Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Of Human Feelings/archive5


 * 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 Graham Colm (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2014 (diff).

Of Human Feelings

 * Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman. I attempted to address the previous FAC's concern about close paraphrasing by soliciting another reviewer. I've also cleaned up the references for a consistent citation format/style and copy-edited/rewrote some parts. Dan56 (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from DISEman
Overall I find this a well written, comprehensive, well-researched, referenced and structured article worthy of a Featured Article but there are a few (minor) points that may improve it further:
 * The statement under Recording that "According to him, Of Human Feelings was the first digitally recorded jazz album in the United States" may be true but there may be more details- a quick check of Litweiler, p. 152 states "It was the first time an American label [i.e. CBS] had recorded a digital album in New York, and it made front-page news in Billboard. here is the Billboard front page. Also Litweiler, pg. 153 supports the statement under Release and promotion that "A few weeks after the album was recorded, Mwanga went to Japan to complete arrangements for it to be issued as a Phrase Text release by Trio Records, who had previously released a compilation of Coleman's 1966 to 1971 live performances in Paris".
 * Done. Dan56 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Critical reception is excellent using the contemporary reviews - I added one from Rolling Stone but the ref may need some editing to fit the article. Any reason for avoiding the rating template?
 * I've revised and moved the Rolling Stone quote so that it stays in-topic with the rest. That template is optional and didn't seem to suit this article IMO--only Christgau (The Village Voice), Yanow (AllMusic) in a retrospective review, and now Morrison (Rolling Stone) rated the album, and their ratings have been easily worked into the prose, so the template would only be reiterating a few ratings. Dan56 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

All in all you have my Support DISEman (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Support. Article is well-balanced both in structure and content, sources cited seem reliable and plentiful. Friginator (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Semitransgenic

