn't want you to use the permission section, then they shouldn't have included it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Could you edit it to increase the volume of the chorus, they sound muffled. But otherwise I like the quality, it's quite good for its age but at around 1:11, there's a scratching noise, could that be removed? At that point in the piece there's a rest I believe. This unsigned comment was added by User:Ancient Apparition (James)
  • The chorus being muffled is an artefact of how recording worked at the time - you have a horn, and sang into it. If you wertre right next to the horn, you'd be pretty clear. Otherewise, you sound muffled. Only way to get a chorus to really sound good is to have it be made up of very few people, so they can duck in front of the horn when the main person isn't singing. Recording was almost as much choreography as singing at the time. As for the scratching noise; I don't think so. It's just too long of a noise; removal of that sort of thing is rather all-or-nothing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Ah... thanks for clarifying that Adam, either way, for a recording of its age it's pretty understandable! —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:31am • 00:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
      • It also comes down to preservation to some extent. The LoC have copies that were played very, very little, while being stored very safely. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
        • True, but then how do they digitize the copies if they're rarely ever played? —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:24pm • 06:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Only have to platy them once for that; and there's actually needleless ways to play them nowadays. You scan the groove, I think using a laser. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
            • The marvels of technology. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:58am • 00:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Omar Rabbi Elozor.ogg --Acather96 (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Remarks on the Signing of NAFTA (December 8, 1993) Bill Clinton

The North American Free Trade Agreement was signed by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, creating a trilateral trade bloc in North America. It resulted in the current largest trade bloc in the world by combined nominal purchasing power parity GDP of its members. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

• Bill Clinton
• North American Free Trade Agreement
• Presidency of Bill Clinton

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. More than 20 minutes, and the first huge tract is thanking everyone on the planet including the dog: it goes on and on and on. Part of the process of creating featured content is to edit, select, trim back, speeches, I think, so they have more EV. Much of this is plain boring; some of it isn't. (The link to the full speech vid is on the SDP, which should, BTW, state that the transcript is at that location too). Can vids be edited easily? Why, for example, can't it start part-way in with "This whole issue", or better "I believe we have made a decision"? As an aside, it's amusing that they used voice recognition to produce the transcript, and no one bothered to correct horrors such as "I'd also like to web come here the representatives from Mexico and Canada." Tony (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I am new to FS and am unsure what is proper protocol. It seems to me that presenting part of a speach might be like doing a panorama of a notable skyline and saying "Well I only like the buildings in the middle of this notable skyline so I will just present those when the entire skyline is a more encyclopedic contribution." In prior successful FSCs, have people chopped out portions of speeches? Choosing part of a speech like this just seems POV. Additional seeing all the preliminary thanks provides a window into the character of the man. Compare the preamble here with that of the Obama video that is currently a nominee where he sends a shoutout to his wife.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
    • In general editing of speeches is frowned upon at FS. Zginder 2011-04-21T19:01Z (UTC)

• Support, presuming the audio quality is as high as possible. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Question what version from the Miller Center was used for the conversion? Zginder 2011-04-21T19:01Z (UTC)
  • I can only find 320 by 240 versions. Is the 640 by 480 somewhere else or was it up-converted? Zginder 2011-04-21T19:07Z (UTC)
    • I used the .rm. Did I upconvert it? Should I redo?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I think you probably did up-convert it. I would be more comfortable with an original resolution version. Zginder 2011-04-23T22:00Z (UTC)
        • Now saved at original screensize over original upload.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Support Thank you. Zginder 2011-04-24T01:59Z (UTC)

Promoted Remarks on the Signing of NAFTA (December 8, 1993) Bill Clinton.ogv —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:18pm • 02:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The foggy dew

• Nominate and support. Guerillero | My Talk 23:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Which The Foggy Dew is this? If we know, we can probably date it using the article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support I like this song and it sounds good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Only until we know which version this is. Zginder 2011-04-25T05:50Z (UTC)
  • Support concern answered. Zginder 2011-04-25T16:35Z (UTC)

