Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Of Human Feelings/archive6


 * 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 promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC).

Of Human Feelings

 * Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a jazz album by saxophonist Ornette Coleman. The previous FAC did not reach a consensus, after which I resolved the concerns in the oppose at that FAC by with checks of print sources and text. Dan56 (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Curly Turkey

 * Per MOS:QUOTE, linking should be avoided inside quotes. Either drop the links or paraphrase the quotes to keep them.
 * The guideline says "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes", so does it suggest it's not always possible? I'd think cases where a unique phrase or term which cant be paraphrased is the exception, like "collective consciousness" or "key (music)|key", unless I should drop the quotation marks altogether since these are unique enough phrases? Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * and sought to recruit electric instrumentalists for his music, based on a creative theory he developed called harmolodics: Does harmolodics require electric instruments? The wording seems to imply so
 * Revised. Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * all the musicians are able to play individual melodies in any key, and all the while sound coherent as a group: is this the theory, or an aspect of the theory?
 * It's the theory --> "According to his theory..." Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * He taught his young sidemen a new improvisational and ensemble approach: is this harmolodics, or has the subject changed?\
 * Harmolodics; I changed it to "...this new improvisation..." Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The failed session was a project under Phrase Text, Coleman's music publishing company. Nonetheless, Coleman still wanted to set up his own record company with the same name: I don't understand---the rejection of the recording led to the failure of Coleman's recording company, but he wanted to revive it?
 * I don't see how that's suggested here, that the rejection of the recording led to its failure. Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know what's being said here. He "still wanted to set up his own record company", but the failed session had been a project of a record compnay he already had? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I replaced "Nonetheless" with "In addition to this company, he also wanted to...". Is that better? Dan56 (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The session was originally titled Fashion Faces : do sessions have titles, or was this the working title of the album?
 * I've read sources that say both--Palmer's 1982 NY Times review says the working title--while the source cited here says the session. I deferred to the latter because it's a bio on Coleman by a jazz writer. Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Unlike most albums at the time, it was recorded with a Sony PCM-1600 two-track digital recorder.: I'm assuming this is trying to say either (or both) (a) that the album was a two-track recording rather than whatever ridiculous number of tracks they were up to by 1979 (b) it was digital. The way it's worded, the emphasis is on the Sony as opposed to other brands.
 * The source suggests neither--just that it was a PCM-1600, which it called "then-rare". Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about the source---I was talking about the wording, which tells us that, unlike most of the industry, Coleman et al used a Sony. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I rephrased it to say this recording item was rare at the time. Dan56 (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * a type of music that originated in 1970: has the advent of jazz-funk been pinpoited so precisely?
 * Source says "about 1970". I rephrased it as "originated around 1970". Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * to make each pair of guitarist and drummer: it should probably be made more explicit before this point that there were two simultaneous drummers.
 * It is in the lead, "background", and in "recording". Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In passing, yes, it's mentioned there were two people who were drummers. It doesn't say they played simultaneously, which I think will surprise most readers. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Added "simultaneously" to where they're mentioned in "Recording", . Dan56 (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Mandel felt that the passages were neither very soft or loud, because the album was mixed with a middle-frequency range and compressed dynamics: shouldn't this be in the "Recording" section rather than "Compostion"?
 * It would seem so, but it's a critic's interpretation or opinion on how it was recorded and his impression on how a musical passage in a song here sounds. I could move it there, however, if you still feel it's more appropriate in "Recording". Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, whether it goes earlier or later, I don't think "Composition" is the appropriate place. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Moved it to "Recording". Dan56 (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Jump Street" is a blues piece with a bridge: is there something unusual about a piece of music having a bridge?