 * Comment for a featured article, citing anonymous record reviews directly is not ideal, would prefer to see such content replaced with secondary source citations that make the observations the editor is drawing our attention to. Also, saying how something charted and then citing the chart as a source could be viewed as OR. Otherwise, aside from those minor points, looks OK to me. Semitransgenic  talk. 10:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the line "...had no success on the American pop charts", ? Because that's attributed to a source that says this. Also, all the reviews cited in #Critical reception include the names of critics/authors of the reviews. Do you mean you'd prefer that there was a book that summarized the reviews itself? Citing reviews directly, however, is the most common practice in WP:ALBUMS articles, and there is a project page dedicated to such sources being cited (WP:ALBUM/SOURCE). Dan56 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Froglich
Oppose This article, while by no means bad, fails at present to (IMO) maintain good criteria. Quibbles: 1) While the article is indeed comprehensive (it's obvious that fans have poured in a lot of effort) it is arguably excessively so given the minimal notability of its subject (a poor-selling album by a musician with five dozen other works, many of which are demonstrably far more noteworthy (e.g., The Shape of Jazz to Come being inducted into the Library of Congress, etc) yet possessing small article size relative to this one. Featured status is generally granted to well-written articles in topics of widespread interest; 2) no references in the lead; 3) grammar and sentence construction less than optimal (e.g., absence of parenthesizing where appropriate, poor deployment of commas and semi-colons, etc); -- My advice is to tighten up the article to hang onto good status -- and be glad you have that in the first place.--Froglich (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * , 1) What "fans"? I'm the only editor who has contributed to this article, which was this before I started working on it. It is based entirely on what reliable secondary sources have written about it--significant coverage establishes notability (WP:SIGCOV), not popular interest. And the majority of the coverage cited here is from high-quality book and journal sources, who've decided it warranted this much coverage, otherwise they wouldn't have written so "excessively" about it. And although I get where you're coming from, "widespread interest" has nothing to do with the FA criteria (WP:FACR), so personal opinions on its notability in relation to other articles shouldn't be a factor in your assessment, only the points listed at WP:FACR. There are top-importance articles that garner the attention of certain editors, and there are articles like this, which I chose simply because the album interested me at the time, as it often the case with FAs--their importance varies and isn't exclusive to top or high-importance articles. 2) If what's written in the lead is written and cited in the body, citations are redundant in the lead (WP:LEADCITE) 3) semicolons before conjunctions like and is an unnecessary, outdated practice I don't see the reasoning behind this addition/revision with parenthesizing, which deemphasized the line about critical praise, used "featuring"--a present participle--in the first paragraph, and linked "harmolodic" (which is already linked in the first paragraph). Dan56 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If you've been told that the rules of English grammar regarding sentence composition and punctuation are in some state of flux at present, you are have been led astray. (Grammar-monster at the vanguard of slovenliness does not impress those of us who know what we're doing.)--Froglich (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There's no need to sound uppity about this, or refrain from backing up your argument with anything saying otherwise. My point was your change was unnecessary, as Geraldine Woods brings up in Wiley AP English Language and Composition. Preferential grammar changes aren't necessary. Dan56 (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Believe what you want. Reality will intrude soon enough to spank all those bad commas.--Froglich (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * While I understand this article is your labor-of-love, that has no bearing on whether or not it is ultimately worthy of Featured status -- being informative and well-written are not the sole requirements. Only 0.1% of Wikipedia articles acquire Featured status. For example, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is a Featured article, yet neither the preceding nor succeeding Beatles album articles are accorded even Good status despite being written in the same format with the same arrangement and depth of information. I would guess Pepper is Featured because it contains A Day in the Life, which tops some industry lists as the greatest pop/rock song of all time. In other words, it is immensely notable as one of it not the most famous song by one of if not the most famous bands in history. -- If any article concerning Ornette Coleman becomes Featured, it will likely be the one concerning his album or single with the most significant historical resonance.--Froglich (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you have the wrong impression of the GA and FA processes, and I don't see the relevance of other stuff existing when several other low-importance album articles have been promoted to FA status, including Confusion (album) (one of mine) and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded. If this irks you, then you can choose to abstain from reviewing, but what you're arguing isn't an "actionable objection" and isn't benefiting the review process in any way, to better the article for FA purposes. Please read WP:FACR--the level of importance of the article's topic is not part of the criteria. I'm beginning to feel there's an issue of understanding WP guidelines (WP:CIR) when you've overlooked the criteria page and basic MOS guidelines in your edit to the lead. , am I missing something? Dan56 (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't have time for a long reply now but it's quite correct that the perceived 'importance' of a subject has nothing to do with its potential to become a Featured Article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Potential" is arbitrary wishing-for-ponies; I referenced an actual Featured article. Dan brings up two more (which shoot down his own notability-is-unnecessary argument: Confusion (on at least one Best 100 Album lists) and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded (which had two Grammy nominations) are considerably more successful and influential than Of Human Feelings. To reiterated a previously made point to Dan56, he should concentrate on improving the article concerning Coleman's best known and critically acclaimed work, or that of Coleman himself.--Froglich (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , this reviewer's obstinacy and lack of competency are becoming an issue, as are his smug responses to every point I make in response to his arguments, which unlike mine, cite nothing to back up his claims. Disregard his review, because there are no actionable objections. Dan56 (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And yet it was your bright idea to bring me in here, wasn't it? (Competence: having the brains necessary to realize that I wouldn't immediately club you with that upon the first hint of fallacious argumentum ad hominem.)--Froglich (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, you're using your personal definitions of Wikipedia guidelines and criteria. I attempted to randomly solicit reviews, rather than dubiously canvass editors I'm familiar with, whom I'd expect to be competent and have a grasp of those guidelines and criteria. You've been told by an FAC delegate that "importance" has nothing to do with the criteria, yet you continue to impose your personal criteria. How do you respond? By canvassing a retired editor you know opposed this article's previous FAC Your review is losing more and more weight. Dan56 (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you care to wager on whether or not he still dislikes it?--Froglich (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The ridiculousness of at least two of this reviewer's concerns for opposing was established at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates. Dan56 (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Hamiltonstone

 * Generally excellent
 * In the 'critical reception' section, there are some words and phrases that sound like they could be quotes and if not, are perhaps not quite neutral / encyclopedic: eg "compositions that are clearly expressed and occasionally timeless"; "displays expressive immediacy rather than superficial technical flair"; "encompassing of a century of creative development in African-American music". It would be good if those offline sources were checked.


