Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Josquin des Prez
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.
(note: not a self-nom. my edits are limited to minor copyediting.)
This is easily the best composer bio I've yet encountered on WP. It's exhaustively sourced, and covers the (somewhat murky) known biography well, while providing an exemplary exegesis of the actual music, something lacking in many current composer articles. It also incorporates images nicely, including musical examples. I think it should stand as a model for other articles in the field, and definitely deserves featured status. —Turangalila talk 05:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I would hardly call myself an expert in this department, but can't the lead do a better job in summarizing the article, most notably the third paragraph? -Phoenix 08:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment why are there red links in the works section for some works and not for others?-- Zleitzen(talk) 22:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically because I haven't written them yet. They're all on my to-do list, and I'm working my way down. The redlinked pieces are ones with a decent amount of information in the books listed under "references". If the redlinks bug you we can take them out, but in general I like redlinks to tempt someone else with some knowledge of early music to try editing. Antandrus (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Enthusiastic support very well written article on an important composer. It is accurate and is clear where ambiguity lies (an important aspect of accuracy in this case). It is definitely neutral and stable. I believe it is comprehensive, like Turangalila I appreciate the excellent discussion of Josquin's music. I don't think the lede is too long for such a long and deep article, although I may work on streamlining it later, but I'm not sure how. Good (free!) illustrations and music. Antandrus has done an excellent job of staying focused on the topic and maintaining interest without going off on the many intriguing tangents which he could have (and I probably would have without a strong reign :) The only possible issue could be the infobox, which it seems that the relevant WikiProject is rejecting. But I don't want to make this FAC about infoboxes. Mak (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On the lead (lede), it did occur to me that perhaps some bits could be cut-&-pasted down into the article--either to a sort of sub-lede under "Life" or to the "Overview" section under "Music"? —Turangalila talk 00:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: an amazing article about a little known (today) composer, and a fine example of a classical music article. Danny 22:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: well-written, well-referenced, well-organized, enhanced by free media, can't think of anything I would really want to see that isn't there; a good article about a composer we know less about than we would like to. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 23:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- This is what I believe Wikipedia should be about. Being able to learn about little known, but greatly influential peoples in history. The information and citations are both very good, and I wholeheartedly support this!Mastrchf91 22:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but it needs a copy-edit. I've gone over the lead; the rest needs doing. Tony 22:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good stuff, well-written and cited, but would it not be possible/preferable to move the works list to a separate article? I think that's what was done at W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan. It avoids clutter. Best, Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 08:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we can do that, especially since it is rather long. I still have to go through the works list for accuracy (one of us pillaged it from another Wikipedia--French or Dutch or German, I think), and I've already found mistakes. If anyone thinks the works list should stay in-article please speak up. :) Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, if no one objects I'll create a separate article for it, especially as its accuracy may be questionable - can't trust these darned foreigners :) Cheers, Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 17:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, now, let's not be xenophobic. Anyway, I always like a list of "most important" works to be included in an article, even if the full works list is broken out. Perhaps the works which already have articles and those which Antandrus has redlinked would be a good guideline for those which should be in a pared-down works section? Mak (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds fair enough. Given my Polish surname, I really should keep the xenophobia to myself :) Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 17:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess the basis for the new "Greatist Hits" list left in the main article could be just those pieces mentioned in the inline text; or alternately all the wikified ones on the longer list (which I think would end up about the same). I think it's worth having, though some might see it as akin to making a "See also" section for stuff already linked in the text...—Turangalila talk 01:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds fair enough. Given my Polish surname, I really should keep the xenophobia to myself :) Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 17:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, now, let's not be xenophobic. Anyway, I always like a list of "most important" works to be included in an article, even if the full works list is broken out. Perhaps the works which already have articles and those which Antandrus has redlinked would be a good guideline for those which should be in a pared-down works section? Mak (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, if no one objects I'll create a separate article for it, especially as its accuracy may be questionable - can't trust these darned foreigners :) Cheers, Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 17:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we can do that, especially since it is rather long. I still have to go through the works list for accuracy (one of us pillaged it from another Wikipedia--French or Dutch or German, I think), and I've already found mistakes. If anyone thinks the works list should stay in-article please speak up. :) Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's fine with me to do it that way. I think each category of works (masses, motets, etc.) should give a number prior to the "greatest hits" list (e.g. "16 masses are considered to be reliably attributed to Josquin, and an additional 4 are sometimes attributed but questioned by one or more scholars. [cite]. The masses include: ....) For what it's worth, the works lists in the online Grove are always a separate mouse-click away (unless the list is short, and the composer's bio is also short). Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.