Wikipedia:Featured article review/Josquin des Prez/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 7:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC).

Josquin des Prez

 * Notified: Turangalila, Aza24, Toccata quarta, Antandrus, Jerome Kohl, WP Composers, WP Bio, WP Christianity, talk page notification 2020-12-17

This is a 2007 FA whose main editor has not significantly edited Wikipedia since that year. After I pointed out some fairly minor issues on talk last year, Aza24 and Toccata quarta raised more significant problems with comprehensiveness, synth and OR. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * - I see that you've done a bit of cleanup - do you think that this one is fixable? Hog Farm Talk 15:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the music section (definitely the most complex section) is so thorough already, I do think it is possible. I would need some time though, as I'm juggling many things right now. I'll see what Josquin books my library has; it really just needs a lot more information from Fallows, which is by-far the best source on Josquin's life. Aza24 (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying; keep us posted on your progress! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

when you get to this point … References and further reading might be separated, and some short-note citations have final punctuation, while others do not. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sandy, I've done the former just now. I've gotten a hold of Sherr 2000 and Lowinsky 1976; I've also just now requested Fallows 2020 from my library. Best – Aza24 (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * are you still thinking this is doable? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes! The library sent me the book I needed today, so I will take a crack at it this weekend and report back. Aza24 (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

There were some edits yesterday. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi all, sorry for such a delay. Unfortunately this week I have some other WP stuff higher on my plate but after that (by next weekend) this will be at the top of my list. I have all the sources necessary and have been reading through them for some time now. Best – Aza24 (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Update: has been editing the article this week, and edited the article yesterday. Z1720 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * do you have an estimate on timing for finishing up here? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a good question—I'm probably not taking part in TCC so I can focus on this. I'm thinking in the next two weeks I can get most of the preexisting issues fixed up, and add the more obvious omissions. After then I'll try to draft a new reputation section, which will need to include quite a bit of new scholarship. Aza24 (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

27 April Update Thanks everyone for their patience, I'm going to give an idea of my general plans from today onwards (for mainly myself, but also so others know progress is being made and areas for improvement have been identified).
 * Life section
 * Need to take another look at the 1st paragraph of Birth and background ; last paragraph of Ferrara ; and 2nd and 3rd paragraph of Early life
 * Rome section needs a little bit more on when he left (might need more later, not sure, but good enough for FAR purposes)
 * The 'Milan and travels' and 'Departure from Rome; Milan and France' need quite a bit of expansion/updating
 * The 'Retirement to Condé-sur-l'Escaut' needs some expansion and reorganization as well, but not as much as the two above (started this, about 1/3 through)
 * Music
 * Overview section needs a general rethinking, especially in terms of sourcing
 * Masses is solid for the most part, just needs a few more references really
 * 'Chansons and instrumental compositions' needs a bit of rewriting to be more concise and better sourced
 * Influence and reputation needs quite a bit of expansion, hard to sum up here, but this is perhaps what the article lacks the most thus far.
 * What has been done already:
 * Existing sources have been reformatted and organized (almost done)
 * Entirely new Portraits section has been added
 * Name section has been cleaned up and had sources added to it
 * Birth and background has been largely rewritten and updated with newer sources
 * The sections on Rome and Ferrara respectively have been largely rewritten and updated
 * Lead has been cleaned up, but will require a rewrite (a minor task, really) when the above is addressed.
 * My next goal is probably tackling the Retirement to Condé-sur-l'Escaut section. Best – Aza24 (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Slow work recently, but I've crossed off some things from the list above that have been addressed. Aza24 (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Aza24, are you still working on things here? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes! There are mainly three sections left to be fixed up/updated: 1) Overview (in music); 2) Secular music; and 3) Influence and reputation. The masses section will need a few additional refs, and the Milan and travels as well as Milan and France are missing a little bit of information. I recently updated the motets section and began adding refs to the Masses one. I'm aiming for completion in the next 2–3 weeks (overcompensating with that estimate, though, and it will hopefully be done sooner). Aza24 (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Aza24, any update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Music section done! Life almost done, and legacy will need probably three fresh paragraphs to replace the current one. After this, the lead will need a bit of tweaking, and then it should be good for WP purposes. Aza24 (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Aza24, update? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Very close, aiming for completion by the end of this week.  Aza24  (talk)   04:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The two remaining sections that need major work are 'Milan and France' and 'Condé-sur-l'Escaut', though the latter is about half way done. The Masses section and the Legacy may need some clean up as well, but these two are comparatively less pressing than the other two.  Aza24  (talk)   18:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Life section is pretty much done. Just cleaning and copy-editing now.  Aza24  (talk)   00:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * 6 August update: I still need to clean up the Canonic masses, Cantus-firmus masses and the Secular music sections, but no major work is needed there. After that I will finish up the Legacy section and should be finished.  Aza24  (talk)   05:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 22 August update: took a brief break from this. All that's really left is the Legacy section, which I will be finishing in the coming days. After this I will do some clean up and copy editing, probably a bit of trimming too, as the article size is really getting up there.  Aza24  (talk)   00:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay, everything is pretty much done and I managed to keep the article length below the recommended max of 10,000 (currently at 9,500). Now is just a matter of copy editing clean up and such.  Aza24  (talk)   01:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I will start reviewing on talk. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Progressed to the point of fine tuning prose; I've pinged Ceoil, and if he has no time or interest, I will also ping (next) John. I'll do my full readthrough after the art-knowledgeable are done. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Aza24, Can you take a look at the structure/toc, its really long atm - Life/birth/Youth/Early career/Milan and travels/Rome- and would be better summarised. Would do myself, but late in the night and exhausted, night. Ceoil (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am a bit hesitant to cut much more, especially since I already brought it under 10,000 (for the recommended proze length) from what was once around ~12,000. Is there any particular section that stands out? I fear the complexities and uncertainties of his biography often require extra explanation.  Aza24  (talk)   19:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the need is to cut rather combine ... the TOC is what is long and rambling, and some of those section headings can be combined. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I combined a few; life section is now down from eight headers to five. Perhaps better?  Aza24  (talk)   05:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comments from John