 * The first one is a paraphrase of this. The second is a paraphrase of "the emphasis is never on virtuoso pyrotechnics for their own sake, or in empty stylistic phrase mongering. In every composition there is a synergy of thought and feeling that communicates instantly." The last one is a paraphrase of "The music literally pours out of this ensemble in strains of melody and rhythm that sums up the last 100 years of creative development in Afro-American music." I don't think neutrality matters when the words/paraphrase are attributed to a source in the prose, eg. "Natambu of the Detroit Metro Times said" what would otherwise not be neutral if in Wikipedia's words. Dan56 (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked one of the three; the others look OK. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The present tense here strongly suggests it is a quote: "his more knowledgeable friends have found Of Human Feelings to be the best of the three albums..."
 * Present tense? Isnt "have found" past? Dan56 (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be "his more knowledgeable friends found..." but i realise i haven't used the right term - i'm nota grammar expert - but this phrase has him talking about the present - it sounds like a quote from a reporter of the period. Anyway, if it isn't a quote, then it isn't a quote... hamiltonstone (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Subject to these checks, i'm a support on prose, structure, comprehensiveness and referencing. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment from BananaLanguage
The third and fourth FAC reviews for this article were closed after a reviewer noticed what they perceived to be plagiarism. It is not clear to me that the nominator's attempts to address these accusations are sufficient because the types of close-paraphrasing that caused concern in the third review are quite different from simple lexical substitution. BananaLanguage (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * , I asked for an independent review (as requested in the previous FAC) from an experienced editor and significantly revised several parts of the article (many of which were unnecessary, but I did it anyway just in case anyone is still anal about it just because there were a some examples--and no more since--brought up by one or two editors in the past FAC). I did mention these revisions at the top of this FAC, if you didn't notice? In the above comment from, I showed relevant portions of print sources to prove to the reviewer they were paraphrased properly. If your concern is based in something you can prove, then bring it up. Otherwise, I don't know exactly what you expect. Your comment doesn't seem to suggest anything practical. Dan56 (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * One practical option would be to invite and  to randomly, or closely, inspect the article to check for too-close paraphrasing. BananaLanguage (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * , both retired not too long ago (User talk:GabeMc, User talk:Laser brain). And the burden would still be on me to dig up the sources I had originally found and write the relevant portions out for whoever is reviewing, which I demonstrated in the third FAC with at least one review in its entirety (the Detroit Metro-Times review), as well as the three that hamiltonstone asked about above. I've offered before to transcribe the relevant portions . The crux of this is whether these concerns or perception of close paraphrasing are yours, not theirs, and why, and also whether all these revisions since have made any difference in your opinion. Dan56 (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy requires that we assume good faith, however, this is proving difficult because you have a history   of close-paraphrasing sources. I think, in this case, it would be helpful if you could provide access to as many of the materials as possible, to help the community ensure this article is free of plagiarism. BananaLanguage (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * , I don't have a history--you're citing what was an on-going dispute between I and GabeMc at Are You Experienced and at this article's past FAC again. As far as what sources I could "provide", I obviously could transcribe them all, but you don't expect me to do that, do you? I revised much of this article since that FAC you're bringing up, so perhaps you could request certain print sources citing the material that appears "untouched" or unrevised since that time. This is the diff between January when the last FAC happened and now. Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it would benefit this FAC review if you could provide the surrounding paragraph of text for all the sources marked as subscription required. BananaLanguage (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Those four sources marked "subscription required" are news sources behind a paywall. Unfortunately I cannot access those anymore, because I had found them through Google News Archive and its search result previews (rather than actually having a registered account for Newsbank); Google News Archive was shut down in December of last year (Google_News_Archive), after I had written the bulk of the article last Fall. Certain book sources cited in this article, however, can still be accessed (to an extent) without a paywall of any sort, either through GoogleBooks' previews or Amazon.com's preview. Dan56 (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In that case, I can take a trip to the nearby deposit library and use their resources to do this for you. The time-frame I propose to complete this task is 15 days, due to other real-life commitments . BananaLanguage (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * n.p. go for it. Dan56 (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. I am drawn to oppose this article per GAC Immediate Failure 3: "It contains copyright infringements.": see the discussion in Ref 7 and Ref 17 for an explanation of this conclusion. Furthermore, it does not meet FAC 1c) because refs 10, 17, and 22 are not found in the source text.

I planned to review the four sources marked as (subscription required) but the local deposit library does not have a subscription to back-issues of U.S. newspapers. Instead, I picked six books at random from the sources list and reviewed these. I used the guidelines in WP:PARAPHRASE and WP:COPYVIO while preparing this list. The surrounding source text is included to allow more experience FAC reviewers to make judgements about my interpretations of the source / article texts.