• Support - Traditionalists would scoff at the unconventional instrumentation, but it's a good performance, and it's probably the best recording of Irish folk music on Wikipedia. It's the 1919 song, BTW. Graham87 12:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Dancing Willow - Demo-CD 2007 02 - The foggy dew.ogg. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:30am • 23:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

First Inaugural (January 20, 1993) Bill Clinton

United States presidential inaugurations are historical events and even Federal holidays in the United States. This is an encyclopedic addition to wikipedia. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

• Presidency of Bill Clinton
• First inauguration of Bill Clinton
• Bill Clinton
• United States presidential inauguration
• Federal holidays in the United States

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• Question Same as for NAFTA where is the 640 by 480 from? Zginder 2011-04-21T19:13Z (UTC)
  • I used the .rm. I could not tell the original dimensions. Did I upconvert? Should I redo?
    • I think you probably did up-convert it. I would be more comfortable with an original resolution version. Zginder 2011-04-23T21:59Z (UTC)
      • I have uploaded at original size to commons over the prior file.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Support Thank you. Zginder 2011-04-24T07:11Z (UTC)
• Support. looks and sounds good.Major Bloodnok (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted First Inaugural (January 20, 1993) Bill Clinton.ogv. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:31pm • 11:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand Bellbird

I'm new to featured sounds, but I believe this recording meets the criteria. It appears in New Zealand Bellbird.

• Nominate and support. --Avenue (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support—nice. Tony (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a nice field recording.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• This is a good recording, but if this bird is part of the dawn chorus in these islands, I'm guessing this isn't the most representative or best recording that could be made of its song, if it is technically its song—but I don't know much about the bird, and the article doesn't help. So some more information is needed, and this might not be a featured sound (though even if what I expect is correct, the featured sound criteria seem to say that it can be featured, unless something better comes along). —innotata 13:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether I follow you, sorry. Is your concern about the absence of other types of birds (i.e. this not being part of a "chorus")? Or are you concerned about the bellbirds being described simply as "singing"? If so, you're right; my description was not very precise. A mixture of bellbird song and less melodious bellbird calls was recorded here, and I've now changed the description to say "singing and calling" instead. --Avenue (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, that's what I was wondering. It was puzzling to see simply "birds singing … around a bird feeder", even before hearing it; this is presumably not quite the same as a recording of the song, without other birds or with in the dawn chorus mentioned. Now I have still more questions: Do you know if the song in this recording is similar to what (they appear from your statements to) sing early in the morning perching like most birds? At what time of day this was recorded and what the birds were doing in more detail? What parts of the recording would you identify as songs or particular types of calls, if any? Any more information on the description or in the article would greatly improve the value, and what is presented on the species. I'm not sure this is all that special for illustrating the vocalisations of the species, though it looks like it meets the criteria unless/until something better comes along; and the emphasis in the description probably needs to be changed. —innotata 15:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm no expert on bellbird vocalisations, but there seems to be a moderate amount of info available, and a study has even been conducted about their song on this particular island (Dianne H. Brunton and Xiaoling Li. "The song structure and seasonal patterns of vocal behavior of male and female bellbirds (Anthornis melanura)". Journal of Ethology. 24 (1): 17–25. doi:10.1007/s10164-005-0155-5.). To go through your questions:

1. My personal impression is that the song/calls recorded here are more typical of competition over a localised resource than the more widely separated (territorial?) singing common in the dawn chorus. According to Brunton and Li, "synchronized counter-singing bouts were always in association with a nectar source (either sugar-water feeders or flowering plants)". I think my recording provides a useful illustration of this behaviour, although other recordings (e.g. of their alarm call, or the dawn chorus) would also be valuable.
2. This was recorded at 2:33 pm NZDT, somewhat outside what Brunton and Li give as the peak singing period (07:00-14:00), but not unusual. The birds were singing/calling as they arrived and sat in the trees around the feeder (with some jockeying for position), and as they left. I've now uploaded a corresponding video, although this just shows them on the feeder itself.
3. I've been using the terms call and song fairly loosely, and don't have a firm classification of vocalisations into calls and songs in mind. A starting point would be short harsh calls versus extended melodious songs, but bellbirds do integrate harsh wheezes and croaks amid more pleasant tones,[7] so this doesn't provide a clear split. Brunton and Li "defined calls as short harsh-sounding single units [...] and songs as groups of syllables always sung in the same order", which doesn't account for such mixtures either. Using that definition (without worrying too much about the "same order" part), the recording exhibits overlapping songs and calls throughout, with song predominating earlier and calls more common later. The only type of call I've seen named is their alarm call, and I don't hear any examples of that here.

