April – November 2020 November 2020 – March 2021 March – September 2021 September 2021 –

List of presidents of the United States[edit]

Re Special:Diff/1063294295: Do you intend to take List of presidents of the United States to FL? If so, let me say that I an very willing to help! Let me know what you intend to do. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had been discussing it with Sdkb in passing and briefly in the past with Coemgenus, who said I could use his sandbox design if needed. Looking at the talk page, it looks like it is one of those articles that a select few editors relentless hound over, which discouraged me. I saw your referencing improvements though and am considering it further, especially once the RFCs have all closed. The possible improvements I see are:

1. The lead should be shorter and more concise, there's just no way it needs to be longer than three paragraphs
2. Almost every note needs a reference
3. We can find a better reference than thoughtco.com
4. The talk page says that the portraits should be the same as the president's respective article, though I am not sure why the Grant, Polk and Tyler
5. The Ford portrait is a little silly, in that it is the only one with the large of a body shot and can probably be cropped
6. I don't know how to solve it (or if it needs to be) but the linking to presidency articles by the numbers is an impossible to guess pipe link in that no reader will expect it to link there (and most will probably not see the link exists)

If you or Sdkb have other preliminary observations, I suggest you guys list them. Then we can maybe evaluate which ones we will need to go through the talk page and which ones we can do ourselves. At the moment, I assume items 1, 4 and 6 will need some level of consensus when considering how brutal the page watchers are. Aza24 (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I too wish to take it to FL status. But, the biggest issues I see is that we'll need citations for each separate president. Few old FLs like List of chancellors of Germany don't have citations, but am not-at-all confident that it'll pass today without it. That was the main reason why I added sources in the lead, and wanted to do the same, but there was bit of opposition to the change. This has citations, but there are better ones available as well. As said before, I am very willing to help and add sources, but we'll need consensus on the talk page first. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think sourcing for notes and such will be uncontroversial, but yeah we will definitely need consensus for adding them to each row, which would certainly be ideal. I don't like the sidebar at all, and I think there should be a four person collage like so many similar lists (probably with Washington, Lincoln, FDR and the current president), but I don't know if consensus for that is even possible, no matter how practical it is. Aza24 (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I too think that the sidebar should be removes, or at the very least, shifted. But there will be editors supporting "status-quo", and I don't know if it would be implemented. Nonetheless, we should try asking on the talk page, once these RfCs are closed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The RfCs seem to have been closed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I think I may need a few weeks before I can get to this, unfortunately. I just have too many other commitments at the moment Aza24 (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphany[edit]

January songs

in friendship

Happy new year, in friendship! - Epiphany seems like a good day to say so, after a Bavarian peasants' mass (sorry, on the train home, no recent pics of that - just keep watching), and two DYK, even with a pic I took. I enjoyed meetings with friends in real life, and wish you many of those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

today's music in memory of JK --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 began happily with vacation. I uploaded images but stopped at 22 January - click on songs. 30 January means 10 years of Precious. It's also the birthday of a friend, - I'm so happy I mentioned his DYK on his 90th birthday when he was still alive. I have a great singer on DYK whom I heard, Elena Guseva, and wait for a Recent death appearance of Georg Christoph Biller whom I saw in action. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10 years, congrats! What did you hear Elena Guseva sing?—she seems fabulous. Aza24 (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

see my talk - she entered on bicycle ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How fun!! Aza24 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and now she is even pictured, Biller is pictured better (but still not on the Main page), and one more day of my pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Cataldo Amodei[edit]

The article Cataldo Amodei you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cataldo Amodei for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wretchskull -- Wretchskull (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review FAC Regine Velasquez[edit]

Hello Aza24, Happy New Year and hope you are doing well and safe. Apologies for the random request, not quite sure how busy you are these days, but thought it'd be worth a try to ask. I was wondering if you would have time and availability to spare to do a source review for my FAC? I would totally understand if you may be busy with other projects or IRL. Thanks and I hope you are having a great week so far! Pseud 14 (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pseud 14, I'm doing well thanks! I will plan to do so. Best – Aza24 (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response and much appreciate it! Pseud 14 (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14, just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten about this, but just gotten busy irl. I should definitely be able to get to it this weekend. Best – Aza24 (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I totally understand and appreciate you checking back-in. Feel free to put a placeholder as well if you'd like :) Pseud 14 (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aza24, me again :) Sorry to bother you and apologies for the ask, I know you're pretty busy these days with FAR/FARC and your own projects as well. Wanted to ask if you might have a chance to do the source review some time in the coming days? Reason I'm asking is, I wanted to hopefully be able to meet the TFA nomination window when it opens in time for her birthday in April, since it now has accumulated some support (with the hope/goal that it passes). Thanks and I hope you have a great start to your week! Pseud 14 (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhhhhhhh! I completely forgot Pseud 14, thank you for your kind reminder. I shall look right now. Aza24 (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leo 2022[edit]

