Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas Beecham/archive1

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:20, 16 April 2011 [1].

Thomas Beecham

Featured article candidates/Thomas Beecham/archive1

Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Beecham, one of Britain's most celebrated executant musicians, has been thoroughly overhauled and refined since being promoted to GA in 2008. Information from major new sources has been incorporated. The revised article has recently received a tremendously thorough peer review, and I am most grateful to the editors who contributed to that review. After taking on the many helpful suggestions, I believe the article now meets all the FA criteria. Tim riley (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Some small formatting inconsistencies in references - whether there's a period or a comma after journal article titles, whether a comma is inside or outside the external link, whether a comma is inside or outside the quotation mark, etc
- I've rechecked, but my ageing eyes cannot spot any of these. I'll gladly amend any cases of inconsistency you have noticed.
  - I've tried fixing this, feel free to revert if I've misread your preferred formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's splendid, and I am much indebted. (I had to increase the zoom to 200% to see the difference – Anno Domini, alas!)
Ref 51, 63, 174: which Kennedy? Also, unless one of these is 1989 you only have refs to 1971
- All Kennedy refs checked and dated. Thank you for this.
Missing bibliographic information for Morrison
- Dear me! Bad omission - most grateful to you for spotting this.
Be consistent in how page ranges are formatted. For example, you've got "pp. 217–218" but "pp. 214–15"
- All amended, I think.
Be consistent in how disambiguatory dates are notated
- Not sure what you mean by this.
  - For example, "Jenkins (2000), p. 3" vs "Jenkins, 1991, pp. 4 and 12". Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good gracious! Most remiss of me. The bracketed form is what I intend. I'll go and change the unbracketed dates at once. Thank you very much.
Check wikilinking. For example, Alan Blyth is wikilinked in ref 165 but not 164 - why?
- Amended
Why not include both authors for Atkins refs?
- I understood this was the usual convention for reference citations, but will happily add the co-author if that is thought preferable
Check consistency for CD formatting
- I have checked once more and I think this is okay but if you spot any inconsistency I'll amend it post haste
  - Not sure how to fix this: "EMI CD 5-67231-2" vs "EMI CD CDM 7 63401 2" is an example. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that's all right. They are EMI CDs with the catalogue codes "5-67231-2" and "CDM 7 63401 2" (I have both to hand) and we can't make the catalogue lettering/numbering any more consistent than that, I think.
Link OCLCs for "As author" books? Also, why "As author" and not "Bibliography" per
WP:LAYOUT? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
- Done.

Thank you for this. I'll comb through carefully and report back here. Tim riley (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Later: now done (as described above) subject to any further suggestion. Many thanks to Nikkimaria for this acute scrutiny. Tim riley (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images are unproblematic, captions look fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I proofread and copy-edited this article several times over the years and again recently. As usual, Tim riley's research is impressive, and the peer review comments prompted the further refinement of the article. The article is well written, comprehensive, thoroughly referenced and appropriately illustrated. It certainly represents some of the best work on Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have watched this article over several years (I passed it for GA when I was a mere lad in 2008) and have long believed that it was a FA-in-waiting. Tim has done the work, and we have here a most impressive article. My detailed comments were answered at the recent peer review, which was an unusually thorough exercise in final polishing and primping. I have just one more request: could the caption for the New York Met photograph mention that this is the "old" Met, before its current incarnation in the Lincoln Center? Nit-picking, I know...Otherwise I concur with everything Ssilvers has said, above. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is another one I spent some time looking at during its recent peer review, and I believe that it meets all of the FA criteria.
Fatuorum 17:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Grateful thanks to Ssilvers, Brianboulton and Malleus Fatuorum for the encouraging comments, above. Their encouragement, advice and emendation in getting the article to FAC have been tremendous. I've dealt with the "old Met" caption. Tim riley (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I also contributed to the extensive peer review, where all of my nit-picky concerns were addressed. I felt it met the FA criteria then, nad it has only improved since, nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this support - and for your earlier help - greatly appreciated. Tim riley (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support as another PR participant. Source and image issues have been resolved to my satisfaction. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Warmest thanks for this support and for marvellous detailed help here and at PR. Tim riley (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.