The caption probably does overemphasise the dawn chorus, which is relevant to the bird, but not so much this recording. I'll revise it tomorrow. --Avenue (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I'd suggest you put a bit of relevant information on the article and image description. I'm still not sure whether to actually support the nomination; my thoughts are that there just aren't sensible criteria on whether this should be featured, and I've had those for pictures and music in mind (for whether it is quite good, useful, and representative enough). But that's because nobody is going out there and recording large amounts of field recordings, so it's certainly great you've made this recording and put it up here. —innotata 22:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I see you've put the video up; now I can see what they actually are doing, some of the time (except that it's slow to load for me, so I'll have to see the whole thing later). It doesn't look like the video lacks anything in the audio file, so would featuring the video be better? —innotata 22:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Two Henry Fillmore marches

These are two circus marches by Henry Fillmore performed by the United States Marine Corps Band and the United States Air Force Band, respectively. Both are used for openings and encores of public forms of entertainment. The files add significantly to the following articles:

The Circus Bee

• The Circus Bee
• Henry Fillmore
• March (music)
• Circus music
• Screamer (march)
• American march music

Rolling Thunder

• Rolling Thunder (march)
• Henry Fillmore
• Circus music
• Screamer (march)

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
• First one: I'd avoid descriptions such as "technically advanced". Actually, it's a pretty basic style that any talented student in a composition course should be able to turn out. Fine for its genre, and a great encore for a band appearance. Superbly performed. Need to listen again properly, but it's probably a support. But let's watch the balance of styles and genres: if there start to be more than a certain number of similar files, stylistically, just because they're lucky enough to be US govt. free, one might start to be choosy. Tony (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I think these are our first circus marches. All other marches are military marches, I believe.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Afraid not, Tony. Troopers Tribunal is a circus march. Still, though, do you have any idea how many composers of marches there are? Tony - I'd best use full nicks - Tony1's advice is somewhat counterproductive, and should probably not be obeyed, since we have hundreds of articles which need sounds. We do not want to hurt Wikipedia just to get more variety in the project meant to encourage improvement of Wikipedia's sound coverage. That is precisely backwards. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Afraid not, Cuerden (if you want your put-down returned). Just what this is directed at is unclear: circus march seems to be irrelevant to my comments above. What are you talking about? Your advice appears to be "counterproductive", especially when it is unclear. Who is going to "hurt" WP? Your remarks are offensive. Tony (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Calm down please guys, Tony1 the first line of Adam's statement was directed at TTT (the afraid not and circus march bits), I don't see much harm in adding sounds to articles that don't have any, they add to the article and if they're quality perfs/recordings then all the better. Sure coverage on WP atm is shite (over 80% of sounds are from the "Western" world) but heck aren't we all here to contribute more? With the current increase in participation at FSC we'll more than likely get more promotions this month than FP!!! —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 8:18pm • 10:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted all Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Radetzky March

Johann Strauss I's magnum opus, "Radetzky March", was dedicated to the Austrian Field Marshal Joseph Radetzky von Radetz. Here it is performed by the United States Marine Corps Band. It adds significantly to the following articles:

• Johann Strauss I
• "Radetzky March"
• American march music

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Good performance and quality. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:15pm • 11:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Support—This nomination, the description page, and the file name, ignore that fact that it is not the original. It is an arrangement. The full orchestral score is linked to from the article. When these aspects are fixed, I'll listen to the recording. Tony (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I was unaware how different a band arrangement the March was scored for than this performance. I have cleaned up the description page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • OK, nice, and I've further edited the Commons descr. page; hope that's ok with you. I'm willing to support this because it's a superb performance, as usual from these people, and because as long as it's marked as an arrangement wherever used, it's not toooo far from the original in mood and feel, even if the backbone strings are gone. If a good performance of the original turns up, I think this should be defrocked in favour of it. Tony (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Did you mean support or support? Also, do you think this arrangment is by Strauss?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Oh, well that's different. How can we confirm that it's by Strauss, I wonder? If it is, the fact needs to be included in the caption wherever the file is used in articles, and on the SDP. Tony (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
          • I doubt that he did that exact arrangement. That is just the combination of instruments put together to perform an album by the band. That ensemble was not selected for this piece and this piece was probably arranged for that ensemble. I would have no problem surrendering to a more proper ensemble.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support definitely among the best sounds on Wikipedia —innotata 13:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sousa Marches

The following files are John Philip Sousa military march compositions from the United States Marine Corps Band album Semper Fidelis: Music of John Philip Sousa. It is not clear in the CD Booklet if they were all recorded in the same recording sessions.

"Manhattan Beach", a commemorative march by John Philip Sousa, performed by the United States Marine Corps Band was penned to for Manhattan Beach, Brooklyn. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

• "Manhattan Beach (march)"
• John Philip Sousa
• List of compositions by John Philip Sousa

"King Cotton", a 1895 Sousa military march, performed by the United States Marine Corps Band. It was penned for the Cotton States and International Exposition in that year. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

• "King Cotton"
• Cotton States and International Exposition
• John Philip Sousa
• List of compositions by John Philip Sousa

"The Gallant Seventh", was Sousa's most popular march in the 1920s and is distinguished as his only march with two breakstrains. This version is performed by the United States Marine Corps Band. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

• "The Gallant Seventh"
• John Philip Sousa
• List of compositions by John Philip Sousa

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support all - Fantastic performances, I like the triangle and flutes in King Cotton especially. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:02pm • 11:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support all—just excellent. Tony (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted all Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009) Barack Obama (video)