A concerted effort by the nominator to show the article contains appropriately sourced and paraphrased text would help this article to be reconsidered for Feature Article status. As it stands, I have no confidence that the remaining sources have been used without copyright or paraphrase violations.


 * , I fixed/addressed the concerns below, and added my own list of sources checked. Dan56 (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * , thanks for taking care of the close-paraphrasing and copyright violations, and for adding a few more checks of your own. It looks like you identified yet another case of copyright violation in Ref 6 Mandel, which leads me to concern that there may be even more violations throughout the remaining reference materials.


 * I am not in a position to individually verify each source, and even if I was it would take too much time for this to happen in the current review. Recommending a resubmission after you have performed due-dilligence on the sources. 22 days ago you were sure the revisions you had made would have removed any close-paraphrasing issues, and that turned out not to be the case. BananaLanguage (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Ref 4, Nicholson, 1998
a, p.313) Tacuma was recruited by Coleman while still in high school, and after his playing on Of Human Feelings he was widely regarded as one of the most distinctive bassists to arrive in jazz since Jaco Pastorius.

Tacuma, who was still in high school when he was enlisted by Coleman,[4]


 * No issues here.

b, p.313) With his own band largely made up of musicians from his home town of Philadelphia, he retained the complex vertical structures of Prime Time but framed them within commercially accessible melodies and engaging hooks.

He subsequently formed his own group and recorded albums that used Prime Time's complex vertical compositions, but composed them with more commercial hooks and melodic themes.[4]


 * Close-paraphrasing issues: "complex vertical structures" versus "complex vertical compositions"; and "commercially accessible melodies and engaging hooks" versus "commercial hooks and melodic themes".


 * Revised. Dan56 (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ref 7, Litweiler 1992
p170 a: actually on p.152.) In March, 1979 Ornette brought Prime Time - the name he was consistently applying to his band by then - into RCA's New York recording studios to make a direct-to-disc album for Artists House, but mechanical problems with the recording apparatus made the session a waste of time and energy.

In March 1979, Coleman went to RCA Records' New York studio and attempted to produce an album with Prime Time by direct-to-disc recording. However, they encountered mechanical problems with the studio equipment, and their recording was ultimately rejected.


 * No issue here.

b: actually on p.152.) Ornette wanted to set up his own record company, Phrase Text, named after his music-publishing company, and Mwanga set up a Phrase Text session at CBS Studios, with ninteen-year-old Calvin Weston replacing Ronald Shannon Jackson as Denardo's drum partner.

For the album, Prime Time's original drummer Ronald Shannon Jackson was replaced by Calvin Weston as Denardo Coleman's drum partner.[8]


 * Close-paraphrasing issue. Swapping the order of the musicians does not constitute putting it into one's own words.

c, actually on p.153) The drummers continue to accent strong beats and play marching-drum patterns; the two guitars remain background instruments while Ornette's alto solos and Tacuna's busy electric-bass responses are the foreground; if anything, Tacuma is more virtuosic than before, with nonstop lines virtually always in his highest ranges.

Coleman and Tacuma's instrumental responses were played as the foreground to the less prominent guitars.[8]


 * No issues here.

d, p.152-153) This session went off without any technical difficulties, and only a few weeks later Mwanga was in Japan completing arrangements to issue the album on the Phrase Text label, by Trio Records, whose previous jazz albums included a collection of Ornette Coleman performances in Paris in 1966 and 1971. While in Japan Mwanga also arranged for Ornette to perform Skies of of American with the NHK Symphony Orchestra, Japan's equivalent of the BBC Symphony and French National Radio-Television orchestras. In fact, Mwanga had delivered the record stamper to Trio and production was ready to begin on the album - but "When I came back from Japan, Ornette cancelled the agreements," says Mwanga. With that, Mwanga resigned; he had worked for Ornette for only four months.

A few weeks after the album was recorded, Mwanga went to Japan to complete arrangements for it to be issued as a Phrase Text release by Trio Records, who had previously released a compilation of Coleman's 1966 to 1971 live performances in Paris. He delivered the record stamper to Trio, who were ready to start production. While in Japan, Mwanga also arranged for Coleman to perform his song "Skies of America" with the NHK Symphony Orchestra. However, according to him, Coleman cancelled both deals upon his return from Japan. Mwanga immediately resigned after only less than four months as Coleman's manager.[8]


 * Copyright violation by lifting a paragraph from the source and barely rewording it.


