User talk:Grover cleveland

Welcome!

Hello Grover cleveland, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 01:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User name

Why do you have this user name?? Georgia guy 01:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because I admire Grover Cleveland Grover cleveland 01:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Willem Mengelberg

I saw your edits and your question. Your edits did solve the POV problem. Thanks. gidonb 05:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 17% for major edits and 48% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 27 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 08:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am doing a project on Grover Cleveland and I was wondering if you could tell me anything about his greatest accomplishments and how he changed the world (or US). Thanks! I need it fast. WordWhiz 02:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would love your help.

Hi,

I know you are interested in christianity, and I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. [1] is the site.

The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. It is not meant to be a mere Christian Encyclopedia, but to foster a real sense of community. I'd like to include things like current events, news, stories, and anything that would add to both an understanding of Christianity, but also its enjoyment. I'm looking for help to build a resource that could really enrich the lives of Christians.

I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever. nsandwich 01:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Günther Herbig

I have announced your article in the stub section of Portal:Germany/New article announcements. If you write more about German conductors or turn a related stub into an article, please announce your article there. Thank you, and happy editing! Kusma (討論) 18:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best, although I can't guarantee anything! Probably better to keep an eye on Category:German conductors. Grover cleveland 06:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Levine

Greetings: just wanted to let you know that I caught someone making libelous statements on the James Levine page; I have reverted them and sprotected the page. Somewhat to my surprise, there were numerous deleted revisions in the article history, so this has been going on for a while, probably all by the same person: I noticed that you were one of the people active in removing the junk, so thank you! By the way, good work on all the conductor articles. Antandrus (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Grover cleveland 02:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NBC Symphony Orchestra

It's a great shot of Toscanini, and the recording comes from the first or second year of the NBCSO. Okay, well, I'll try something different. Pepso 17:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might be appropriate on the Arturo Toscanini page, if not for copyright problems. See WP:FU. It would have to accompany a critical discussion of the recording(s) featured on the CD. Grover cleveland 06:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachmaninoff's "signature"

Rachmaninoff ended some of his major works musically with a rhythmic pattern - a long, two shorts and a long (as in the endings of the Second and Third Piano Concertos) or three shorts and a long (as in the ending of the Second Symphony), which is sometimes thought to relate to the prononunciation of his surname (RACH-man-in-OFF).

I can see how that rhythm fits in with the rhythm of his name, but do we know that this isn't any more than a coincidence? I must say I'd never heard this before, and I've read a lot about him and his works. Do you have a reference? Cheers JackofOz 09:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common story that I've heard many times among musicians. I didn't insert this para in the article -- in fact I toned it down from an older version which definitively asserted that Rach put the rhythm in because it fits his name. You can delete it if you like. Grover cleveland 16:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Panther strikes again...

I thought you would like to know that User:Far2steep has taken content from the deleted "The Blue Panther" article and put it on Blupantha and blanked Blue Panther so he/she could put the information from the deleted article there too. I am not exactly sure where to go from here.--Darren Jowalsen 22:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I've AfD'd it. Grover cleveland 23:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Symphony

Hi Grover! Excuse the questioin, but I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and I'm not sure what "commenting out" something means. Could you enlighten me? I see you're involved in several of the symphonic and conductor pages! I've just been glancing around and doing some copyediting and minor additions on a few of them, so I'm sure I'll see you around more. MarkBuckles 14:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the diff for my edit and you'll see what I did. Grover cleveland 15:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

afd page

Hello. I see you nominated Cloud 7 for Afd, however you forgot to use the {{afd2}} template on the afd page, so it wasn't being listed correctly. I have fixed this, just letting you know for again. Regards, MartinRe 20:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Grover cleveland 20:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal immigration

I like your comment about <<Novel assertion that "immigration" only refers to legal immigration needs to be backed up>>". This passage had me foxed too. I think that immigration, legal or not, is a term that's been around for a long time. It think some folks like the term "illegal alien" instead as it sounds more offical, legal and perhaps sexier. Wallie 21:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Harwood

Hello, i am the author of de:Elizabeth Harwood and fr:Elizabeth Harwood, and although i could roughly translate either version into english, i'd prefer somebody else to do it. Don't you sincerely think it's a shame that one of the most beautiful voices ever to have come out of an english-speaking country (imo) has still not gained recognition here ? The same goes actually for Robert Lloyd (singer) - see de:Robert Lloyd. Cheers, RCS 08:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to think fit to answer, shall i turn to somebody else ? I am quite disappointed. RCS 07:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. AAfraid I don'thave time for this right now. Grover cleveland 15:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven's 9th