Just to say that I've been I've been reunited with my copy of Zoellner and can now crack on with the spreadsheet! I'll aim to get chapters 1–8 down; are you still happy to work backwards from the end? Cheers, Ham II (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ham II, why do you insist on spelling Zollner with an "oe"... is there something I don't know about? :) Happy to work backwards, yes... its always good to have your copy of Zollner on hand! Aza24 (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's slightly more convenient than looking for the o-umlaut character to add to Zöllner (see Diaeresis (diacritic) § Printing conventions in German) but possibly it is a bit of an annoying tic for the reader! I'm now considering adding the spreadsheet lines for the first chapter or two to QuickStatements, rather than doing that for the whole spreadsheet at the end as I'd previously planned, so that we can start to see some results on Wikidata and on User:Ham II/Leonardo... Ham II (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea! I should have plenty of time tomorrow to add some to the sheet. Aza24 (talk) 08:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Albigensian Crusade[edit]

Thank you for your edit to the Albigensian Crusade article. I have a couple of questions. Firstly, while you say that there were many troubadors in the Occitan region, were there an appreciable number outside of it? If you have a reliable source that says that the troubadors were not a common sight outside of the regions of the Albigensian Crusade, that would help explain their decline better and should be added. Secondly, what is meant by "the fifth generation of troubadours?" It's not clear from the article what exactly that is meant to signify. Please clarify that or remove it. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Display name 99, apologies for my terribly late response, I'm not sure how I missed your message other than my irl life making Wikipedia more sporadic lately for me. The people who might be considered troubadours outside of southern France are generally grouped into different and distinct traditions (trouvère and minnesang for example). Though there were a couple troubadors in Italy and England, the heart of the tradition was always in the Occitan region, since the tradition itself is usually defined by the use of Occitan poetry. The fifth generation simply refers to the last generation of troubadours, as scholars groups them into five divisions. I tried to clarify further, maybe including "the fifth and last generation" would work better? I am hesitant to use the word "profession" since many of the practitioners were knights and such "by profession" Aza24 (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that, while the content you added is interesting and probably deserving of a place in the article, the final part of your test, as written, was grammatically incorrect and unclear. One wouldn't say "substantially less practitioners," for example, but "substantially fewer," and nobody reading that article should be expected to know that scholars group the troubadors into five generations. Isn't it enough to simply say that the practice died out and not bother delving into how many generations there were? That seems outside the scope of this article. You are welcome to change "profession" to "practice," "art form," or any other term that you think would function better. Display name 99 (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Display name 99, indeed my earlier attempt seems to have not been ideal and it appears to have been somewhat misleading. I have an idea for how to make it perhaps more thorough but hopefully still concise. I will go about this shortly and please let me know what you think. Aza24 (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fine to me. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February songs[edit]

February songs

frozen

Today is a feast day for which - as you will know - Bach wrote several cantatas including Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125, which was on DYK 10 years ago and TFA 4 years ago. I'm less happy that Georg Christoph Biller had to wait days for a Main page appearance under recent deaths, and then stayed not even for a full day. It would have been so meaningful today, with the man in the cantata saying he can depart in joy and peace. - The February pic was taken in memory last year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like my talk today (even explaining how it works), and managed to picture two more vacation days --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, the frozen creek image is certainly one of the most fantastic pictures of yours I've seen! Aza24 (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I decorated my talk with a Bach cantata. I heard it last year when missing RexxS began, and "not letting go" was a theme. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