Previous, different nom

This is a video version. I previously nominated an audio version below at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009) Barack Obama. This was not an official State of the Union address. The speech was delivered on the floor of the chamber of the United States House of Representatives in the United States Capitol in a joint session of the United States Congress. President Obama discussed the recently passed $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 as well as the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the state of the economy, and the future of the country as it emerged from the Late-2000s financial crisis. Transcript and video available at the source. This file contributes significantly to the following articles: Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, February 2009 First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama (2009) Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC) I can't say whether a more experienced video editor could create a significantly better file, but I can relay the difficulities that I encountered. Basically, the original file is so large that it was difficult to produce a .ogv that was less than 100MB (the commons max). I had gained my first experience at creating video files with File:Ich bin ein Berliner Speech (June 26, 1963) John Fitzgerald Kennedy trimmed.theora.ogv, but that file was so small that there were not significant challenges to creating a basic file. Following the same procedure I had gone through with that file produced a 300MB file in this case. So I began tinkering with custom settings of the Moyea Video4Web Converter 3.1.0.0. I had previously learned that outputting a .mp3 filetype resulted in no audio in the .ogv and had produced .mov filetype. However, after trying over a half dozen settings combinations and finally going with mininmum settings across the board except for frames per second, which I kept at 15, I was still at about 130 MB. If I used the .mp3 audio setting no audio seemed to be produced, so I could only use the AAC. Oddly the program seems to ignore the frames per second (looking at the file properties in the right-click from Windows Explorer). After having such difficulty getting a small enough output, I then tested the .3g2 profile and was able to produce files under 100 MB. I then tried several custom settings combinations which retained the most quality and remained under 100 MB. The final custom settings are on the description page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Support: EV high; demonstrates this man's brilliant skills as an orator. There's a lot of fluff, but heck, he is a politician. Tony (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Support I can't find any faults with this. The recording is clear, that playback is smooth, and its a great example of Obama's abilities as an orator. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 03:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Support Fine example of Obama's oratorical skills. Good quality too! —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:07pm • 08:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Query Is the aspect ratio right? It looks somewhat horizontally compressed to me. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC) I output 4:3. I am having trouble seeing if I started with 4:3 or 3:2. If the original was 3:2, then the output should be too. How can I tell what the original .rm file's dimensions were?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC) I believe the original is 4:3, but can't say for sure.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC) I will try to produce a 3:2 nonetheless.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC) I just tried to change the output from 320x240 to 352x240 (in both the auto aspect ratio mode and the 16:9 ratio mode) in the Moyea software and it just added some black borders to the sides. It did not change the aspect ratio.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC) I dunno, Obama's thin, but is he really THAT thin? Anyone able to reassure me? Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC) I've just played with the file in Media Player Classic, and the aspect is wrong on the WP file: it should be 16:9. Neither of my versions of Pinnacle will do OGV files (by the looks of things even AVID won't touch it!). A quick search has shown that various Linux-based editors will. Time to reinstall Virtuabox I think unless anyone knows of a windows-based editor which will do it... If the aspect can be fixed, then I will support. Oppose for now given that the aspect is wrong. Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Strong Oppose per Major Bloodnok. When this is fixed, I'll change my vote. Until then, wrong is wrong. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose per Bloodnok. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Why was this candidate suspended? I have no access to software to make to requested edits. I know of no one who does.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC) I don't know anything about the suspension of this nomination, but I am trying to convert a WMV version of this speech in the correct aspect into OGV using Miro... and it is taking an age. I don't like the 10-second delay before the video proper starts, but I guess we'll have to live with it; I don't really want to have to edit it and then generate another file which will have to be converted. OGV files are a real pain. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Well, Miro failed to achieve anything positive on this occasion; I think the problem is that the file which the Miller centre got was in 16:9, but had been put into 4:3. The Miller centre put their ident on the front and the watermark onto it too (the square image on the bottom left) without correcting the issue. The ident is in the correct aspect, but the rest of the file isn't - I'll see if I can do anything in Pinnacle with the WMV file. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC) On second thoughts, the White House web-site has a section of high quality video and here is the speech in question. Perhaps the best move would be to make our own version and upload it. Good news - the site uses MP4 and MP3 formats. Hurray! I'll see what I can do, but I won't be able to upload it until some point tomorrow. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC) I've put the first 15 seconds up at a quality which will allow the whole speech to be uploaded to WP under the 100MB limit. For reasons best known to WP the White House titles which make up the first 5 seconds don't come out. It worked on my machine before I uploaded it. Major Bloodnok (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC) I'll upload it tonight.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Great news! Major Bloodnok (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

New file added nominate and support.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Per my !vote above, looks better than the previous version. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:43pm • 04:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support as per my comment above.Major Bloodnok (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• For procedural reasons, I'm restarting voting on this. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• I just added a second version with slightly higher quality audio. I left the video size at original and it looks funny on the description page, so I will redo at this maximal audio quality with smaller video size and save over this version.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I have posted the proper second version now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I kind of have to ask: The second version has such poor video, that is it actually worth it, just to have some very blocky images with the sound?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 20:46, 15 April 2011
      • Do you think the video/audio combo of Major Bloodnok (talk · contribs)'s clip above is better. Maybe he could produce a full version for us to look at.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
        • With a speech which lasts a long time I think we are at the limit of video quality, given the 100MB file size limit set by WP. It is certainly an issue we should address. On the whole I am willing to excuse the video quality given the sound quality and the historical importance, although I could be persuaded to vote the other way. The full file I made is actually larger than 100MB, even at the lowest settings on my video editor, so I won't able to upload it (the editor estimated it would be 98MB before it rendered it). I don't have the time at the moment to render another one, and I think the difference would be marginal at best. A shorter video of, say 20 minutes, allows much better quality than it does here. Major Bloodnok (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
          • I think that we should view these as an opportunity to have audio augmented by some sort of video. Admittedly for long files, we will not be able to produce high quality videos to go along with the audio. I personally prefer to see the speeches along with the audio and feel the videos are valuable for that opportunity.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
            • Well, fair enough. Make sure the source is very clearly documented; if the file upload size increases, these will need to be redone. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added this speech to two more pages. Now, this file contributes significantly to the following articles:

• Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, February 2009
• First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency
• Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama (2009)
• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
• Presidency of Barack Obama

• Question Why can't we split it into multiple files and then use a higher bitrate. Zginder 2011-04-23T22:45Z (UTC)
  • Imagine three or four screens in place of one for each of its uses in articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
    • This would certainly make technical sense, but the problem would be an aesthetic one; I agree with TTT above. Major Bloodnok (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• I do have a problem with a 52-minute video. And the res means it has to be so small it's little better than hearing the audio alone. So much of it is politician's pap (that's politics, not an anti-Obama observation). TTT, can I ask whether you envisage a whole raft of similar nominations? My concern is, what is the theme of the address? It might be of greater EV, as well as solving technical issues, to produce a number of files from this huge one, each with a theme. I don't care if each is just 15 seconds long (or a couple of minutes); they'd be more focused for use in articles. Tony (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I have put forth the FS equivalent of the FP panorama. A small clip would be like a picture of a building in that panorama. It would need to go through its own WP:FSC and would be considered distinct from this file. For a blurb, check WP articles that may quote from the speech.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted = Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009) - Barack Obama (WhiteHouse.gov).ogv Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Marcha Real

It is good quality and is used in the infobox of the Marcha Real article.

• Nominate and support. Spongie555 (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Marcha_Real#Copyright_issues is troubling as far as the copyright status of this is --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 03:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Which harmonisation is this? If it's not the version purchased by the Spanish Government it should be PD from what I can see in the article itself, the performance isn't bad but until the copyright issue is cleared (by that I mean when someone finds out which harmonisation this is) I will suspended this nomination. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 4:45pm • 06:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The harmonisation was done in 1908 (see es:Bartolomé_Pérez_Casas#Arreglos_del_Himno_Nacional_de_Espa.C3.B1a), so it doesn't matter: just move it to en-wiki with a {{PD-US-1923}} and {{notforcommons}}. Once that's done, we can reopen. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• It'll have to be uploaded under a different name, the Commons version is used on multiple Wikipedias. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 3:06pm • 05:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • From my last talks with the US Navy Band, they receive sheet music from the government, then fix it up to where it could be played by the band (this is what happened in the case of Montenegro). I still feel having this recording might be questionable (and now we got two, which one is going to be the one that we will keep or not?) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There you go. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 3:18pm • 05:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I added the file you uploaded because you readded the current nomination file. Also sorry I havnt been looking at the nomination I been busy an I didn't see it till I got the message today. Spongie555 (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry about that, thanks Spongie. I support the local version. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:34pm • 12:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Doesn't this need an OTRS? What are the sources for authorship?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support local version. Zginder 2011-04-24T21:58Z (UTC)
• Support local version. Major Bloodnok (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• Grudging supportOppose for local either version: the piece is about as boring as national anthems ever get. I cannot endorse such boring music as "among our best work". Tony (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted United States Navy Band - Marcha Real.ogg Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep the Home Fires Burning

For the year, it's a very good recording. A modern recording would lack the same value of being one of the recordings of a WWI song from the WWI era Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Good quality for that time period. Question: Can this be edited a teeny tiny bit more, the crackling does get a little bit annoying. —James ^(Talk) • 3:45pm • 05:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • When I do, the vocal quality falls off too noticeably. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
    • It's no big problem, the recording is superb for its age, nonetheless. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:28am • 01:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support seems to be a true renditions and good quality for its age.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• SupportMajor Bloodnok (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Tony (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Keep the Home Fires Burning - Frederick Wheeler.ogg --Guerillero | My Talk 05:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Delist: Fireside Chat 1 On the Banking Crisis (March 12, 1933) Franklin Delano Roosevelt