Hey! I noticed you pointed out on the symphony's entry, that Böhm's recording of the 9th is not the longest recording in duration. Which is the longest? And how long is it? Is it any good (supposing you've heard it)? Atavi 21:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one is supposed to be twice as slow as any other version! I'm happy to say that I've not heard it. Grover cleveland 21:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dumbfounded. I really wonder if what the conductor's theories (for want of a better word) have any standing. Perhaps we could copy this link to the article's talk page (I doubt it belongs to the main article) Atavi 14:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey and way to go

Since our editing paths crossed several times, I began looking at your contributions and feel that I should congratulate you for their general usefulness and impact. And I have more than once started exploring pages that I would edit, from your contributions. So, cheers Atavi 13:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

Thank you- I really need to keep better informed on the subject full-stop! Schissel | Sound the Note! 18:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Barenboim

Hello,

Could you please explain why you removed the "highly POV material"? Was it written in a biased manner? I believe not. I think an article about a musician should include primarily a discussion about his music rather than boring facts about his life, what pieces he recorded, etc. Stating such opinions is in accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Characterizing opinions of people's work.

Gidip 09:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your question on the Daniel Barenboim discussion page. Briefly, the problems were that your material did not include any verifiable citation information and included what appeared to be personal opinions. Grover cleveland 09:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rubinstein and Horowitz

LorenzoPerosi1898 is fooling around with the Rubinstein and Horowitz articles again. Is there a way to get him banned? THD3 17:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested administrator intervention here. Grover cleveland 01:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have reason to believe this person is actually Leonardo Ciampa, who has also contributed to articles about himself, and recommended his own book (published by a vanity publisher) in an article about Pope Puis XIITHD3 01:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks. Grover cleveland 03:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better understanding WP:NPOV and WP:V

There is a general misunderstanding of late as to the true intent of WP:NPOV and WP:V. To state a "fact" (or, if you prefer, a "generally held belief") which is supported by virtually all sources and contradicted by few if any, it is not appropriate to slap a "^{[citation needed]}" tag on, just for one's jollies. "Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents." One DOES NOT have to provide a source for such a statement!!! There is where y'all are a little unclear about the rules here. To even attempt to name "one source" for the above comment about Lincoln is ridiculous. If, instead, you know of a source that contradicts it, it is your onus to find one. Perhaps you also disagree that Lincoln was the 16th president. If you think he was the 15th or 17th, go prove it. Slapping ^{[citation needed]} here and there might be enjoyable to you, but that is not the appropriate response to accepted fact. This clarification is intended not towards any one editor in particularly, but clearly it has become a trend, and a very immature one. Best, LorenzoPerosi1898 00:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lorenzo. I'm tired of arguing this point with you. If you look on your user talk page you'll see that quite a few other users agree with me on this one. Bye. Grover cleveland 01:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One source for Lincoln as one of the greatest presidents? Easy. Fall 1985 Issue of Presidential Studies Quarterly, specifically the article entitled Rating Presidents and Diplomats in Chief. There. Done. Now nobody has to waste the time of editors adding a "^{[citation needed]}", because there's now a credible third-party source that says Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents. It's as simple as that. Someone may also post that Lincoln was one of the worst presidents ever, provided they have a source. Your example stating that Lincoln is one of greatest presidents is simply an opinion. It's a widely shared opinion, but it is not an "accepted fact". Accepted by whom? Him being the 16th president on the other hand is a fact found in most general reference sources and is easily locatable by anyone - it's undebatable and will never change. Greatest president on the other hand is, as I've mentioned, simply the opinion or the Point of View of a large number of people, which could even change over time.

That's why there is no "accepted fact" on Wikipedia and why the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. Any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research. It's really not a difficult concept to understand. Yankees76 20:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Ciampa source edits/clarifications

Nicely handled, thanks. LorenzoPerosi1898 01:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input

Would be appreciated here. Thanks :) Glen 09:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Glen S

Results are in (you'll never guess) Glen 04:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grover, just so you know, I have now indef blocked User:LorenzoPerosi1898. I'm sorry you had to endure the malicious accusations and fabricated "evidence" against you from this user. I'm exceptionally glad that your good name (and of course Glen's) has been cleared in this matter. Best, Gwernol 04:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for your help! Grover cleveland 04:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want clevegrove@mail.com as a souvenir of the last week, I've taken over the account (just to avoid any future returns). Let me know! Yankees76 05:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruckner's 3rd Symphony

I have been researching Bruckner's 3rd (specifically, differences in the first movement in revisions). While searching for recordings, came across this wiki entry and had some questions for you:

How did you come to the conclusion that the George Szell/Cleveland Orchestra version was the 1890 (Raettig?) version? I followed it to rehearsal E on the first movement and they matched up (with the 1889 Nowak). Were you looking at a different movement when you determined that the Szell/Cleveland performance differed from the score? My e-mail is rtalley@iastate.edu I would appreciate any help you might be able to offer, I'm writing a term paper currently on the subject. Lastly, great writing!! Its great to have educated people contribute so much to a free knowledge source!!!