my joy - more on my talk - George Crumb needs more sources could you help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really want to, as I admire his music, but don't know if I have time right now. In a few days I will though. Thanks for your initial cleanups. Aza24 (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did what I could: add refs, reword Black Angels a bit, nominate for RD, give the compositions iboxes. If you have a free minute or two, please check. If you have more time: I wonder why Star-Child isn't mentioned in the bio, other than in the list of works, nor his graphic notation. - Even the German FAZ has an obit, but it's subscription and only supports what we have already, so I didn't bother. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22 02 2022: music for you, today the German Main page has de:In Freundschaft, and you know the long story behind it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely! Aza24 (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome's day today - precious 10 years - stand and sing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the stats for Lysenko? Keep going, it's now that people want to know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took this pic in 2009. It was on the German MP yesterday, with this song from 1885. - A composition is mentioned on Psalm 91, Dmitry Bortniansky: Choruses in Old Church Slavonic, Zhyvyi v pomoshshi Vyshnjago, - would that deserve an article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March songs

Yes? - Listening to the charity concert mentioned here. I created the articles of the composer and the soprano. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you can also listen on YouTube, and more music, the piece by Anna Korsun begins after about one hour, and the voices call "Freiheit!" (freedom, instead of "Freude", joy). Music every day, pictured in songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Patrick's Day, more music and today's sunset --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a piece from the OREYA playlist that deserves an article in English? Lysenko Psalm 139? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure there would be enough sources, though I just ordered a big survey on Lysenko's music on amazon (got a great deal!) so I will check there. Just expanded his bio and lead today, and hopefully more later. Aza24 (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

understand - on Bach's birthday: the places where I sang his Dona nobis pacem --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the Prayer on the Main page, finally + new flowers, and btw: the TFA is a young writer's first --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help with Bach's works and his No. 1 especially today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday flowers and sounds, don't miss the extraordinary marriage of the beginnings of the theme of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, and Prayer for Ukraine - here! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only know Vladmir Jurowski, and had no idea he was descended from something of a musical dynasty! Aza24 (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also knew only that one, tthanks for bringing the continuation of the dynasty to his lead. I didn't know Serhiy Kot. Written with pleasure: an exquisite voice that I heard on 11 March (there's a yt with her in the same role in 2020, Vienna, but of questionable origin) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Hi Aza24, thanks so much for providing a source review on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Regine Velasquez/archive3. Do you know when you might be able to finish it? (t · c) buidhe 18:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should have time later this week to finish it. Thanks for checking in, and sorry for my late response. Congrats on the Armenian Genocide promotion! Aza24 (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Northamerica1000[edit]

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Hi! I've hit a rut on Kullervo and so I thought I would look into images, to perhaps regain my inspiration. I have, however, always been terrible at uploading images in a way that doesn't violate rules, and as such, I was curious if: (a) you would be willing to help me out, provided you have time and do image work; or (b) if not, whether you have someone you could recommend to me. Thanks! PS: Nice work on the music critics project!! Warmly, Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Silence of Järvenpää, I'm happy to help upload images, but I'm not really sure what kind of images you're considering? Buidhe and Nikkimaria know much about copyright related queries, while people at the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop can help a lot with editing. Aza24 (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Aza! The following are images that, if they clear copyright, I was hoping we could add:

• Program from 1892 premiere
• Picture of Emmy Achté that is close-ish to the premiere date
• Picture of Abraham Ojanperä that is close-ish to the premiere date
• Picture of Sibelius that is close-ish to the premiere date
• Picture of Karl Flodin that is close-ish to the premiere date
• Picture of Larin Paraske that is close-ish to the premiere date

Any thoughts? Thanks! Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of the image are fine because they were created before 1927. I'm not sure about the program, but I imagine it would fall under the same criteria.

Now that I'm looking again, the photographs all have a CC BY 4.0 marking on that site, meaning they are certainly usable per the third table row here. Aza24 (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aza! Wonderful! If you're unwilling to upload each, then could you perhaps teach me how? And, for the program, this says it's public domain. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm terribly sorry for my delayed response Silence of Järvenpää. I see you've managed to upload them, and your progress in your user-space looks fantastic. My schedule has been haphazard lately, and I'm juggling a lot of projects (both WP and IRL), but I wanted to assure you that I do still have the Sibelius comp list on my mind. Do let me know if I can be of any further help for Kullervo or elsewhere. Aza24 (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aza! Thanks for your message; there's nothing to apologize for, as your suggestions about CC by 4.0 and the Graphics Lab were extremely helpful! Thanks, also, for your offer of further assistance. Here's my new ask: In the past, Profbounds did a wonderful job assisting me with Sibelius articles by making audio files of musical motifs (e.g., The Oceanides and User:Silence of Järvenpää/Tapiola and User:Silence of Järvenpää/Pohjolasdaughter). But they are now inactive. Do you know of any other editor who could assist me with this matter for Kullervo? If so, I would help them get the score and point out the passages and instruments that I would like to emphasize. Thanks! Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm I'm not sure on if we have any active experts with the score templates stuff, though possibly Mathsci could help. The trend now adays is using engraved scores w/o audio (see the examples from recent articles such as Sei pezzi per pianoforte and Piano Sonata No. 31 (Beethoven)). The user who specializes in these is intforce. If you'd still prefer the score notation template w/ audio and Mathsci can't help, I'd think asking at the CM project page would be the way to go. Aza24 (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Aza! You're a sources guru, so which is preferable in you mind?