 * Revised close-paraphrasing issue and entirety of the paragraph above. Dan56 (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The revised version of the copyright violating paragraph now understates the efforts of Mwanga: the revised version does not mention that Mwanga was responsible for arranging the performance of Skies of America. BananaLanguage (talk) 09:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Should it? Dan56 (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You seemed to think so when you originally violated copyright to include the content. BananaLanguage (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Ref 10, Litweiler 1992, p. 170
''We recorded all the pieces only once, so all the numbers were first takes. And there was no mixing. It is almost exactly as we played it.''


 * Not in the source text.


 * Yes, it is. (Wilson|1999|p=207) Dan56 (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * But it is not found in Litweiler 1992, p.170, which is what the references claim. BananaLanguage (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No,, the bundled citation ([10]) refers both to Litweiler 1992, p. 170 for the first half and Wilson 1999, p. 207 for the quote. Dan56 (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Ref 13, Harrison et. al 2000, p573

 * This quote is directly attributed to New York Times, 24 June 1981.

Ref 17, McRae & Middleton
a, b, c: p.67-68) It was as if Coleman was translating the concept of the famous double quartet of Free Jazz to the needs of Funk jazz. Coleman remained in control of the melody line, while Tacuma vacillated between supporting two strata beneath. One comprised a 'melody' support team of guitar and drums, while the other became a totally committed rhythm team, also of guitar and drums. The interaction was constant and, just as Coleman could take directional hints, there were times when it was he who changed tonalities, with the others modulating as required.

According to jazz critic Barry McRae, "it was as if Coleman was translating the concept of the famous double quartet" from his 1961 album Free Jazz to "the needs of funk jazz".[17] ... Coleman played the melody lines and employed two guitarists for contrast, as one part of the band comprised a melody contingent of guitar and drums, and the other guitarist and drummer were committed to a song's rhythm.[17] ... Coleman and Prime Time exchanged directional hints throughout the songs, as one player changed tonality and the others modulated accordingly.[17]


 * Close-paraphrasing issue, bordering on a direct copyright violation. It looks like this paragraph has been lifted and then reworded to make it look like one's own words.

d, p.67) In 1979, he recorded the album, Of Human Feelings, for the Antilles wing of Island Records and it was destined to be his last for some time.

, and Of Human Feelings was released in 1982 on Island's subsidiary jazz label Antilles Records.[17]


 * Not supported by the source at this location.


 * Revised paragraph lines attributed to [17] and added Davis source; [17] was cited to verify "jazz label" characterization. Dan56 (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ref 18, Giddins, 1985
Giddins, 1985 p.241) With Of Human Feelings (1979, released 1982), Coleman drew on his rhythm and blues days and, without compromising his own quartertone pitch, his affection for gusty lamentations, and those jarring keys, revived classic structures ("Jump Street" is a blues with a bridge) and countable time.

Coleman also drew on the rhythm and blues he had played early his career and incorporated traditional structures and rhythms. [18]


 * Close-paraphrasing issue: the first half of the sentence is lifted almost verbatim from the source.


 * Revised, rearranged. Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ref 21, Davis 1986
a, p.143; b, p.143) Nonetheless, a modest commerical breakthrough seemend immiment in 1981, when he signed with Island Recrods and named Stan and Sid Berstein as his managers (the latter a promoter who brough the Beatles to Shea Stadium in 1965).

In 1981, Coleman hired Stan and Sid Bernstein as his managers,[21] who sold the album's recording tapes to Island Records.[22] He signed with the record label that year,[21] and Of Human Feelings was released in 1982 on Island's subsidiary jazz label Antilles Records.[17]


 * No issues.

c, p.143; d, p.143) "Nothing is simple for Ornette when it comes to money," says Stan Bernstein. "He made demans that are unrealistic in this business unless you're Michael Jackson". According to Coleman, "my managers sold Of Human Feelings, which was the first digital jazz album recorded in the U.S., for less money than it had cost me to make it, and I never saw a penny of the royalties. Coleman was paid $25,000 for the rights to Of Human Feelings, "not a terrific sum but not a modest sum, either, for a jazz artist," according to Ron Goldstein, who was at that time in charge of Antilles, Island's jazz custom label.

