Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Of Human Feelings/archive1


 * 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 not promoted by User:GrahamColm 10:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC).

Of Human Feelings

 * Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets FA criteria--well-written, properly sourced, reasonably illustrated (with appropriate rationale), and as comprehensive as possible of the article's topic. Dan56 (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I am seconding the nomination. This article is carefully written and thoroughly documented.Dogru144 (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Media check by GermanJoe
Media check - all OK (fair-use, Flickr CC). Sources and authors provided.
 * Fair-use of infobox image and sound-sample is OK and of appropriate resolution/length.
 * Flickr images show no signs of problems - OK.
 * File:Ornette_at_The_Forum_1982.jpg - Personality rights tag added, just as info. - OK.
 * 1 quick comment about refs: Full ref "Giddins (2000)" is apparently not used for citations. If not used, it should be removed or moved to "Further reading". GermanJoe (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed it; was not at all relevant. Dan56 (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Wikipedian Penguin

 * No need to link New York City.
 * "It was well received by music critics, who found the music expressive and praised Coleman's harmolodic approach."&mdash;remove the first instance of "music"; redundant and repetitive.
 * "By the mid 1970s, Ornette Coleman had stopped recording free jazz with acoustic ensembles and sought to recruit electric instrumentalists for music based in a creative theory he developed called harmolodics."&mdash;a comma after "music" would be great.
 * "...first recorded with Prime Time in 1975 on the album Body Meta..."&mdash;"on" should be "for". You record for an album.
 * "However, it was ultimately rejected because of mechanical problems with the recording apparatus."&mdash;"however" is unneeded IMO.
 * "...and the other guitarist and drummer were entirely committed to a composition's rhythm."&mdash;"entirely" is redundant.
 * There is some musical jargon in Composition that makes it hard to understand some parts (eg. melody contingent, variants, transfigured). Could this be clarified somehow?
 * "The album featured shorter and more differentiated compositions than Dancing in Your Head"&mdash;"features"
 * "'What Is the Name to This Song?' was titled as a sly reference to two of his older compositions, 'Love Eyes" and "Forgotten Songs'..."&mdash;not sure I get it. Reference to the lyrics in the two songs?
 * "The latter theme, originally from Coleman's 1972 album Skies of America, was used as a refrain."&mdash;not sure what "latter" refers to here.
 * More to come. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  12:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Changes made; "contingent", "variants", and "transfigured" arent musical terms/jargon. The reference to "Love Eyes" and "Forgotten Songs" is explained in "...whose themes were played concurrently and transfigured by Prime Time." (hence 'what is the name to this song', as the source explained) Dan56 (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "The album's clean mix and relatively short tracks were interpreted as an attempt for radio airplay by Mandel, who described..."&mdash;I'd write this in active voice and replace "who described" with "describing".
 * "Robert Christgau, writing in The Village Voice, gave it an 'A+' and claimed that it offers listeners enough release from tension to confound 'mind-body dualism'."&mdash;this needs immediate inline citation because it incorporates quotations.
 * Per WP:QUOTE, avoid linking inside quotations.
 * "According to Joshua Klein of The A.V. Club, Of Human Feelings is the best starting point for listeners to explore Coleman's theory of harmolodics."&mdash;"starting point" sounds rather colloquial. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  20:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Changes made; where specifically does WP:QUOTE mention linking? Dan56 (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * IMHO, the active voice would seem repetitive since the preceding sentence uses it. And wouldn't "describing" be a present participle? Dan56 (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant MOS:QUOTE. If you're not writing out the sentence in active voice, you can ignore the "describing" thing since that would refer to the subject of the article. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  22:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I paraphrased that term so that it could still be linked; most readers will likely be unfamiliar with the concept. Dan56 (talk) 06:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Source review by Nikkimaria and comment by Tomica
Source review - spotchecks not done. Which Long Beach for FN40? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * California, specified.