Sandy pinged me here for a copyedit. I've only read the article and talk page, and this page, at this point, and started a few very gentle copyedits. I will try hard to put some more hours in over the weekend. It's an interesting and important article, of whose subject I had barely heard, and there's a lot to read and take in. I can see the possibility for some very careful and judicious pruning. If you want to see what I mean, please see my edits to Joan of Arc. I look forward to working with you all. John (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "Josquin had hired at least 15 procurators to sort out his inheritance; this and other contextual evidence strongly suggests that by then he was very wealthy. This would explain numerous oddities later in his life, including his ability to travel so often, his demand for an expensive salary and freedom from constantly composing greatly demanded mass cycles like his contemporaries Isaac and Ludwig Senfl."

I don't get it. If he was very wealthy, why would he demand a high salary? What does the source say? John (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Musicians of the time were mostly servants to their employers, and would have very little negotiating power on matters such as salaries. Josquin, already being rich, didn’t need to work much and thus did not need to take jobs that paid badly just to have a job to begin with, if that makes sense. I will try and check Fallows soon, but my copy is back at the library; I screenshotted quite a few chapters, so hopefully this information is from one of those.  Aza24  (talk)   23:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * are you still working here, or is it time to ping in next reviewer? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the nudge Sandy. Sorry, real life got in the way, I have only started here. I will try to get to it tonight. John (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * John, I've clarified that sentence now. I think the original was too confusing, so opted for including a different but related piece of evidence Fallows uses.  Aza24  (talk)   21:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Please forgive the slow pace here. I have an ill partner and have not had as much time as I might have liked to look at this. On reading and rereading the article, it's very well-constructed and sourced, and seems likely to be comprehensive.

One thing I keep running into is the huge uncertainty surrounding events. This reminds me of one of my favourite FARs six years ago, Vincent van Gogh. ,, and , brave souls, were trying to bring this article on arguably the world's most famous artist, on whom everybody has an opinion, to FA. I started as quite a critical reviewer, and ended up as a co-nom I got so into the improvement process. As much as I love his art, the thing I was really interested in was how we covered his self-inflicted injury of 1888. There is conflicting evidence about how much of his ear he cut off, and it has been hotly debated ever since. This was the discussion, and here is how it currently looks (stripped of references and links):

The experience of working with such great writers and editors, and looking together at the sources, made me realise on a very deep level that all experience is subjective, and all truth is consensual. As Wikipedians, all we can do is dispassionately evaluate the sources, then try to reflect them proportionally and fairly. A key thing is avoiding constructions that give undue weight to (usually) the latter clause. I think the article deals fairly well with the difficulty of saying "X said a, but then Y said b", sounding like Y is right and X is wrong. Unless that's explicitly what a source says. At the same time, we need to tell the story, and the general reader (who this article is supposed to be pitched at) might lose interest if there is too much "he said, she said".