 * The source said it's a "blues with a bridge". I think the point of highlighting this in the source was how simple the composition was, but it functions better in the sentence here on different songs' different compositions/features. Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if we assume the reader is well familiar with the context Coleman was working in, which is not a good assumption to make at Wikipedia, which aims at a general audience. We can't assume a reader will know these things, though, and will likely read it as I did: "A blues track that features a bridge". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure a general audience would know what a bridge is. At least that's the impression I've gotten when trying to talk about music with friends that are just casually interested in it lol. Dan56 (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All the more reason to explicate. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't really do that. Would it be best to just remove it altogether? Dan56 (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think so—otherwise it just leaves heads scratching as to why it was even mentioned. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * cancelled both deals upon Mwanga's return from Japan: any reason why?
 * No :/ Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 *  including the electric guitar from rock: except that the electric guitar didn't originate in rock
 * It didn't necessarily have to; according to what's cited in Rock_music, it's a central element to rock music. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * English is a central element of American culture, but we don't say that English is "from the United States". Besides, electric guitar is hardly a fringe instrument in jazz.  What he incorporated was guitar with a rock-like approach (distortion, etc). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think comparing that to this is apples to oranges. The source phrased this in a similar fashion anyway: "Coleman had begun to experiment with ... rock or rhythm-and-blues elements (by adding electric guitar and, for a time, a blues singer to his group)." Also, a general audience associates the electric guitar with rock music more so than with any other genre, doesn't it? Palmer, a professional critic, seems to make this association too. Dan56 (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, then Palmer's being sloppy in expressing himself, isn't he? Distortion is something that definitely came from the rock approach, but the electric guitar itself is objectively not "from rock", and was far from uncommon in jazz. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think he is--"electric guitar" is an element from rock music. It's also an element from the blues, but I think Palmer said rock because that may have been the source for Coleman in discovering electric guitar as something he'd want to include. "From" doesn't necessarily mean it originated from it--it was reappropriated and became know as the key element to rock's sound. Also, jazz purists, particular critics of this album, complained about the electric guitar being used by fusion and avant-garde players, because it's not traditionally found in bop or straight-ahead jazz, which is what a general audience usually associates with jazz. I would compromise with your revision about a "rock-like approach" to the electric guitar but none of the other sources suggested this, that Prime Time's guitarists for instance played in a rock style. I'll remove "the" and leave it as "including electric guitar from rock...", so it doesn't suggest what you're saying as much--just "electric guitar from rock", if that helps? Dan56 (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Or I could just remove "from rock" altogether? Dan56 (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be disappointing, as it's obviously a rock influence. You may not intend "from" to mean "originated in", but that is certainly a valid reading and therefore makes the reading ambiguous and open to such misinterpretation.  What you want to say is that he was incoroorating a rock influence and thus added electric guitar, right? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , Would this change from "elements" to "influences" suffice? Dan56 (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really: it's the "from rock" wording I'm objecting to. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've removed "from rock". Dan56 (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ... again, it's not the word "rock" I have an issue with—it's an important detail that rock was the influence. It's better than it was (implying electric gutiar came from rock), but the fact that it was a rock influence that drove Coleman to add it is an important detail. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ellerbee, the guitarist on this album, is said by a source to have incorporated distortion actually, although I've read a little up on it and early R&B records seem to have predated distortion in rock music, so it's whatever I guess. Dan56 (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is going off on a tangent. The point is, the source tells us that it was rock that influenced Coleman to add electric guitar.  I mentioned distortion merely as an example—as it was the full saturation-style distortion that was a rock innovation and standard part of rock guitar playing, and that's what you hear on the record.  I'm not expecting that to be mentioned, though, as the sources don't say that.  What's important to mention is what the sources do mention—that including electric guitar was a rock influence.  The problem is specifically the wording "electric guitar from rock". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "...including rock influences such as electric guitar and..." . Dan56 (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Well, I guess that's better. Okay, I'll let this one drop. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * non-Western rhythms played by Moroccan and Nigerian musicians: if the musicians were Morrocans and Nigerians, that's not clear from this line
 * I rewrote it as "...Nigerian musicians he enlisted." Is that better? Dan56 (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think so. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Some more Turkey