Dan56 (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support; on prose, references and images. The article looks complete and the reading is flawless. Good job! — Tomíca (T2ME) 20:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments by EddieHugh

 * "Jazz critics viewed that Coleman". Is 'X viewed that Y' natural English? Sounds odd to me.
 * Similar use/phrasing here for instance. Don't know how else to address it. Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * They're not for "viewed that", though. "[Person] viewed that he" or "[Person] viewed that she" do not occur in the 450-million-word Corpus of Contemporary American English, or the British National Corpus, for instance. Use 'suggested' / 'indicated' / 'observed' / or similar to make it more natural. EddieHugh (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I still don't see why it sounds odd, or at least any less odd than "suggested" or "indicated". Dan56 (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's odd by definition if the constituent words are common but the phrase is never/hardly ever used. EddieHugh (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "instrumentalists for music". Should be 'for his music'?
 * "instrumentalists for music based in..."; previous comments recommended a comma between "music" and "based". Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Add 'his', clarifying that he wasn't recruiting for music generally? EddieHugh (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "he wanted the music to be successful rather than himself". Smoother as 'he wanted the music, rather than himself, to be successful'?
 * Not done? EddieHugh (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that's smoother. Is there an issue of correct grammar? Dan56 (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The structure 'wanted the music to be [adjective] rather than [X]' sets the reader to expect X to be another adjective. In its current form, the reader expects a contrast between "successful" and another descriptor of the music; the form I propose establishes a contrast between "the music" and "himself", leaving the descriptor for the end. EddieHugh (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "They included guitarists". 'Included' clashes with 'quartet', as the list contains four names, which implies that all of them are stated. PT had various numbers at various times, so drop 'quartet' or justify listing these four?
 * Changed to "comprised". Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "It was recorded with a Sony PCM-1600 [...] and few added effects". Need another verb before "few", as "recorded" doesn't quite fit.
 * "recorded with ... few added effects" seems grammatically correct. Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "Ellerbee applied linear counterpoint with an accent". I'm not afraid to say that I don't know what that means. Maybe it's "an" that does it: doesn't "an accent" imply that only one note was accented?
 * Please check the source (all in the article are technically online sources since I don't have physical access to any of the "print" sources); "Ellerbee applies linear counterpoint with...". Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. "with a Hendrixian accent" indicates that "accent" is like 'style' or 'dialect' (of Hendrix), instead of being musical accentuation. Cutting "with an accent" is simplest. EddieHugh (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How so? The writer didn't use any of those words. Dan56 (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The alternative is hard to imagine: what would 'counterpoint with Hendrixian accented notes' be? It would need an explanation if kept here. EddieHugh (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "neither extremely loud or soft". More conventionally, "neither extremely loud nor extremely soft"?
 * "live concerts". Aren't concerts always live?
 * "whose themes were played concurrently and transfigured by Prime Time. The theme from "Forgotten Songs" [...] was used as a refrain." So the two themes were concurrent for a time and then only FS continued into the refrain?
 * Neither statement suggests chronology. Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "The atonal "Times Square" has futuristic dance themes, "Jump Street" is a blues piece with a bridge, and "Air Ship". Using same sequence as in sentence 2 of the para would aid reading.
 * Do you mean like "[song titles] have futuristic dance themes, is a blues piece with... respectively"? Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I mean '"Air Ship" comprises a six-bar riff, the atonal "Times Square" has futuristic dance themes, and "Jump Street" is a blues piece with a bridge.' That keeps the Air Ship Times Square sequence from the earlier sentence. It's less mental jumping for the reader to do. EddieHugh (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Is nothing available on "Him and Her" or "Job Mob"?
 * I don't think so. Is it pertinent? Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "with the televised NHK Symphony Orchestra". What does "televised" mean here? They had been televised at some point/they were for this performance (but Coleman wasn't)?
 * It means they're shown on television. Again, I don't think any reader will read that much into the adjective. Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As NHK is the national broadcaster, the orchestra having been on television can be assumed, so "televised" adds nothing. EddieHugh (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Are most readers likely to assume that. Dan56 (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Describing an orchestra as "televised" doesn't give the reader any info that's relevant to this article. EddieHugh (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "According to jazz writer Francis Davis". When?