• Gray, Cecil (1934) [1931]. Sibelius (2nd ed.). London: Oxford University Press. OCLC 373927.
• Tawaststjerna, Erik (2008a) [1965/1967; trans. 1976]. Sibelius: Volume I, 1865–1905. (Robert Layton, English translation). London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 9780571247721.

OR

• Gray, Cecil (1931). Sibelius. London: Oxford University Press. OCLC 373927.
• Tawaststjerna, Erik (1976). Sibelius: Volume I, 1865–1905. (Robert Layton, English translation). London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 9780571247721.

Thanks! Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking strictly formatting (instead of choosing between editions) I'd say too much info is always better than too little, so would go with the first set. If you want, there is a parameter for translators (translator-last= etc.). Aza24 (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inviolata[edit]

Only chanced upon this after reading about it on a parish flyer which described it as one of the greatest masterpieces of the early Renaissance. Just felt like it deserved its own article. Unfortunately, a lot of the stuff I've managed to find on it is Greek to me. There's what appears to be a fascinating discussion about the composer playing a joke (?) on the singers here, but I cannot for my life understand it, much less make it "encyclopedic". If it may interest you to add to the article, please do so, I've done what little I can! With sincere thanks, Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kingoflettuce, your addition is most welcome, and you have offered that spectacular piece a more than suitable beginnings of an article! Scholarship on Josquin is vast, and sometimes musicologists go too far to interpret his work (it gets unhealthy! Some scholars even desperately try to convince that Leonardo painted him in the Portrait of a Musician). I will see what I can add, though I am currently reading up on Josquin's biography to hopefully save the star at FAR, so I'm afraid that must take priority for me. If you don't know it already, you might enjoy one of Josquin's funniest pieces, El Grillo which is also missing an article ;) Aza24 (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What a happy coincidence! My knowledge of music is severely limited, so I dare not try to put up any "technical" content. Kudos to editors like you for doing the real heavy lifting! In the meantime, I have gone ahead and offered El Grillo a humble beginnings of an article... Thanks! Kingoflettuce (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How lovely, and bravo on El Grillo! Aza24 (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Hard Worker's Barnstar
	For being an invaluable Wikipedian and a source of knowledge for any queries on processes. I know source reviews are also daunting tasks and you have provided your time in doing these in some of my work. For that, I and many of us in this community are truly appreciative Pseud 14 (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Pseud 14!—this is lovely. I'm sorry my last SR took so long, trying to be thorough while also busy IRL is not a good combo :) Aza24 (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all and no apologies needed as I know things are busy for you IRL. Never sacrifice thoroughness for speed :) Hope you have a wonderful rest of your week! Pseud 14 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review request[edit]

Hello again. Apologies for yet another random message. I was wondering if you could do a source review for my current FAC? I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I wanted to ask because you have helped me with a source review in the past, but again, no pressure (at this FAC is still very new). Either way, hope you are doing well, and have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies needed–I will attempt to do so! Aza24 (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! I appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I just wanted to thank you again for the source review for the above FAC. Although I ultimately ended up withdrawing the nomination, it did lead to me doing further research and learning more about the song in question. I just wanted to make sure that I tell you that I did appreciate your review and I hope that my withdrawal request did not come across as rude. Aoba47 (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba47, no, not rude at all, though I did think it might have been unnecessary. That being said, I trust your judgement and your decision feels generally sound. Let me know if (when!) you nominate it again. Aza24 (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. In retrospect, it was likely unnecessary to withdraw it, but I was uncertain at the time about tracking down sources to clearly distinguish its status as a single or a promotional single. I found this could be difficult since the distinction between the two is murky and is often contested on Wikipedia. However, I was able to find an official press release from the record label that names it as a single and since a majority of the coverage refers to this as a single, I feel safe classifying it as such. I will likely re-nominate it again sometime next week. Sorry for the late response, but I just wanted to let you know. Aoba47 (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review for the 58th Academy Awards[edit]

Hi there,

I was wondering if you could do a source review for the 58th Academy Awards regarding its featured list candidacy. I would appreciate the feedback.