This was the first of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's famous Fireside chats series made during the Great Depression. It discussed the Banking Crisis and its March 1933 bank run. This article adds significantly to the following articles:

• Fireside chats
• Franklin D. Roosevelt
• History of the United States (1918–1945)

I should have attempted to do some noise reduction. Here is what I should have produced in the prior nomination:

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Fireside Chat 1 On the Banking Crisis (March 12, 1933) Franklin Delano Roosevelt

• Nominate to delist and replace. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• Nicely done! What did you do, blend together several noise reductions taken from different sections of static? I wouldn't have guessed you could do much with this. I would blend in a little of the staticy version at low volume, though: It's a slight strain listening to this, but the static, though you wouldn't think it, actually makes it easier to listen to, even at a low volume. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The original starts at about 3.9 seconds. With a lot of static before that. I sampled the first three seconds (actually probably from about 0.5 to 3.7) for the noise profile and used default noise reduction parameters for the whole file. It was pretty simple. I don't know how to blend. Also I just chopped off the first three seconds that are now almost silent so a blend would require synchronization, which probably is not that big a deal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep original The "sss" and "zzz" sounds are barely audible at average speaking volume, I'd rather have background noise with audible pronunciations than little background noise and inaudible pronunciations. When he says "What the next steps are" it sounds like "what the nect teps are", and it sounds like someone's muffled the microphone because some of the speech becomes fuzzy. —James ^(Talk) • 3:42pm • 05:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Can you give me a time marker for the point that you are illustrating.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I found it and am not so sure the original is any clearer for this particular point. Interested parties may listen at about 36 seconds on the original and 33 seconds on the edit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delist and replace The sizzling is worse than the slight change in the tone of voice of the president. As for the "what the nect teps are" thing, I found it to be the same in both versions. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I performed some noise reduction of my own, including machine and hand edited click removal and some lite machine noise reduction with a less edited track remixed at -15dB. Zginder 2011-04-19T23:46Z (UTC)

I think that this edit does not change Roosevelt's speech much while reducing noise greatly. Zginder 2011-04-19T23:46Z (UTC)

• Comment The "s" noises are inaudible if they weren't (by which I mean if the s's were audible) I'd support either of the edits, though at this stage I'm leaning towards the second edit primarily because it doesn't sound like someone wrapped a dishcloth around the microphone. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:06am • 01:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• I personally prefer the first edit because of the lower level of distracting scratches and hisses.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • While the first edit is not bad, it doesn't have that air of authenticity to it. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 7:53pm • 09:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delist and replace with Edit 2 - a more sympathetic noise reduction which does not remove entirely the authentic sound of 1933.Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delist and replace with Edit 2, Sven makes a good point, the problem with the audibility of s sounds exists on the original as well and because this edit doesn't sound like the microphone's been muffled with a dishcloth. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:57am • 23:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• Per James and Major B. But could I ask, at nearly 14 minutes, much of it is a yawn. If it ever appeared on the main page, what bits could one point people to as being the kernel of his message? I suggest that adding a few of the critical word-strings to the SDP would add value to the file and help subsequent editors who are considering whether or not to include it in another article.
  • There is no content on WP at this time that points to any particular highlight of this speech, so I would say that there is nothing to point them to. This is not like the Clinton Lewinsky speech, the William Tell Overture or any classical work known to have movements.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I think this could be added to Glass–Steagall Act, Great Depression, Great Depression in the United States, and New Deal. Zginder 2011-04-27T16:54Z (UTC)
      • I added the original file in all of those locations. When this nomination is over the closer will replace with the proper version, I assume.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Can you please stop adding files to random articles. If this wasn't important, iconic, or groundbreaking it shouldn't be a FS. We are slipping on our EV and letting any good sound slip by. This discussion has been open for 20 days and does not seem to meet the quorum. There is no clear consensus about this except that the original is not worth of being a FS. I am going to close this bloated discussion without any future prejudice against either edit. Edit two is close but not close enough right now. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Delist: United States Navy Band - O Canada.ogg

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/United States Navy Band - O Canada

I know this is right after the promotion, but it seems that this file has had longstanding issues that we were not made aware of. First, there is heavy resistance to this being prominently used (it's been relegated to a gallery near the bottom.) Second, it's not the full anthem. Third, it is a significant reinterpretation of the piece.