 * When what? Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (When did he write that?) Just stating that Davis' comment was about the album/that time in OC's career would clarify, as it's not mentioned in that opening sentence, which contains "imminent" but no indicator of time. EddieHugh (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that's relevant or what exactly needs clarifying; if anything, writing something like "according to jazz writer Francis Davis in 1986" makes for an awkward/tacky read; the preceding section ended with "Of Human Feelings was released in 1982 on Island's jazz subsidiary label Antilles Records." The entire article's narrative is chronological. Dan56 (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks; that's fine. EddieHugh (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "by critics Gary Giddins, and Greg Kot". Is the comma needed?
 * Citation markers are normally placed after punctuation (WP:CITEFOOT). Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * MoS has an example without punctuation. EddieHugh (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Those examples are of the exceptions, which according to WP:REFPUNC are for before dashes and closing parenthesis. Dan56 (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The first example is not an exception, and appears after no punctuation, so unless the comma is required for meaning, it can go. EddieHugh (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "said that he would rate". Clearer as "said that he rated", unless he didn't?
 * He didn't give a rating in the album. Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "Coleman did not record another album for six years". Infobox has 1983 as next recording.
 * This album was recorded in 1979; corrected the next album year as '85. Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "his glossy style of avant-garde jazz". "avant-garde" appears nowhere else, so a source for this is advisable, especially as it clashes with the jazz-funk drift of the rest.
 * As with everything in this article, the statement is sourced (footnote [4]). Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "it made the most sense out of Coleman's harmolodic theory". I can't access the original, so just want to check that that is what is stated, rather than 'it made the most sense out of any recordings based on Coleman's harmolodic theory', or something similar.
 * "the composer's 'harmolodic' theory has never made more sense." Dan56 (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "New York's sceneless, yet vital jazz in". Needs to lose or gain one comma.
 * WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide recommends avoiding roles in Personnel, meaning "producer" → 'production', etc.
 * "5."What is the Name of That Song?" " Capital letter for verbs.
 * "What Is the Name to This Song?" is in Songs; "What is the Name of That Song?" is in Track listing, which leads to the obvious question.EddieHugh (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL! Dan56 (talk)
 * Still different! "of" / "to". EddieHugh (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Changes made, other points commented on above. Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Indented & signed follow-up comments are above; other things are fine. EddieHugh (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * C/e again. Others commented on above. Dan56 (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * More comments on outstanding points are above, signed and with reduced indenting. EddieHugh (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Basically did all the other corrections (pardon me for missing others b4, been online infrequently), but the "accent" one; I don't think it suggests only one note was played. The observation may be that there is an accented note in the instrumentalist's playing. Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem; thanks for your work. I see your point on "accent". Would "applied accented linear counterpoint" work? This is my only comment this time. EddieHugh (talk) 09:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That doesn't seem objectionable. Sure, as long as no one raises WP:SEAOFBLUE. Done. Dan56 (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Support. All of my comments have been dealt with. EddieHugh (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Quadell
Oppose. It pains me to oppose, since this article is complete, well organized, and admirably balanced. But it has systemic issues with close paraphrasing. Here are some examples that I was able to find.
 * 2: "[The essence of Harmolotics] is that all the players in a group can contribute independent melodies, even in different keys, and still make their parts cohere into an organic whole" vs. "all the players are able to contribute independent melodies in any key, but still make their parts cohere as a whole"
 * 2: "the compositions were shorter and more differentiated" vs. "The album features shorter and more differentiated compositions"
 * 4: "Tacuma was recruited by Coleman while still in high school" vs. "Tacuma, who had been recruited by Coleman while still in high school"
 * 4: "[Tacuma created] a glossy version of the avant-garde. [... He] was widely regarded as one of the most distinctive bassists to arrive in jazz since Jaco Pastorus" vs. "After showcasing his glossy style of avant-garde jazz on the album, Tacuma became widely regarded as one of the most unique bassists since Jaco Pastorius."
 * 4: "With his own band [...] he retained the complex verticle structures of Prime Time but framed them within commercially accessible melodies with engaging hooks" vs. "He subsequently formed his own band and recorded albums that used Prime Time's complex, vacillating structures, but composed them with commercially accessible melodies and hooks"
 * 8: "This session went off without any technical difficulties" vs. "Of Human Feelings was recorded without any technical difficulties"
 * 13: "Of Human Feelings which explored 'funk-jazz', a development dating from about 1970 features of which incl. a repetitive bass line, a hint of Latin rhythms, and complex rhythmic relationships" vs. "Of Human Feelings explores jazz-funk, a musical development that originated in 1970 and is characterized by repetitive bass lines, elements of Latin rhythms, and complex rhythmic relationships."
 * 15: "albeit regrouped around a funky backbeat" vs. "albeit reappropriated around a funky backbeat"
 * 21: "suspicions of negotiating with the white music establishment" vs. "suspicions of negotiating with a predominantly White music establishment"