It's one of the things I've been looking at as I trim at the prose. Here's an example from Josquin des Prez that I haven't touched yet:

How can we balance the prerogatives of comprehensiveness, fairness to various scholarly views on uncertain facts, and telling the story concisely? More footnotes? Maybe. I have to come back to this in the morning. Thanks for writing such an interesting article, and for reading this long comment. John (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Though I understand your concern, I'm actually rather hesitant getting into the debate on this letter, which I feel would get too detailed too quickly for this general overview article. The meaning of it has, of course, been heavily debated, but the main two camps are the same, those that think conclusions can be drawn from it, and those that do not. Lowinsky is certainly the leader of the former group, and Wegman is perhaps the most vocal in the second, though admittedly less influential. Indeed the traditional narrative of using this as evidence for Josquin being a difficult colleague is the most widespread one, which I hoped to demonstrate by including both Macey and Lowinsky for that side, and just Wegman for the other.  Aza24  (talk)   04:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I've finished my first run of copyedits; again, apologies for the slow pace. Any comments? John (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Will take a look later today.  Aza24  (talk)   19:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi aZa, am following this with interest, but at times the hedging on uncertainty is confusing eg (now copyedited) .."perhaps in the mid-to-late 1480s possibly may have gone to Paris". Or something. Its a bit like me saying: aging hipster, in my early late-40s :) Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Any feedback? I am chugging away at trying to copyedit the prose, but I am not a subject expert, even less than I was on VvG. Please inspect my edits to make sure I am not altering the meaning (simplifying is ok, to a point) or being untrue to the sources. John (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I will read through your edits in the nearish future (tomorrow?) - thank you for your copyedit; appreciate it. Antandrus (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've look through all of John and Ceoil's copy edits—happy to see a huge improvement in prose quality from the efforts of you both. I made some minor adjustments to preserve some meanings. Re this edit, I am somewhat uncomfortable with removing the line "Though its dating was debated in the past". It is certainly clunky and can be better phrased (and indeed, I'm not sure how to), but the dating of Ave Maria ... Virgo serena was for a long time a vicious and extended debate, so I feel like such detail is important here.  Aza24  (talk)   04:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thought about this further, and am concluding that having the preexisting note about the piece duplicated beside the sentence is fitting enough.  Aza24  (talk)   21:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Vagueness (from the France sect):
 * "recently" found documents
 * Scholars "long" assumed
 * Here is an excellent counterpoint sentance as a guide: "Josquin was probably in France during the early 16th century; documents found 2008 indicate that he visited Troyes twice between 1499 and 1501". Aza24 your doing great here. Ceoil (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed... have fixed the given examples, and am double-checking for more., , , how are we feeling about this now? I'm leaning very close to a keep, but would rather address any remaining concerns before declaring myself.   Aza24  (talk)   21:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's coming along! Searching for the text string "possibl" returns 23 hits. That seems too many for one article. Without getting into elegant variation, are there other ways of saying this? What do the sources do? John (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes - and "may have" has 15 hits. It's rather the nature of the thing, where so much is probable, so little is certain, and so very very much is "maybe kind of more or less" at various levels. Elegant variation seems to be the way most musicologists handle this. (Thank you for your excellent copyedit!!) Antandrus (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * (, I'm reading through it now and it's very, very good) Antandrus (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks!
 * Actually I'm surprised that there's not more instances of those words. Some sources, particularly Fallows, have ample room to discuss uncertainties, and thus do not need to condense such information like we do (which results in the frequent use of words like 'possibility' and such). I looked at the ones in the article, and can see little way out other than elegant variation.  Aza24  (talk)   00:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Down to 8 "possibl"s, three of which are in the location table and one in a quotation. I don't mind "may have" so much, as it's more of a verb tense construction, and "X may have Yed" is generally shorter and less clunky than "It is possible that X Yed." Just as well, as they are up to 17! Obviously we can't reduce style to numbers like this but I am getting happier now with how the prose flows. John (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My latest round. I will post a longer rationale for some of these edits later, but I need to take a break now. John (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A singer himself, Josquin's compositions are chiefly vocal, and include... There's a name for this; what is the subject of the sentence? Josquin or his works? --> Josquin was a singer himself, and his compositions are mainly vocal. They include...
 * I don't really see how this is an improvement, seems to just make both lines to short—the point is that because Josquin is a singer his compositions are vocal, and then provide a list of said vocal genres. I would still probably prefer what was there before, "A singer himself, Josquin's compositions are chiefly vocal, and include masses, motets and secular chansons"  Aza24  (talk)   19:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Its structure has been used as evidence for dating it both in the 1480s and the early 1500s, as the rigidity of the tenor was interpreted as signs of both immaturity and also mastery. seemed unnecessarily complex so I simplified it to Its structure has been used to date it to both the 1480s and the early 1500s, depending on whether the rigidity of the tenor was interpreted as a sign of immaturity or mastery. I think it's easier to parse this way, but does it still carry the intended meaning?
 * Definitely an improvement  Aza24  (talk)   19:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Printing technology was in its early stages was a fascinating snippet, and I would love to see it fleshed out, perhaps with dates and numbers if the sources support that. As a standalone remark it seems out of place, so I removed it, for now.