--Birdienest81talk 12:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, happy to help. Expect one soon. Aza24 (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Vibraphone for GA[edit]

Hello, I recently nominated the Vibraphone article for Good Article status. You've been good at me accountable in the past and did the wonderful examination of Thrakkx's work on the Carillon article, so I was wondering if you would potentially do the honor of reviewing the page. Cheers! Why? I Ask (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I Ask, I am thrilled to see you pursue a GA here! It seems someone has picked it up between your message and my reading of it. However, if you are interested in extra comments for PR, a future FAC or otherwise, I would be happy to take a close look. Best – Aza24 (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: Alright, since the reviewer failed to take an in-depth look at the article and quick failed it, could you take a look at it and tell me what areas need improvement? Why? I Ask (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I Ask, sorry to hear that. I think the first step is making sure every line has an inline citation, even things which might be considered "obvious"—the current standards for GA don't have much leniency on that. Here are some other ideas to get the article going:

• History section seems generally a little too condense. I suspect much more could be said about the history of the instrument since the mid-20th century to the present. In addition, including some info about other notable players (besides Hampton) is worth considering
• Some sources feel under used, Blades 1992 and the Grove (Oxford Music Online) article for instance
• I feel like there is a section missing about the general sound and character of the instrument. Perhaps glance at the clarinet article for some ideas about this

Some smaller comments:

• The Manufacturers section seems a little too high, not sure it is important enough to be that early
• Perhaps the builders in the infobox should include some of the ones in List of vibraphone manufacturers not there already?
• Some of the picture placement is a little messy, I might take a crack at this myself in a second

This should hopefully help get you started, let me know what you think of this. Aza24 (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do work on the images; I'm not that good on the more technical side of Wikipedia (working with nonstandard templates, pictures, etc.). Although some of the media was uploaded by yours truly, so at least I know how to press the upload button! And funnily, the Grove entry was written by Blades too. Thank you! Why? I Ask (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: Okay, every paragraph or potentially contentious statement has reliable inline citations, and I edited the prose to be a bit more clear and readable. Do you know what else may immediately preclude this article from GA status? I feel like the sound aspect is suitably covered within the "Bars" subsection, but the "History" section can always be expanded. However, looking at the other GA musical instrument pages (specifically, Clarinet and Wurlitzer electronic piano) not many really do a terribly deep dive into the musician aspect of history which would be the only thing really missing (the instrument's development and its usage in classical repertoire are well charted, in my opinion). As for the reviewer's comments, most have been addressed, but I don't really think much can be expounded about certain specialty techniques. The usage of mallets grips in particular (e.g., Burton, fulcrum, Steven-Musser, traditional cross, and six mallet) need their own overview article eventually, so I don't want to write a whole lengthy section about the use of six mallet technique just in the Vibraphone article.

I also don't mean to be particularly controversial, but some of the GA musical instrument articles may need to be reassessed (see Clarinet#Use of multiple clarinets and the Gandingan and Agung pages which have many grammatical and MOS errors). Would you concur? If so, I may start a discussion. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I Ask, I would say that's a very reasonable assessment, in fact, there are few GA instruments I know of which are in decent quality. Pipe organ is probably the best and there are some good ones on electronic keyboards. I would agree, the Clarinet one is in poor shape and probably deserves a GAR. Though the other two you list would not immediately pass if they were nominated to GAN, I don't know that their issues are bad enough to warrant a formal reassessment, but I certainly wouldn't oppose it. Aza24 (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the Vibraphone article, your sourcing additions have definitely constituted huge improvements. I agree that the history section would not need a mention of every prominent player. That being said, it is a bit odd that it doesn't go very close to the present, and mentioning players might be a way to do that. Since you removed the uncited rep list (which was a good move imo), it might be worth considering a section on repertoire (presumably split into classical and jazz sections), or alternatively adding more repertoire information in the history section, which would be another way to help with that section's comprehensiveness. Aza24 (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better? I'm hesitant to make this section bigger, because they typically just become unencyclopedic messes of editors' favourite pieces rather than actual works important to the instrument's development. For the "History" section, I think a brief mention and overview of how Milt Jackson, Gary Burton, Red Norvo, and potentially Bobby Hutcherson played the instrument is really all the section needs. Thoughts? Why? I Ask (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely better Why? I Ask, and your plan for the history section seems sound. Right now it seems you have two examples for both the two hand grip and four hand grip—on my laptop screen that pushes all of the images below the section they're referring to, and is generally a bit overwhelming. I would suggest limiting it to just one image for two hand and one for four hand—perhaps remove the video and the Locke grip? Aza24 (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Brian Ferneyhough head shot.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Brian Ferneyhough head shot.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marchjuly, thanks for this notice. Your rationale is definitely correct, it didn't occur to me that there was a difference with limited-use non-free images of living vs dead people. Best – Aza24 (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delegation[edit]

