Talk:Nicolaus Ricci de Nucella Campli

Disclosures, Stub
Two slight disclosures: I have edited a volume with John Nádas and I have a completion of another piece recorded on the Micrologus CD. I do not believe that either of these facts amounts to a conflict of interest in writing the article, but I felt they should be mentioned. Before slapping a "stub" template on the article, I ask editors to see if they can find any more information on the composer. It's a short article, but I believe it's fairly complete. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Biography project quality classification.
I notice that this article has been labelled "C" on the Biography Project quality scale. This means that the assessor feels that it is "missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material", that it "may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup", or that it "may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research". It would be helpful if the assessor could explain the perceived problems with this article and indicate how they might be resolved. --Deskford (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I doubt if the assessor read the article or this talk page or will ever be back. Biography Project likes drive by tagging based purely on article length.  FWIW, there are no photos of Nucella.  I'll cut the Composers C assessment so they can reassess, but there's no point in removing the "C" for biography; someone will just put it back.  It's one of the main reasons I rarely contribute WP articles -- the annoyance of having someone who knows nothing about the topic slapping a "C" on largely complete work.  They'll probably say that experts should be consulted (though they all were already) we should include a photo of Strasbourg or something equally irrelevant to the article.  Another article I wrote wouldn't pass an assessment until a photo of a cathedral built three centuries later was added.  I've tried just to let go.  -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to think that it is best to put some rating on articles until some expert comes along to fix it, but I am happy to remove it.--Grahame (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've re-rated with my opinion in the edit summary. The article was written by a topic expert, and it certainly looks like a good article to me. Antandrus  (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Antandrus. That seems a fairer assessment. I don't normally pay much attention to these quality scale tags, but in this case the original assessment seemed way off the mark. A very nice article Myke - always good to read about a composer I'd never heard of before! --Deskford (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Antandrus. Grahamec -- I do appreciate your efforts to improve the encyclopedia, but I disagree with assessing without knowledge of the subject for the sake of assessing except in the case of some very pressing issues (BLP etc.); I think that Wikipedia rightly avoids a policy that inaccurate information is better than none.  Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Default sort
I reverted the addition of a default sorting as "Campli, Nicolaus Ricii de Nucella" because I'm pretty sure this is inappropriate – Campli was not his surname. I'm not sure how he should be sorted though. Any ideas or opinions? --Deskford (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Either as Nicolaus (hence no sort needed) or as Nucella Campli, Nicolaus Ricii de, but better as the former. See Di Bacco/Nádas article. Definitely not Campli. :-) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination
Thanks for working on this article, but I'm not sure there is enough content to bring this to GA level. It's just so sparse, for reasons outside of anyone's control, I would have trouble calling the coverage "broad". I'm not saying this as a reviewer, merely giving my opinion. Hekerui (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay -- I figured that since this is 100% of the information that exists about the composer, this would be pretty broad. :-) but I like your tone in rejecting it. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)