Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of marches composed by John Philip Sousa/archive1


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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC).

List of marches composed by John Philip Sousa

 * Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive list which contains almost everything related to the topic, including title and year of composition, brief description, audio files and images. It was originally a redirect page, redirecting to List of compositions by John Philip Sousa, but I think the topic deserved its separate list. It is a long list consisting of 136 marches Sousa composed. Marches and description is suitably cited. Appreciate any feedback. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

 * Thank you for responding to everything. I support the list for promotion. Best of luck with this FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

 * The table needs a caption, e.g. at the top of the table code change "|+" to "|+ " or, if that caption would duplicate a nearby header, you can make it only for screen reader software like "|+ ". Captions allow screen reader software to jump to tables by name.
 * Column headers need to be marked with colscopes, e.g. "!Title" should be "!scope=col| Title". Colscopes and Rowscopes (which you have) allow screen reader software to properly read out tables verbally. -- Pres N  02:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @PresN: I have added caption for the table (only for screen reader software) and Column headers are marked by "!scope=col" in this edit. Would appreciate your feedback. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks good! -- Pres N  03:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:"University of Illinois March" Cover.jpg Needs PD-US rationale. Also, who was the artist of the cover? The copyright would probably be held by the artist.
 * Other images look OK (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi @Buidhe: Thanks for you Image Review. File:"University of Illinois March" Cover.jpg does needs a Public Domain tag, but I am not able to determine whether to use or  . The source (1) doesn't mention the artist of the cover. I removed the image from the list as except it, all other seems fine. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Source review
Will I was going to leave some non-source comments but there's really nothing to say. My only non-source quibble would be this:
 * I'm not sure the "see also" section is needed at all, considering the terms in question are included rather prominently in the lead as well as the lower template. This is not, however, anything I would oppose over if you disagree. Aza24 (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Version reviewed:


 * Formatting
 * Britannica is saying their date (under "Cite me") is 2 March 2021
 * Though not necessary, if you want the "|" from the titles of the Brittanica and Allmusic articles, you need only add &#124; in place of them
 * seem to missing AllMusic as the website/publisher for ref 3
 * "Lincoln, Nebraska" is the only location you include, so you may want to remove it
 * Mar 26, 2018 seems to be the date for ref 16
 * Authors missing in ref 73
 * It seems like most, if not all, of the Lovrien refs are missing their dates


 * Reliability
 * No issues


 * Verifiability
 * Is there a source for note a—is it also ref 2? If so, I would add the ref there, just to be safe.
 * A source would be nice for note b, but it's not a huge deal Aza24 (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi @Aza24, I have made most of the changes. The "See also" section is removed, the date is changes in Britannica refs, and dates are added to all nine "Lovrien" refs. Have made other changes too as you specified. Let me know if I left something, or is anything else is required. Thanks a lot! — Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Everything looks good, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

 * Hi @The Rambling Man: Thanks a lot for your comments. I have tried to fix most of them in these edits. Just not sure whether to use en-dash for missing audio files or not. Still, please review my edits and let me know if I missed something. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @The Rambling Man: Also, I just found out that "List of national anthems", which is a FL also has a few missing audio files, but has not added any dashes in those cells. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not important. Please just fill in the empty cells otherwise  it looks like you've just forgotten.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @The Rambling Man: Done—I have added en dashes in the empty cells in this edit. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Just a note that I have responded to everything. "Is there a consensus for promotion of this nomination?" Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Two supports is a little light for promotion. We could use at least one more good review here. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Giants2008: Not rushing, but requesting you to take a second look as we have two more detailed reviews, which are resolved. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HAL333

 * Support ~ HAL  333  18:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

 * The point about the 1877 Christian-V-Turk war needs addressing (I think just changing the date to 1878 will do) but that apart I am happy with the article as it now stands and am happy to support promotion to FL. I don't often dabble in FLC, so have refreshed my memory of the criteria, and I think this article meets them.  Tim riley  talk   17:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I addressed the issue in this edit. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Smerus
This looks and reads fine and I would support FL. There is one thing which may be worthy of explanation in a note, if not in the text. You mention that "Review" was his first published march, and that it has the opus number 5. The reader (or anyway this reader) immediately queries, what were opp. 1-4? Were they also marches, which have been lost? Were they a different musical genre? Or do we just not know? A little clarification, even if the answer is that we don't know, would be good. You might also be explicit (if it is indeed the case, as it appears to be) that this is his only work with an opus number (there are no opus numbers at all in the List of compositions by John Philip Sousa). Best, --Smerus (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi @Smerus: Well, I have removed the mention of Opus number 5 from the list as it may seem a bit confusing. I think opp. 1-4 were probably not known, but the source states that "It was called Opus 5 and was dedicated to Colonel William G. Moore" Nevertheless, I have rephrased it. Thanks for your support! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's the simplest answer in the circumstances! I definitely support the article for FL.--Smerus (talk) 09:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 22:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.