 * made the most sense out of Coleman's harmolodic theory: meaning, out of his recordings it was the esiest to understand? Or it got the most out of the theory?
 * I cannot check the source, as it is behind a paywall--I originally accessed it through snippet/search through Google News Archive, which no longer has that search function. What is unclear about the way it is written as is? Dan56 (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , which he said is "like learning a new language".: I think this could safely be dropped, as it's about the critic rather than really about the album, Coleman, or jazz.
 * Done. Dan56 (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * RE: reverts:
 *  felt the album's supporters in "hip rock circles" have overlooked flaws such as the dilutive digital production: yes, it says he "felt", but this could easily be read as "the dilutive digital production was something he thought was a flaw", rather than "he felt the digital production was dilutive". Is it a fact or an opinion that the digital production had a dilutive effect?  It certainly wan't the intention, was it?  Ditto with "one-dimensional".  You can see the difference between "He felt the playing was one-dimensional" and "the playing was one-dimensional, which he thought was a flaw", right?
 * I assumed everything after "felt..." implies it his opinion. Dan56 (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not logically, no. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ok, revised. Dan56 (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to fight over a "however", but I don't think it adds anything substantive to the prose, but does unnecessarily chop it up and slow it down.
 * "saying" is a present participle? So what sense can you make of "He was saying"?  You might want to read up on "ing" forms---they're not even restricle to making participles.
 * Ook, read up on it. I had assumed another editor's change to something similar at another article was correct when they explained it like I just did. Dan56 (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the biggest thing missing from the article is perhaps a paragraph giving a capsule overview of Coleman's career and music and its reception in the jazz world. The article makes a lot of assumptions about the reader's knowledge: for instance, lines like "the man once accused of standing on the throat of jazz" jump out of nowhere.  How is the reader supposed to interpret this?
 * Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Good point, . I've dug up a source and added a line to "Background" introducing Coleman's background in the '60s. Dan56 (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Another nitpick: In the mid-1970s, however, he stopped recording free jazz with acoustic ensembles: does this mean he stopped playing free jazz, or that he continued to play free jazz but with electric instruments? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * According to the source, both. "Coleman had abandoned his free jazz style ... Also, by the mid-1970s, he no longer performed with acoustic trios and quartets..." I combined it in the article, because the part about him pursuing a new direction in his music reinforces a departure from his free jazz style. Dan56 (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've tweaked it. I guess all my concerns have been addressed, so I'm ready to support.  The "free jazz" in the infobox may be a bit confusing, though.  Generally, I think the "genre" parameter should be restricted to genres that can be used to describe the album as a whole, rather than genres that happen to appear on it—otherwise it can lead to endless "genre" lists whenever anyone thinks of yeat another genre that can be thrown in. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Khanassassin

 * Support; gave it a read-through. A well-written, easy-to-read article, no issues found. Except one (maybe), but not big enough to delay a support. It probably isn't even an issue. Check it (in the Recording section): "The failed session was a project under Phrase Text, Coleman's music publishing company. In addition to this company, he wanted to set up his own record company with the same name, so he chose his longtime friend Kunle Mwanga to be his manager." Isn't this essentially the same thing? I'm probably wrong. --Khanassassin ☪ 12:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Music publishing companies own or are assigned the copyright for a composition, while a record company deals with the master recording of that composition. Dan56 (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Max24

 * Support; article is well-balanced in content and structure, with plenty of reliable sources. --Max24 Max24 16:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Media check - all OK (GermanJoe)