 * Fair enough.  Aza24  (talk)   19:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In writing polyphonic settings of psalms, Josquin was a pioneer, and psalm settings form a large proportion of the motets of his later years. Few composers prior to him had written polyphonic psalm settings. Are we saying (almost?) the same thing twice? Edited to Few composers before Josquin had written polyphonic psalm settings, and these form a large proportion of the motets of his later years.
 * Agreed, begrudgingly :)  Aza24  (talk)   19:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Reflecting on the sentiment that "Josquin was thus by all accounts the greatest composer of his generation, and the most important, innovative, and influential composer of the late 15th and early 16th centuries", Sherr notes that "As recently as the 1990s, no one would have disagreed with that statement. However, in the early 21st century, things are not so certain". I'm not a fan of long quotes unless their exact language adds something to the reader's understanding of the subject, which I didn't think this one did. So I summarised this to Reflecting on the sentiment that "Josquin was thus by all accounts the greatest composer of his generation, and the most important, innovative, and influential composer of the late 15th and early 16th centuries", Sherr notes growing dissent from that position in the early 21st century.
 * Admittedly, I was nervous about paraphrasing this myself, not wanting to incorrectly source his statement on this delicate situation, but your version seems completely valid.  Aza24  (talk)   19:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We had a very light sprinkling of typos ("wroted") and the usual little tucks and nips. Down from 11,124 words (including notes but not sources) when I started, via 10,866 words last night, to 10,579 now. It's such a complex and nuanced subject that it will be difficult to simplify it further without losing essential shades of meaning. Indeed, you may feel that some of my changes have already gone too far. I hope not. I'll be interested to see what you think,, , , or anybody else. John (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * John I looked through them all and found no concerns, save for my response to your first comment here. Many thanks for the copy edit.  Aza24  (talk)   19:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your trouble. I will try to come back to you on the first one. I see we have Josquin was born in the French-speaking area of Flanders, in modern-day northeastern France or Belgium. in the article, followed up with a footnote: Modern scholarship differs in how it describes Josquin's nationality; his exact birthplace is unknown, and determining nationalities for 15th-century composers is problematic in general. He is only known to have been born somewhere in the French-speaking area of Flanders, either modern-day Belgium or northeastern France. (my emphasis) Your edit summary when restoring that was :"the Flanders information is important to demonstrate the only thing we know for sure". Now, I can see where modern-day nationalists might want to claim Josquin for their own so we might feel we need to spell out what he was and wasn't nationality-wise (I think I recall similar on the Nikola Tesla article), but, as the article states determining nationalities for 15th-century composers is problematic in general because of course the idea of the nation state was pretty different than it is now, and national boundaries have changed. So I can see why this may have seemed important to get right. But I can't see why we have to repeat the same information word for word twice. I propose a briefer mention in running text, with the detailed version (if we must) in the footnote. After this I think there is just one thing bothering me. John (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying now. I guess my rationale was based on how I was treating the note. I was thinking it of less of a supplement, and more of a larger version of the statement, so felt that it required a restatement of the facts so it can be used independently from the proceeding sentence—will think on this.  Aza24  (talk)   23:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed the "either modern-day Belgium or northeastern France" but kept the "He is only known to have been born somewhere in French-speaking Flanders" in the note, which is hopefully a good compromise.  Aza24  (talk)   23:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. My (probably) final comment is about numbered and bulleted lists. These are generally deprecated but of course have their place on Wikipedia. We currently have, under Milan and elsewhere the table Tentative outline of Josquin's life from 1483 to 1489 with eleven rows and three columns, under Music, the "A line of musicologists credit Josquin with three primary developments:" (list of three, numbered but not formatted as a numbered list), under Masses "The Josquin Companion categorizes the composer's masses into the following styles:" followed by five bullet points. Finally under Motets we have "Their style varies considerably, but can generally be divided into three groups:" (list of three, numbered but not formatted as a numbered list).
 * I think the table is valuable as a summary and is best left alone, although an argument could be made for putting it into a footnote as it repeats information found elsewhere in the article. I personally found it useful in navigating the complex timeline of events, so I would leave it alone. I wonder though about the others. Could they be rewritten as prose? Would this be an improvement? I think the numbered lists not formatted as such are where I would start. Could they be reorganised so as to be clearer for the general reader? John (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be very hesitant to change the formatting of the Milan table (which you seem to agree with) and categorization of Josquin masses, as I believe the current presentation maximizes both readability and coherency.
 * For the other two, I'm inclined to look at how the sources which present such information treat the subjects, an approach which I firmly believe should always be considered. The motet divisions are not presented in their derivative source as a list, so I would be fine transferring this to prose. I am somewhat more hesitant about the list in the Music section, which is clearly given by Grove in a three part list, albeit without numbers, but with a clear three-part division.  Aza24  (talk)   21:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I might try shifting at least the motets one to prose then. Three is an awkward number for this sort of thing. John (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I had a hack, see what you think. John (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