If it's not going to be used prominently, its' encyclopedic value is poor. If it's not correct, its' encyclopedic value is even poorer. This should be delisted.

• Nominate to delist Sven Manguard Wha? 03:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose It's the only modern instrumental we have, that's of good quality and it's at the gallery because the article's major contributors think that's an appropriate place for the sound and the ENTIRE anthem is rarely ever played... from the recordings in the gallery, only 2 verses are sung at most... I'm assuming you're talking about the US Navy Band and not that horrid performance linked in "Previous nomination". —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:33pm • 04:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed that link, blame Adam's template for that (:D). As for your oppose, what do you think about the accuracy concern? Sven Manguard Wha? 05:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Accuracy concern? How come this concern hasn't been raised here Sven? Please explain. If you mean lacking the entirity of the anthem then that exists throughout many instrumentals in the articles on other national anthems, then I don't see much of a problem. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:12am • 01:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Do you mean that it doesn't do multiple repeats of the same tune? I think that's awfully nit-picky. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer earlier. It has to do with liberties taken with the melodies and the drums. This is taken from Talk:O Canada:

I completely disagree. I will say the recording quality is better, but it takes liberties with the melody adding harmonies into song that are not official. Also, it's only a single verse long while the anthem, and the recording is three verses long. Finally, the drums are personally repulsive. It makes it feel like a Sousa march or military processional and Canada is not as militaristic as the United States is, and hopefully never will be. Couple these faults with the nationalistic bent and proud sense of heritage and you have solid reasons for not making the navy band version the lead version of the hymn. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Reading that was part of the reason I went for the delist. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That was so nationalistic on so many levels... but true, :S I'll try find the "correct" version of the anthem. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:22pm • 07:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delist: A brass band performace is probably one of the least-valuable of the possible types of performances, only beat by that weird clock-chime performance. One with lyrics is much more valuable, and we have two of those options. Since this is just part of a gallery, don't think it's shown sufficient value to overcome the inherent problems of an instrumental performance of a vocal piece. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I understand your concerns, but may I say that the performance is not of a bad quality and doesn't detract from the quality of the article, it's one of the highest quality performances in the whole article. Unless you can find a better performance, which I have failed to do. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:43am • 00:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep—unless I can understand what "official" harmonies are. Tony (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• It should be noted that this is the "official" U.S. Department of Defense arrangement that is used by all U.S. military bands for ceremonies involving Canada. --Adam (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep it is the best version and still meets the criteria. Zginder 2011-04-25T06:31Z (UTC)
• Keep So... someone doesn't like the arrangement. The one used as the official US Dept of Defence. I don't really understand the problem. The piece still passes muster and I think should still be an FS. Of course, should another less controversial version arise, then we can vote on that too. Major Bloodnok (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep IIRC, the DOD gets their sheet music for their national anthem performances directly from the government of each country. So this performance is based on sheet music the Canadian government provided. It's used during official state visits and is thus about as official as it gets. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 08:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The FS is kept. The consensus appears to be in that direction --Guerillero | My Talk 05:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Seventeen Come Sunday

Granger has set the tune for "for mixed chorus and brass, or strings, or piano, or compromises between all three." This file adds significantly to the following articles:

• Percy Grainger
• "Seventeen Come Sunday"

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Tony (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:16pm • 02:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Graham87 12:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This may not be hosted on the Commons: Percy Granger died in the 1960s. Please reupload locally. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Saved as File:Seventeen Come Sunday2.ogg.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)