According to Coleman, his managers sold Of Human Feelings for less money than it had cost him to record, and he "never saw a penny of the royalties".[21] Stan Bernstein claimed that Coleman made financial demands that were "unrealistic in this business unless you're Michael Jackson".[21] Coleman was paid $25,000 for the publishing rights to the album, which Antilles label executive Ron Goldstein said was neither a "terrific" nor "modest sum" for a jazz artist.[43]


 * Possible close-paraphrasing issues over the course of a large block of text


 * Revised and rearranged. Dan56 (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ref 22, Davis 1986, p. 142-143
According to jazz writer Francis Davis, "a modest commercial breakthrough seemed imminent" for Coleman, whose celebrity appeared to be "on the rise again".[23]


 * Not found in the source at this location.


 * Yes, it is (Davis|1986|p=143). Dan56 (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * My bad, I had forgotten that Davis was the author of the book. BananaLanguage (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Ref 26, McRae & Middleton
p.68 a) Yet, for all its potential commerciality, Prime Time's music made no impact on the American hit parade.

Despite its commercial potential, Of Human Feelings had no success on the American pop charts.[26]


 * No issues here.

b) Steve Lake suggested (The Wire, September 1985) that 'the 1984 disco-fied version of Dancing In Your Head that appeared on Jamaaladeen Tacuma's Renaissance Man offered a tantalising glimpse into how Ornette might sound if he opted more directly for the funk market'. Of Human Feelings offered only a funk/jazz compromise and, as such, satisfied nobody.

According to Steve Lake of The Wire, the album offered only a "funk/jazz compromise" to consumers and consequently appealed to neither market.[26]


 * Possible close-paraphasing issue in the second clause of the sentence. Also, it does not look like that can be attributed to Steve Lake, rather to McRae & Middleton.

c) Although the Antilles date was to be his last commercial release for six years, Prime Time was working regularly on both sides of the Atlantic.

Coleman did not record another album for six years and instead performed internationally with Prime Time.[26]


 * No issues here.


 * Revised "possible close-paraphrasing issue in the second clause". Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ref 1, Cohen p. 97

 * "In the mid-1970s, Ornette Coleman decided to stop recording free jazz with acoustic ensembles and sought to recruit electric instrumentalists for his music, based on a creative theory he developed called harmolodics.[1]" vs.
 * "By the time he wrote Skies of America, Coleman had abandoned his free jazz style for a mix of progressive jazz and funk based on an eccentric theory of creativity he called harmolodics. Also, by the mid-1970s, he no longer performed with acoustic trios and quartets but had recruited electric instrumentalists for an unusual line-up consisting of dual trios of drums, bass and guitar."

Ref 46, Cooper & Smay p. 238

 * "Of Human Feelings later went out of print." vs.
 * "Of Human Feelings, Ornette Coleman (Mango): Harmolodics goes electric. Out of print despite Ornette's stature and Mango's island connection."

Ref 14, Kennedy & Bourne p. 152

 * "According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music (2004), Of Human Feelings features jazz-funk, a type of music that originated in 1970 and was characterized by intricate rhythmic patterns, a recurrent bass line, and Latin rhythmic elements.[14]" vs.
 * "...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."

Ref 6, Mandel p. 161

 * "Tacuma had been fired by jazz organist Charles Earland for what he felt was the excessive amount of attention his playing received from audiences, but Coleman encouraged him to remain what he called a "naturally harmolodic" player.[6]" vs.
 * "Later, Tacuma was fired by jazz organist Charles Earland because he was getting too much attention from the audience. But Ornette encouraged him as a 'naturally harmolodic' player."


 * Revised. Dan56 (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ref 7, Mandel p. 162

 * "The band made no attempt to harmonize their radically different parts" vs.
 * "...play well simultaneously without trying to harmonize (blend) or play 'together'; they play their own parts that co-exist, and can be heard as belonging to very different orders of music..."