I asked Sturmvogel if he was able to do FTC work since I havent seen him close a nomination in maybe a year. Thinking about replacing him and look for a new delegate. What do you think? GamerPro64 23:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GamerPro64, thanks for bringing this up. I agree completely that a new delegate is needed; Sturm has had a few chances now and seem to be largely uninterested in the project. We might consider Bryanrutherford0, who is active at the project and has contributed topics in the past. Aza24 (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask them about a position. If they're interested I'll swap the two users out. GamerPro64 14:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SR request[edit]

Hi, I don’t believe we’ve met, but I’ve recently seen that you occasionally do solid source reviews on FACs. With that in mind, I currently have an FAC that is in need of one and wanted to ask if you’d be kind enough to conduct a source review. No worries if you don’t have the time or inclination. FrB.TG (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrB.TG, nice to meet you! Thank you for your note, I will attempt to do so tomorrow. Best – Aza24 (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for missing this, I see the very capable Aoba has taken care of it. Hope all is well – Best, Aza24 (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checking in with warm greetings![edit]

Hi, Aza24! Just thought I would send you a quick hello... was Wiki-surfing the other day and, happening upon your user page, I finally got a chance you read your two-paragraph introduction. I have to tell you, I loved it! Made me both shake my head in dismay, shake my head in agreement, and feel a modicum of solidarity. (I often find WP baffling... so many stubs and start-class articles left for dead, and as you say so many longer articles built on awful sources, weblinks rather than academic books and journals... the path of least resistance, I suppose [I won't name the article that most frustrates and disappoints me!].) Anyway, do you still have any interest in doing the Sibelius list of compositions FLC together? (I was thinking first week of June. No worries if not!) Warmly, ~ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Silence of Järvenpää, the first week of June would be wonderful. I'm glad you enjoyed my userpage, I always wonder if it makes sense :) Hmmm, I'm afraid I can't quite guess which article is your nemesis... You've made me very curious now!! Aza24 (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aza24! Wonderful! We'll plan on June, then. Looking forward to my *first* official collaboration, especially because I think there's much I can learn from you. :) _{(The article I was referring to rhymes with Sean Jibelius; it's actually pretty good, and I know talented/nice/mentoring editors worked hard on it... and, back in the day, even kindly asked me to pitch in... but I didn't because I was so new to WP and lacked the confidence. What bugs me is the sources utilized, the images, and the lede [i.e., the three things I tend to care most about in any article]. I'd love to help, but I just feel overwhelmed by the sourcing... this is one of the many reasons why I admire you for tackling the music article head on! I, instead, cope by just writing about my guy's compositions, where I have freer reign, since everything is stub or start-class.)} Warmly, ~ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy April 1[edit]

Hahaha—Thank you Northamerica1000! Aza24 (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria[edit]

Hi, and I have to admit you've piqued my curiosity: is this qualification actually necessary? Sparafucil (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sparafucil, I'm fairly certain I wrote the preexisting line as well, when I must have thought the qualification wasn't necessary. Reading it just now, I felt like the previous phrasing didn't make sense; that is, his contemporaries also have "sacred and polyphonic vocal music, set to Latin texts," but the difference is, that's essentially only what Victoria had. Does that make sense? If not I'll think about other options... (or just restore what was there before). Aza24 (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped you'd made some new discovery ;-) but I'll trust you to come up with another phrasing. All the best, Sparafucil (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links that have archived sources[edit]

Hi there,

If a dead link has its page archive, can it still be used in any featured content. For example, some of the information obtained from Box Office Mojo is no longer available in it current site. The only website that features this information is an archived version of the page.

