Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of Missouri School of Music/archive1

University of Missouri School of Music

 * Nominator(s): Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the School of Music at the University of Missouri, a large public University in the Midwestern United States. Although the school is not particularly notable, it has played a significant role in the study of music in Missouri, generated a number of prominent alumni, and is one of the primary academic divisions of a major University. The school recently (2017) celebrated its centennial and the publication of a book by musicologist and historian Michael J. Budds provided enough high quality source material for an article. The article is comprehensive, fairly well illustrated, and meets the FA criteria. It was promoted to Good Article status without much effort. I am the primary author and this is my first nomination. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review


 * Don't use fixed px size for images
 * Done


 * Suggest adding alt text
 * Done


 * Suggest scaling up the "flip tiger" image. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done

Sources comments
As this is a first-time nomination there will be a general spotcheck on sources to test for vverifiability and/or close paraphrasing. This will take a little time: in the meantime there are a few general sources pointsb that need to be addressed:
 * There are a couple of "hanging" statements in the text, at the end of paragraphs, which require citations.
 * Done


 * Of the 51 references listed, a high proportion – 30+ – are published by the Music School, and most of the others are sites related to the University of Missouri. I realise that to some extent this is inevitable, but it does raise issues about the objectivity of the article, and it may be worth investigating the availabilityof more neutral sources.
 * I'm painfully aware of the lack of independent sources. I have attempted to cite source unaffiliated with the University or School of Music where possible. Inevitably the book by musicologist Michael Budds (a faculty member) is by far the most detailed on the history of the school and I see no way to avoid it. However, I have made an effort to avoid any hyperbolic claims, sticking to basic facts, especially in that history section. Unfortunately sources of the same quality that are fully independent don't seem to exist. I am, however, open to any ideas about where else to look. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Several of the sources used may not meet the quality/reliability standards required by the FA criteria. In particular:
 * Ref 26: The Missouri Methodist Church
 * This is a high quality history book by Frank Stephens, a professor of history and academic. A very reliable source and only one I know that contains this information on the pipe organ. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ref 45: http://kkyetaupsilon.weebly.com
 * Replaced. Do you think the national organization's website would be considered reliable enough? Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ref 46: http://zetaomegatbs.weebly.com/
 * Replaced
 * Ref 51: mikemetheny.com
 * Replaced with a more reliable source. Grey Wanderer (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you justify these as high quality, reliable source in accordance with the FA criteria?


 * With music.missouri.edu, in refs 36 to 40 you have added publisher details – "Curators of the University of Missouri" - but not otherwise. Citations to the same source should be consistent.
 * Fixed, added publisher details to all website citations. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * There's another inconsistency in describing the "Columbia Missourian" source. Compare refs 5 and 6
 * Fixed


 * Ref 11: missing page reference
 * Ref 14: missing page reference

Brianboulton (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes
This has been open for almost three weeks without attracting any prose reviews and seems to have stalled. If it does not attract more review soon, it will have to be archived. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there's been no progress after more than a week so I'm going to archive this -- given there were no content reviews I wouldn't be opposed to reducing the usual two-week waiting period following an archive, but a quick scan of the prose suggests that a full copyedit would help before any future nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)