Wikipedia:Featured article review/Olivier Messiaen/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 Dana boomer 01:01, 30 June 2010.

Review commentary

 * Notified: Wikiprojects. Author inactive.

This article is lacking sources in many paragraphs.  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  05:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you work out the author is inactive? Please be more specific in your criticism.  --RobertG ♬ talk 06:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm counting 46 references; could you be more specific? Also: in which way is the article now worse than when it was promoted in early 2006? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * With reference to the sources, could we get an indication of the precise problem? As far as I can see, the sources provided substantiate the content well. I think, perhaps, the nom may be confused since the footnotes provide reference for the overall paragraphs (which, in my view, is a better practice than footnoting every sentence from the same source). So, unless a specific problem is noted, I would say Keep FA. Eusebeus (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yellowmonkey is right, you know:
 * Last paragraph of "Youth and studies" — unsourced.
 * First and last paragraph of "Tristan and serialism" — unsourced.
 * First, third and fourth paragraphs of "Birdsong and the 1960s" — you guessed it, unsourced.
 * "An operation prevented his participating in events to celebrate his 70th birthday, but in 1988 tributes for Messiaen's 80th birthday around the globe included a complete performance in London's Royal Festival Hall of St. François, which the composer attended, and Erato's publication of a seventeen-CD collection of Messiaen's music including recordings by Loriod and a disc of the composer in conversation with Claude Samuel." and "Messiaen had also been composing a concerto for four musicians he felt particularly grateful to, namely Loriod, the cellist Mstislav Rostropovich, the oboist Heinz Holliger and the flautist Catherine Cantin. This was substantially complete when Messiaen died, and Yvonne Loriod undertook the final movement's orchestration with advice from George Benjamin." under Transfiguration are large chunks of unsourcedness.
 * "Much of his output denies the western conventions of forward motion, development and diatonic harmonic resolution. This is partly due to the symmetries of his technique—for instance the modes of limited transposition do not admit the conventional cadences found in western classical music." in "Music" is unsourced; what does "this" refer to?
 * Third paragraph of "Music" is unsourced.
 * Last paragraph of "Western artistic influences" — still unsourced.
 * Entire "Time" and "Time and rhythm" sections under "Symmetry" are unsourced, as is the "Birdsong" section further down.
 * Article overall feels very, very bloated and tl;dr at times. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My word. I hope the author of this substandard piece of crap doesn't show his face - you'd give him what for!
 * I don't think any of the information in the article is unsourced. I didn't make any of it up.  The options for what happens next seem to me to be as follows.  You could provide individual footnotes for each piece of "unsourced" information, which you could easily do by reading the references provided.  It seems you are contesting some of the material in the article, in which case you could splatter  tags on each item and add one of those pretty  banners at the top.  You could delete the "unsourced" information (which may not be perceived universally as an improvement). Or alternatively you could reduce the article to "crap article" status.  You might even ask nicely whether anyone is willing to help, in the hope that someone might engage positively with this process - because its purpose is currently inscrutable.  Best wishes.  --RobertG ♬ talk 22:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: No alt text is provided ; all online links are live; as noted above, there are many unreferenced passages - saying it is there in the cited works is not good enough, we need page numbers. Some of the statements in the uncited sections would constituite WP:OR if they remain uncited. The purpose of a GAR is to bring the article back to up to featured status. Sarcastic comments like those above don't help, please assume good faith and observe the civility guidelines. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added alt text for all images, but not the icons, as I understand that that is not necessary. Please feel free to improve my alt text. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am in utter admiration of your descriptive abilities, those passages of alt text are wonderful.
 * After thinking about your other comments, I unreservedly apologise. It's the modern way, isn't it?  Those who are offended must apologise to those who caused the offence because the latter's motives must be held to be beyond reproach.  Be that as it may, I found TenPoundHammer's tone ("you guessed it...", "tl;dr" - is that a shorthand that I should understand, or was it careless typing?) snide, patronising and condescending.  It is very easy to bring a catalogue of criticism to a page such as this.  It seems transparently obvious that criticism is potentially disheartening to contributors.  That is why TenPoundHammer's lack of sensitivity seemed calculated to cause offence.
 * There was no sarcasm on my part, I assure you, only sadness and incomprehension.
 * It seems I must be in the wrong place, a fish out of water, here. I respectfully withdraw from this process.  --RobertG ♬ talk 08:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion of this review is not the first to raise questions about the credibility and value of such reviews. I have observed pretty much the same reaction from long-standing and knowledgeable editors at Featured article review/Witold Lutosławski/archive1, Talk:Egardus and Talk:Music of the Trecento & ff. It seems that if an editor wants to avoid the frustration generated by a review, not nominating an article is the only option. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: TenPoundHammer's "tl;dr" comment refers to Too long; didn't read; I'll refrain from commenting on how such a remark reflects on those, reviewers especially, who make it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My recommendation to anyone who cares about the article: let the FA squad delist it. It's a better article now that it will be if you add all sorts of irrelevant citations in order to satisfy a group of people who wouldn't know a piece by Messiaen if a little bird sang it in their ears. Article assessments by people who don't know anything about the subject aren't worth seeking out. If the Classical Music community satisfies the demands of FA now, will we give in again next year when they decide that the Fair-Use scores need to go? Or whatever the next, new criteria for FA happens to be? Since it was cited above, I wish I had said "delist" to Engardus at the GA to prevent a drawing of an 17th c. church from being added to satisfy the "image" criterion. Those of us interested in Wikipedia as a source of information know that the Messiaen article is one of the finest articles on the encyclopedia. And that should be reward enough. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Scrutiny is always welcome and I think we should appreciate TPH's efforts to make substantive and specific criticisms. It is true that he in all likelihood did not crack the spine of a single source provided in the article; it is also true that for those of us who are familiar with Messaien, his agoggery at certain statements may make us laugh out loud, but as this article is designed for lay-readers, the feedback is salutary. I would suggest that a judicious rephrasing of the sources provided, such as "for this and what follows, see ..." would resolve many of the problems identified. Moreover, TPH makes a good point with respect to certain sections. Yes, obviously it seems silly to have to provide close references for OM's fascination with ornithological soundscapes, but a lay reader likely has no idea, so overall a generic reference could be usefully provided. The existing bibliography is sufficient; it is merely a question of adding in a few more footnotes. Finally, if TPH feels the article is bloated and overly long, that is merely a personal caprice and has little bearing on its FA status. I feel the same way about most Video Game FAs. Eusebeus (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wish I had been able to adopt Eusebeus's approach earlier; it is thoughtful and sensible.  On reflection I would like to strengthen my earlier apology - I am sorry I overreacted.  I still nevertheless have doubts about a lowest-common-denominator assessment process that requires no knowledge of the subject, and that marks verifiability by counting footnotes rather than looking at references.  This is not scrutiny.  --RobertG ♬ talk 08:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the FAR section include referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per above discussion. I hope that's the last thing I'll say on the subject.  --RobertG ♬ talk 06:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hold please I will have access to a libary in a week or so and will add the cites as necessary. This is a very stong page and only light work is needed by someone with books for a keep. Ceoil (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: On going work; I think the structure of the lead needs to be looked at. As I am now familiar with the page and the editors behind it, I can stand over the level of citations; adding page numbers to statements broken by para breaks is trivial. Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How is work going on this? It would be great if we could get some editors in here soon to make declarations and get the article through the process... It's awesome to see work being done on the article! Dana boomer (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I still see a lot of uncited text. Has Ceoil been pinged?  Tony1 might be willing to take a look-- it's up his alley if anyone wants to ping him in.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have pinged Ceoil and left a note for Tony to see if he's interested in working on the article. Dana boomer (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delist. Lots of referencing problems throughout the entire article. Multiple portions of wholly unreferenced paragraphs. Not up to FA standards, not even up to GA standards. -- Cirt (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note. I have posted a request on the talk for additional cites. I think this ask will be very easily met, my impression is that RobertG has a very strong grasp of both subject and sources. I am now very familar with the page (less so with the music but have dallianced and been rewarded), and can attest to the fact that this is one of the best informed and inciteful classical music article we have. I think Cirt is expressing a drive by, on to the next one openion and is just wrong. If I wasn't such a nice person I would say "Cirt your opeion is lightweight and means nothing to me." But I am very nice, so I won't. Ceoil (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * RoberG has indicated that he will meet my demands, but is preoccupied for a few days - something about IRL, dunno. Hold once again pls Dana, with thanks for your appreciated patience. Ceoil (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The article will be held for as long as you need it to be - we would always rather see the article improved and kept than hastily delisted. Reviewers should hold off on delist votes until Ceoil and company are finished. Dana boomer (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hold - Most of the paragraphs now have at least one cite and work is on-going to cite the others. --mav (reviews needed) 22:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This one is worth saving, IMO. I've looked through the lead, and added "one of the most important composers of the 20th century"—does anyone think otherwise? Can the pic at the top be brightened? Is the copyright tag OK? Can I fiddle with the brightness and re-upload? Tony   (talk)  10:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * How is this progressing, gentlemen? From the history it doesn't look like much has happened over the past couple of weeks, and there's not much happening on the talk page. An update would be nice, and when the main editors feel they have completed the necessary work, it would be good to get some other reviewers on this so we can get it off the FAR page :) Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Closing note - This article has been at FAR for almost three months, and work has been completed to improve the article during that time. During the FARC period, only one fairly vague delist was entered and more work was completed, so this review is being kept. If editors still feel that there are problems with this article, they are encouraged to bring them up on the article's talk page. If there are still significant problems with the article after a minimum of three months, the article may be brought back to FAR. Dana boomer (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.