Comments from WikiRedactor

 * All of the pictures need alternate text descriptions.
 * I recall saying in a previous FAC of mine that alt text isn't an FA requirement  Dan56 (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Even though the section isn't long, maybe you could split "Personnel" into two columns for musicians and additional personnel?
 * What do you mean? It already is lol (Of_Human_Feelings) Dan56 (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that splitting the "Bibliography" section into 30em columns would make it a touch more organized.
 * K, done . Dan56 (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Other than that, I have nothing else to add; it is clear you've put in a lot of effort into this article because it is in great shape. I trust that you will handle the alternate text, and my other two suggestions are pretty much a matter of personal preference, so I am happy to give you my support. Great job! WikiRedactor (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS
Overall, looking very nice :). Just several things:
 * When in 1982 was the album released?
 * None of the sources available or used specified, . Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "According to jazz writer Francis Davis, 'a modest commercial breakthrough seemed imminent' for Coleman, whose celebrity appeared to be 'on the rise again'"..... meaning "celebrity status"? Also, you might wanna tweak the beginning to something like "Jazz writer Francis Davis sensed Coleman was about to have a 'modest commercial breakthrough'".
 * "Celebrity" is used as a noun here → "Fame, renown; the state of being famous or talked-about." I used "According to" so that it would read better as the leading sentence in that paragraph; the next sentence uses the structure you're suggesting: "[Writer so-and-so] said that..." Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I've noticed there are no singles listed..... is this why the album has no chartings either?
 * I don't think jazz albums ever produce singles, but this album did not chart on any major charts. Only the Top Jazz Albums chart, but a "Charts" table/section is only necessary if there are multiple chartings (MOS:ALBUM) Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, just thought I'd ask SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The "M" in AllMusic should be capitalized.
 * Done. Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Toledo Blade" should link to The Blade (newspaper)
 * Piped link, done. Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "The Boston Phoenix" should link to The Phoenix (newspaper)
 * Piped link, done. Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Discogs is not a reliable source, so you'll have to take that out of the "External links"
 * It's not being cited as a source, just an external link, which have a different criteria for inclusion--"Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." (WP:ELMAYBE → "Links to be considered") Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see..... has Discogs been approved of as EL (like IMDb)? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd assume so, since there was a template created just for it, which this article uses (Template:Discogs master), but the criteria for any EL is usually a site having relevant information that otherwise can't be worked into/cited into the article. Dan56 (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Very well. I now officially support. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 05:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect, Discogs most certainly is a reliable source, given releases are verified among a number of users to ensure release details are verified. So I don't know where that idea comes from whatsoever. As for EL's, Discogs has been used across WP for YEARS now – where have you been, lol!? This is additionally the very reason there are also four clear EL templates for linking to Discogs pages accordingly, see here: Template:Discogs Jimthing (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

There's my 2¢. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 03:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Adabow
A comprehensive media review was last done in the article's second FAC, so I'll do another to see how things stand: Support on criterion 3, although I'll reiterate that it'd be nice to have definite source of the album cover. Adabow (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Ornette Coleman - Of Human Feelings.jpg is non-free but is tagged and has an appropriate FUR. A source would be nice, however; was this scanned from an LP sleeve, or was it obtained online. If so, where (link)?
 * File:Jamaaladeen Tacuma.jpg is cc-by-sa from Flickr, no evidence of Flickr washing.
 * File:Ornette Coleman - Sleep Talk.ogg is sufficiently short and of low quality, per WP:SAMPLE
 * File:Ornette at The Forum 1982.jpg is cc-by-sa from Flickr, no evidence of Flickr washing.


 * Done Dan56 (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WonderBoy1998
I'm running late at the moment but I have read through the article, and it's crisp and incorporates technical terms well. One thing-
 * The lead's first two paragraphs both start with Of Human Feelings. I'd suggest altering the second one to "it" or "The album"
 * I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that grammatically if the paragraphs start that way, although I find it more clearer to readers than "it", and "the album" may not be clear with the reference to "1975 album Dancing in Your Head" in the second paragraph's first sentence. Dan56 (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Bleh

Other than that I will support this article, assuming that it will successfully pass a source check. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

(Late) Comment from sojs
Favor: Hello -- Thanks for inviting me to look over Of Human Feelings. Apologies for the late reply. After reading your article and the many comments, I commend your efforts. You're thorough, patient ... and a good writer.

As a new editor, I learned quite a bit about featured articles. Picked up some new jazz terms and Wikipedia syntax too.

All told, you've made this article more interesting and accessible to new Coleman aficionados - a central goal of Wikipedia, imho.

Kind regards, sojs &#133;talk&#133; 03:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Closing note I am not confident that a consensus has been reached on this candidate's fulfilling the FA criteria and I will archive this discussion in a few minutes. To find contraventions on close-paraphrasing at this late stage (fifth FAC) is a grave concern. I would not want to see this article renominated before there is clear evidence that all issues have been resolved and no more come to light. Graham Colm (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.