my apologies for not keeping up with the good stuff happening here. Please see my note at H.D.; is this looking like we might be able to wrap up this week? If so, please ping me so I can have a look. Real life has not been kind, but I can try to have a look this week if you're ready. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * For my part I think we are nearly finished. John (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Please see my third and likely last set of copyedits here. I do think it would benefit from two last looks, one from a subject expert, maybe User:Aza24, to check it still all makes sense, and one from a perceptive non-expert for the same purpose. As a non-expert myself, I found some of the specialist terms a bit difficult and I wonder if we need a few more wikilinks and short explanations. Or maybe I am just being dense. 10,307 words. John (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll be another decidedly non-expert when I read through the whole thing :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Read through and restored just a few adjectives and such which I feel are needed to properly reflect the source. The copy edit looks great overall.
 * I do hope we can finish this week. After working on this for more than half a year, my energy to give this article is increasingly minimal.  Aza24  (talk)   23:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I understand, it's hard work, isn't it? But we've (mainly you've) made a beautiful article that will increase the understanding of this fascinating subject, of which I knew very little before we started. Many will benefit from our (mainly your) work. I just want to take one more look at specialist vocabulary and accessibility to the layperson, and I'm afraid it will be tomorrow now as I am getting sleepy. Still be interested in your opinion too, Sandy. John (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * John, you've added a lot of duplicate links, which I'm not sure are necessary.  Aza24  (talk)   21:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:OVERLINK tells us that less is more when it comes to linking. I've added a few judicious links which I think will help our readers make sense of some specialist terms. I don't think there is any link used more than four times, including tables and captions. I'm an inveterate scourge of thoughtless overlinking; are there specific links you'd like to see removed? John (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