I believe there are probably many other such instances, but I don't have access to any of the print sources so I can't be 100% sure. I want to stress that I don't think anyone was acting maliciously or in bad faith. I am sympathetic to the difficulties of accurately providing information from a source while still changing the wording enough, especially when it comes to discussions of musical styles... but I still think some of the examples I found are too close to be acceptable in a featured article. I'm more concerned about the examples I didn't find, due to my lack of access to written sources. Someone with access to all the written sources (the nominator, presumably) should go through each statement and ensure that the wording in the article borrows as little wording from the sources as possible, while still accurately providing the source's information. If that's done, I'd be glad to reassess. – Quadell (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Revised the above. All sources were accessed online; the more difficult-to-access and stingy sources required Google search engine trickery. I don't have physical access to any of the sources or any specialized permission such as for sources behind a paywall; all can be found one way or another online and if needed, I can transcribe a requested source/page to verify by playing around with the search engine once more. Dan56 (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * ...well? Dan56 (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * More than half of the sources, I was unable to check online. Either Amazon and Google had no preview available (e.g. Larkin), or the snippet view did not cover the given pages (e.g. Giddins p. 241), and a search did not reveal enough information for me to verify that the statement was backed up by the source without plagiarism. I appreciate the improvements you've made to the article avoid close paraphrasing in the cases I found. I just can't be sure that the issue is truly resolved until someone goes through with adequate access to the sources. – Quadell (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you (Quadell) list which ones you have not been able to check? It's very fiddly, but a lot can be accessed – here's the Larkin, for instance. Some people may have access to hard copies, so if you could give the list, a collective effort should be able to check everything by listing any parts that are similar to the article's phrasing, as you did above. EddieHugh (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The list is, literally, all of them in the article. There are 15 sources in the bibliography, used in 48 footnotes, and I was able to find actionable problems in 9 of them. That's enough to indicate a systemic problem. (There were additionally roughly 9 statements that I was able to confirm were supported by the sources without plagiarism -- but I don't remember which ones. Sorry.)
 * Close-paraphrasing issues are very difficult to check and resolve, and they often go undetected in articles for years. It's a serious problem that could do damage to Wikipedia's reputation and possibly lead to liability concerns. (In my opinion, it's way more of a serious concern than dash issues or source alphabetization or other things people usually check for in FACs.) When systemic issues are present (as in the present candidate) I personally will not be satisfied that the problem has been resolved until someone checks every statement where close paraphrasing might be present. – Quadell (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Nine out of forty-eight is "systematic"? A few of which you're nitpicking, since some musical phrases and terms are unique enough to just use. Perhaps you can request the citations for the material that isnt related to music theory terms or phrases? All the sources are accessible online; if you're having a problem finding something in particular, perhaps you can tell me which ones? I found it online once before, I can do it again if you'd like. I definitely don't recall there being many that were even difficult to access. Dan56 (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.