 * Non-free lead image and sound sample are within WP:NFCC - OK.
 * Other images are CC - OK.
 * All images have sufficient source and author info - OK.
 * File:Ornette_at_The_Forum_1982.jpg - Flickr-image with no original EXIF-data, but similar uploads from the same Flickr-user have valid EXIF, no obvious signs of problems - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Be consistent in whether books include locations
 * Be consistent in how volume is treated - compare Jenkins and Larkin. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. Dan56 (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Spotchecks
 * FN54 returns 503 error
 * I'm concerned about the Butterworth source. The article states that "Coleman did not want to embellish", but the source actually indicates that this was not possible with the equipment used. I would also suggest quoting the "cornpone" section - it's quite a neat turn of phrase. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I revised it slightly. Footnote 54 is Klein right? I did not get an error. Dan56 (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure readers would be familiar with "cornpone". Would "hokey" be a better substitute? Dan56 (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from John
It's a super article, well done. I am planning to support having had a slight hack at it. It's well-written, interesting and seems well-sourced. How does the sourcing work though? There seem to be an awful lot of links in the Bibliography section which are not used. Why's that? --John (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Regarding the Bibliography, do you mean some of the references aren't used in the article? The article uses short citations (listed in "References"), which are used together with full citations (listed in "Bibliography"), which give full details of the sources, but without page numbers. Dan56 (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I am familiar with this referencing style but it seems I lost the ability to count. There seems to be a problem with . A couple more points:
 * Thanks for pointing that out. It seems editors introduced that missing parameter to be flagged recently (Help talk:Citation Style 1). Before, I just assumed titles weren't necessary. Dan56 (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * We cannot say "first introduced" as this is a tautology. "However" seldom adds anything, see here and here.
 * np. Dan56 (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I still don't like as it is so vague as to be meaningless. Almost any work of art will have been "acclaimed" by some critics. What does the reference (Tinder 1982, p. 19) actually say on the subject? If we can add something more focused here that would be great. Otherwise I would favour just removing this.
 * Yes, but it doesn't say it was acclaimed by some critics. Readers should be introduced to the section with something summarizing the general reception. The source itself says "Listening to a tape of Coleman's much acclaimed, soon-to-be-released digital album (Of Human Feelings) I was amazed at just how prominently Jamaaladeen's bass was featured." How about something like "Of Human Feelings received considerable acclaim from critics upon its release"? Dan56 (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I also wonder if we need quite so many quotations. I count 21 plus a boxed quote. In some cases these are just a word or two. I think it would be better to paraphrase some of these. --John (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll try a few, but I really don't want to tread the same ground reviewers in the previous FACs had when they nitpicked certain things to death because they felt were it was too close paraphrasing or extreme claims that there'd be even a slight modification in the meaning the source intended. Dan56 (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Please consider withdrawing your comment that the previous FAC for this article, or any other article, was "nitpicked to death" because it undermines the work of the Wikipedians who review Good and Featured Article candidates WP:CIVIL. BananaLanguage (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not interest in rehashing this; I made a remark on my impression of certain instances in previous reviews, not the totality of every reviewers' input. I paraphrased a bit . How do you feel about this article so far? Dan56 (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Revisited this after a few weeks. I now make it 31 quotes plus one in a quote box. (I don't think it has truly gone up by 10, maybe I miscounted before! But the number is still too high, in my opinion.) We are slightly into WP:QUOTEFARM territory and the majority of these could and should be paraphrased. I also still dislike the way the Critical reception section is written. It is dense with quotes and mainly fulsome adjectives, and I believe it could do with some restructuring. At present it contains sentences like which in my opinion fails to meet criterion 1a, "...well-written ... engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". I am confident that with some work this article could meet the standard but where it is at the moment, I do not think it is there yet.
 * Oppose. -- (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Better? Dan56 (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I read somewhere that ping doesn't work unless you freshly " ~ " your comment. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I did that in my previous revision, but fine. Dan56 (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the nudge. I appreciate the effort you have made to reduce over-quoting in the article. --John (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * What more would you like to see done? Dan56 (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ? Dan56 (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good work, Dan. That last edit did the trick for me. There are still a bit too many adjectives in it for my taste but I think it is good enough now for me prose wise. --John (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Note - This nomination has been running for a ridiculously long time. What's the state of play? I am considering archiving. Graham Beards (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "archiving"? There are three supports and one oppose, which I've tried to address... Dan56 (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction, four supports . Dan56 (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.