Talk:Kathleen Ferrier

TFAR
Today's featured article/requests/Kathleen Ferrier --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I tried to link to her extensive discography Kathleen Ferrier discography in the lead, because it seems to stand for the kind of music she performed and recorded, better than any summary. I tried to pipe-link it to recording artist but was reverted as Easteregg. Are there better suggestions? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Sales
The article ends "In the 21st century, Ferrier's recordings still sell hundreds of thousands of copies each year." This is supported by two citations but one is dated 1997 and so pre-dates the 21st century. The other is dated 2012 and doesn't seem to have any hard evidence. As recording sales in general are much reduced now that streaming has mostly supplanted physical media, the claim for each year of this century needs work. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The ‘97 reference covers different information, I think, while the 2012 reference states “her recordings still sell in hundreds of thousands worldwide”. Yes, a more recent cite could be added to reinforce it, but the thought we need to show citations “for each year of this century”, that’s rather derisible. - SchroCat (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Per the recent FA, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As there's no recent sales figures, the claim was amended to "In the early 21st century, Ferrier's recordings were still selling hundreds of thousands of copies each year." Andrew🐉(talk) 07:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not an extraordinary claim and no extraordinary evidence is needed. Citations for every year of the century? Utterly laughable. - SchroCat (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Her recordings do remain popular and are frequently reissued, but I agree that the 'hundreds of thousands' assertion does sound rather dubious. Classical recordings of any sort rarely sell in those quantities. I think the claim should be weakened to something like 'large quantities' if a more specific ref can't be found. --Ef80 (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph article on her refers to sales in the "hundreds of thousands", so no weakening is needed. - SchroCat (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a strong enough ref given the implausibility of the assertion, but I won't continue to press the point. --Ef80 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Citevar?
I came to this article because it was in Category:Pages using Template:Post-nominals with missing parameters, so I fixed that, adding GBR. While at it, I noticed some red links that satisfy WP:REDNO, so I removed them. I changed some other specific red links to the nearest geographical place, or to a suitable interlanguage link. A URL at the Ferrier Awards was marked as 'unfit', and I replaced it with a working link. I noticed some images were unnecessarily small, so I removed their upright attribute. The "Legacy" section didn't have any of her blue plaques depicted, so I added them. Finally, I noticed that Cardus's memoir is cited with bibliographic details five times; so I streamlined those citations using the templates provided for such a case. I did consider WP:CITEVAR and the article's creator, but as the citation style was already inconsistent and included some short citation templates, I thought that change was not prohibited by CITEVAR and an improvement. All of that was then reverted with the edit summary, "Per guidelines: please do not change citation styles". So: do other editors agree that the citation style as it is cannot be changed here? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * you are right that there is already some inconsistency, but as there are only four uses of sfn while everything else is in the format, the correct thing is to change the much smaller number of sfns into the more dominant form. For the sake of CONSISTENCY, I'll do that now. - SchroCat (talk)