Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates/Ten Biblical Songs

Hello. Even though I very appreciate your work on sound files (I like particularly archive recordings, relevant and beautiful - great improving of the articles!), I have to express my strong reservations against featured status of this file. I know, I´ve missed the assessment, but...:

1. The sound quality is very bad, the singer's voice is absolutely unintelligible and blurred. Whole recording gives us not good idea of Dvořák's cycle.

2. The recording was made in 2004, as you describe on the file page. It is understandable, that the sound quality is worse, when we assess one hundred years old recording. However, I think, we must be more strict in judgements of new recordings.

3. The recording was promoted with 100% support, but without musicological point of view. Only one opinion: ...very relaxing & good quality on the sound... It's not very relaxing for me to listen to it. The piano part is not bad, I have concerns particularly to the singer and to the sound quality in general, as I described above. I think it's maybe good to have it here, but as one of the best media files on wikipedia?? In that case, almost every sound may be a featured sound.

This is just my POV on the assessment of that featured sound file. We have complicated and very strict assessment of good and featured articles. It´s surprising for me, that bad and not appropriate recording is as well "featured", and moreover, its assessment is not sufficient. Believe me, I know that cycle quite well and it´s almost unrecognizable for me here.

In any case, your work here is admirable. I´m not very active in that area, I´ve supported only few candidates. I´ll try to participate more in future. I just wanted to remark: Should not we be at least a bit critical? Have a nice time. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good case for re-evaluating this, but I'd suggest that now isn't the right time, while in a month or so would be better. Featured sounds has problems with not having enough people, so I'm not sure we could do a re-review effectively at the moment. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]