--Birdienest81talk 07:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birdienest81, if the archive is saved, but not the original website, yes it can still be used! In this case, just be sure to mark the "url-status=" paramater as 'dead', rather than 'live', which I believe is what my comments at the FLC were referring to. Aza24 (talk)

Aza24 I addressed your comments regarding the 58th Academy Awards for its featured list candidacy.

--Birdienest81talk 08:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schenker[edit]

Hi there! I appreciate your comment on the Schenker talk page, but as I mentioned to Kosboot - I've given up. There aren't enough interested parties on that page to balance the passionate intensity of Hucbald and anonymous, and I'm guessing it's too niche a topic for RfC to be of much use. My new plan is to wait until their generation ages out of the field entirely - Schenker is FAR less popular among younger theorists. Would you like to do a GA review on "cyclotron" for me? (just kidding) Cheers! PianoDan (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PianoDan, thanks for your note. I find myself rather neutral on this dispute specifically, though other issues of bias in classical music I find more pressing. It seems clear that there is a genuine dispute on the issue, and a more split opinion than the page currently provides. All it would really take is one line that mentions others who agree with Ewell and a more appropriate section name, but I don't know how possible to include that would be. Your revised approach would probably work... if you're willing to wait that long :) – Aza24 (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A new book to order[edit]

I saw your addition of this item and my first thoughts were: 1) wow, that looks awesome, and -- 2) that's going to be depressing. (Is it?) I think I'll order it, because -- happiness is a depressing book about my field! ha ha. :) Antandrus (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've only read chapters 1, 5, 6 and 10, but thoroughly enjoyed it so far (it's available in its an entirety on google books, courtesy of the admirable Open Book Publishers, though I always prefer handheld copies!). The variety of contributors and topics covered is rather impressive, and it doesn't seem too pessimistic, but gives a fuller, more nuanced view of the issues it discusses. I wish there were more publications of this nature, the only one I know of is Julian Johnson's Who Needs Classical Music?, which I am yet to read. Aza24 (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good. I just ordered it a few minutes ago (like you, preferring the hard copy; I look at enough screens).

Another topic entirely: I saw the thread above this one and realized I didn't have Heinrich Schenker on my watchlist, and -- yeesh. I've known about his "attitudes" since I read Der freie Satz in grad school. Schenkerism was already going out of style fast in the 90s, and it seemed more fashionable to bash it than build on it. Eugene Narmour wrote an interesting book, Beyond Schenkerism (oh look, we have an embryonic article on Implication-Realization) and his book includes a chapter on Schenkerism as intellectual history. It's a bit polemical, but you can really see how Schenker's theories emerge out of a 19th-century understanding of the world. Every time I encounter a Schenkerian analysis now I feel like I'm encountering a relic from the age of colonialism. But yeow, that big talk page thread is off-putting. (Austrian born in the 1870s had pre-modern racial attitudes? say it ain't so...) Antandrus (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to check out the Narmour book, though I wonder if a new mode of analysis entirely will arise in the next 20 years, I mean Sonata theory is rather revolutionary, and so recent! We've barely had anytime to analyze music of the 20th-century (let alone last 50 years) and I'm convinced there has to be more to life than Allen Forte's set theory (*yawn*). In any case, I don't expect a resurgence of Schenker in the immediate future, especially with these 'new' interpretations. The talk page seems to be two very opposite opinions struggle to admit that a middle ground even exists. But who can blame them? The heart of the debate is relatively new, and somewhat scattered through academia. Maybe in a few years we'll get a better view of the whole situation. Aza24 (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the "opposite opinions" I do apologize for my negative contributions to the tone of that pile-o-words. :) I spend a lot of time talking to theorists, so while the plural of anecdote is not "data", I can say that they are uniformly frustrated with the tone of that page. (And also have no idea who the heck Barry Wiener is.) I'd like to drag it more to the center, but it's a great illustration of how easy it is for a few truly dedicated editors to "claim" a page as their own. PianoDan (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April songs

April[edit]

amazing! - two people on DYK, both connected to Oper Frankfurt, and don't miss yesterday's video of Pink Floyd given to me! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely to see! Aza24 (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]