Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Booker T. Washington, Speech, 1895.ogg

Booker T. Washington, Speech, 1895.ogg
This speech was recorded in 1895, and it is therefore in the public domain. The ogg file is used in the Booker T. Washington article. It is of tremendous importance in United States history, particularly in the history of race relations and Reconstruction.

This speech was reproduced in the companion audio CD to "Say It Plain: A Century of Great African American Speeches", edited by Catherine Ellis and Stephen Drury Smith, 2005. ISBN 1-5658-924-8. I transferred the recording to ogg format using Audiograbber. Because of the primitive recording technology at the time there is a lot of hiss. I don't see this as an obstacle to it being featured, however; I would compare it to the low quality but high significance of featured images such as Image:PinkertonLincolnMcClernand.jpg and Image:View from the Window at Le Gras, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce.jpg.


 * Nominate and support. - – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support sticked out because self-nominators can not support. Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 02:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure this is in the public domain, because if Catherine Ellis and Stephen Drury Smith edited the recording they can claim copyright as of 2005. Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 15:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They did not create any new creative content in the recording. Listen to it; it is a simple transcription from the wax cylinder. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, you convinced me to the public domain status. Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 02:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The sound description page should have more details on the recording itself, as here.--Pharos (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I think. It's hard to make out the words, so I'm unsure why the original wasn't remastered, or why the nominator or someone else here shouldn't have a go at reducing the noise so that the words can be made out with less effort and replaying. Although Criterion 2 carries a degree of exception WRT historical records, this is, I think, something that should be addressed before promotion. Cr 5 (viii) not satisfied. CD producing company no named. No "extended description" on the info page. No duration of file given in caption (Cr 4). Tony   (talk)  12:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per image decription page, Critrion 5.viii. Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 15:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added a link to the transcript and given the duration in the description: This was not hard to do. I think we would be better served by fixing things ourselves if they are easy to fix instead of objecting. ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The sound quality could be better, yes. But the recording is from 1895 and it is remarkable that we can hear something from 113 years in the past at all. I suspect that the people who did this recording from a wax cylinder (!!!) did the best they could to improve it. The words can still be made out. The recording is of tremendous historical significance and is highly relevant to the article. Copyright concerns seem addressed. Could Quadell have filled out the description a bit better, including more information? Perhaps. But I corrected it, I think, satisfactorially. Strong support ++Lar: t/c 16:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5(iii) the date and venue of the recording, where they are recoverable;
 * 5(iv) the name(s) of the recordist/producer, and for historical and field recordings, a brief description of the recording equipment, where known;
 * Is this information known? Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 03:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rejoinder—Lar, telling reviewers to fix things themselves is a good way to derail your nomination. They are under no obligation to touch the nomination, which is yours, not theirs. Tony   (talk)  03:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC) PS Just how difficult is it to reduce the noise–speech ratio? Does the ogg. software do it (probably not, but perhaps someone could advise?)  Tony   (talk)  03:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, I'll keep that in mind for when I nom things myself... which this isn't, I'm just another commenter. I was asked to come here by one of the other commenters after the nom appeared to be languishing. But I'm really hoping that Featured Sounds doesn't get to be quite the same sort of place that Featured Articles appears to be, at least to this outsider. I'm sure that reputation is undeserved, isn't it? Rather, I'd prefer to see a culture of "we're all working together to fix things and make them better" instead of "you forgot to dot an I there, and I'm spending 10X the effort it would have taken to fix it to tell you all about it, instead of just fixing it!" sofixit was invented for a reason, after all. (and that's why I went and fixed the information boxes to the best of my ability... ) As for improving the sound quality of a 113 year old wax cylinder based recording further, after people who work for PBS presumably already had a go... well I'm no sound engineer, so I'm just guessing, but I bet it's not very likely. Love to be proven wrong of course.++Lar: t/c 01:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)



- -Seddon69 (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)