As a note, having read the article several times, and not whating to exhaust Aza, think this is very much in Keep tertiary. Expect further from John and Sandy to be finess. So you can rest easy tonight Aza!!! I'm mustering up a special barnstar as we speak. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * At the very beginning of the article, why do we need to say, Josquin Lebloitte dit des Prez (c. 1450–1455 – 27 August 1521) was a composer of High Renaissance music, variously described as French or Franco-Flemish. A central figure of the Franco-Flemish School, he is considered among the greatest composers of the Renaissance, and had a profound influence on the music of 16th-century Europe.? Isn't it enough that we state "A central figure of the Franco-Flemish School" once? The lead sentence is important and the repetition pf "variously described as French or Franco-Flemish" seems inelegant., your edit summary when restoring this redundancy to the lead sentence was "as discussed many times, this can absolutely not be removed, as it is too controversial and its absence will inaugurate more nationality edit warring", so I understand why you did this. But there are better ways to address edit warring than to give nationality twice in the lead of a Featured Article, when nationality is such an unimportant feature of this subject. Let's keep thinking about this. I think an expanded hidden note to editors might be the way to go. John (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And, quite apart from the redundancy, we have that weird split subject thing going on again here. When we say Josquin Lebloitte dit des Prez (c. 1450–1455 – 27 August 1521) was a composer of High Renaissance music, variously described as French or Franco-Flemish, is it Josquin or his music that we are ascribing this varying nationalitry to? In the sentence as written, it could be either. The prose needs to be "engaging and of a professional standard". I don't think this passes muster, yet. John (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can think of is "was a composer, variously described as French or Franco-Flemish, of High Renaissance music." As sympathetic as I am to your prose concerns, I do not think they trump providing clarity in regards to the nationality issues.
 * I am rather uncomfortable with removing nationalities entirely because a) (As I already mention) it will invite edit-warring/re-addition of such terms but particularly b) no encyclopedic entries or surveys on the composer use neither French or Franco-Flemish, they all choose one or the other.  Aza24  (talk)   20:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Great to see things starting to wrap up here. I'd still like to sort the lead sentence; it's very important to get it right. To recap I have a grammatical problem and a redundancy problem with the current version. I'm influenced by my personal antipathy to the sort of "standard wording" for bios: John is a Scottish axe murderer..., Nadeem was an Armenian explorer, as though we were defined by our nationalities more than what we have done with them. I guess it works ok for 19th and 20th century figures, but I'm seeing it as particularly clunky in an article about a guy from a period before the modern nation state, whose birthplace is unknown and who is ascribed as Franco-Flemish. The grammatical problem is the syntactic ambiguity; it's the sort of thing I crop ruthlessly out of articles and I can't yet support until that is fixed. I'll think about a proposed solution though, don't worry. John (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And rather embarrassingly I see that this was all taken care of ages ago. Thanks guys! One final proposal from me re the lead; see what you think. John (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A definite improvement, thank you!  Aza24  (talk)   21:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noting for the the greenification (Tq) templates are not used at FAC and FAR as they cause errors in archives; the few that are here are not enough to cause a problem, so need to fix, just to know for the future, if you put extended comments using the tq on talk, they don't impact archives. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you especially as I'm sure it's not the first time I've been told. What works better? Blockquote? John (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep from me too. As Aza24 says, we probably passed the typical FA standard a while ago, but I always want to make it absolutely the best it can be. I think it's pretty near it now. A pleasure to work with you. John (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep – Declaring Keep at this point. I firmly believe that this article now validates any reasonable interpretation of the FA criteria. IMO, the more recent edits and discussion have actually been slightly beyond the typical expectations of an FA. To be clear, I am not criticizing that fact, since it has lead to many most welcome improvements, but feel that if this article was at FAC it would have been promoted by now, so see no reason to keep at it FAR. This article now seems properly at home with our plethora of Composer FAs, thanks to the expansion work from myself, the tireless and prudent copy editing from John and Ceoil, immensely helpful council from Sandy and Antandrus, first-class insight (particularly on masses and current Josquin scholarship) from Kahhe, a wonderful map (in the early life section) from Amitchell125 and the patience of the FAR coordinators, particularly Nikkimaria.   Aza24  (talk)   20:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

DrKay (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have picked all my nits on talk, and am satisfied. As I will have limited internet access on vacation, I leave it to other FAR regulars to resolve anything new that surfaces:  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * PS, if this closes in my absence, will someone please initiate the WP:FASA ? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get to this after I look through HD, but if I'm too busy and can't get to it before the FAR pass-through at the end of the week, please don't wait for me. Hog Farm Talk 20:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Gonna be out of town this weekend; it's basically a 0.5% chance I'll be able to get to this before Monday. Hog Farm Talk 03:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hope Its obvs have followed this closely, although my contibs have been nickpicks only. All due recognition goes to Aza24; appreciate the time sink/trap this became, and fair play to you. Sandy and John deserve further credit. A very impressive save. Ceoil (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.