(Also, sorry if I'm not doing this entry correctly, never have posted anything before! Need to get an account someday...)

71.7.56.216 20:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Do you know if the 1890 Raettig and the 1889 Nowak editions differ in the first movement? I only have the 1889 Nowak so I can't check how close they are.

71.7.56.216 21:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Sorry for all the spelling mistakes... ug, making me look bad.

late reply

Grover C: Thanks for your note a while back about references. Apologies that this reply is very belated; I'm still kind of figuring out the system here. I'll see how well I can keep up with updating classical music entries. Thanks again, DJRafe

St. Paul

I have reverted your edits because I think, in the first case, you mistake the nature of the assertion which is simply about the number of words which can be counted in the pages of the NT. The second issue relates to the meaning of the word arguably. It is such a well-recognised point that I can think no scholars who disagree. Even if Acts was written in 64 this is ten years of more after St. Paul is held to have written his letters. Please tell me who your scholars are who disagree. Roger Arguile 11:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the Paul of Tarsus talk page. Grover cleveland 20:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Eschenbach

Thanks for taking notice of the Eschenbach page. I don't know if you had a chance to look at the previous versions. From one person's alias, "Montco", I believe that that refers to Montgomery County, which is just outside of Philadelphia. The tone of the article at that point was definitely pro-Eschenbach and not quite to wikipedia standard. I tried to make the article seem more even handed, but I'm not sure how well I succeeded. From what I understand, it has been quite a controversial issue in Philadelphia, especially with the tone of those posts toward the one critic, Dobrin. Best, DJRafe, 05:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Gilels

I appreciate your input as to your musical taste regarding Gilel's stature as one of the greatest pianists of the 20 th century. While you may regard this as "over enthusiastic," my addition was supported by one of the pages used as a reference in the article. If you really have an objection, you are better advised to express your reservations in the discussion page. I would revert your edits until you act in a civil manner. User:67.83.90.10

Hi there.

Please sign your edits in talk pages.
Your original addition said that Gilels "is regarded as one of the greatest pianists of all time" [2] and gave no source. The link to which I presume you are referring to says that "The unexpected death of Emil Gilels in 1985 at the age of 68 robbed the world of one of the most significant pianists of the twentieth century". "Greatest of all time" is not the same as "most significant of the 20th century". Note that you did not cite this page inline as is recommended for such value judgments. Note also that this link is to an Emil Gilels tribute site.
I described your edit as "over enthusiastic" and "unsupported". It was unsupported because you didn't provide an inline citation. "Over enthusiastic" is justified because even the Emil Gilels tribute site to which you refer uses significantly less gushing language to describe Gilels. Your suggestion that I am not acting in a "civil manner" is totally unjustified.
I note that you did not in fact revert my changes: instead you replaced your original language that Gilels "is regarded as one of the greatest pianists of all time" with a statement that "Gilels is regarded as one of the most significant pianists of the twentieth century" [3] although again there is no inline citation. Therefore your claim taht you "reverted" my edit is itself disingenuous.
For the record I personally agree with you that Gilels is one of the greatest pianists of all time. However on Wikipedia we are not allowed to inject opinions like that without backing them up with sources, as you are probbably aware.

Grover cleveland 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made to Alexamenos graffito

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Grover cleveland! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bexample\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 06:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrase at Saenz

Thanks for the pointer at Saenz v. Roe. I rephrased the sentence in question. Hopefully, it's okay now.Ferrylodge 17:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

de Sabata

I drifted in from WP:PR, and made some changes consistent with WP:LEAD. However, you obviously know much more about the subject, so please edit the introduction to correct any things I may have highlighted too much, or any important things I may have omitted. I basically just cut together an overview based on what you already had written. Kaisershatner 15:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! As far as I can see your edit is fine, as long as there is no fair use problem with using a CD cover in the lead of the article. Grover cleveland 15:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR @ Jesus tomb

Hi. It may interesting for you to read [4]. It's just another point of view. And it's related to out debate. I don't say it's an argument, I don't say you are wrong based on this link. (I don't know nothing about the site or the author). But I think it's worth reading, even only to see someones arguments. I hope you'll not missjudge me by this. Cheers. adriatikus | 01:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adriatikus -- thanks for the link. I looked through it briefly. I'm not sure what its relevance is to the OR dispute at The Lost Tomb of Jesus. My argument is that citations should be made for the claim that the movie's findings contradict various Christian beliefs. Are you suggesting that this article supplies such citations? Grover cleveland 02:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos are due to GC

Hello, GC!

I just ran across this edit, so I want to say thank you. You patched up one of my pet peeves – one I don't always have the energy to correct. Do you have a copy of Fowler's excellent book? DavidCBryant 21:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think I read Fowler a long time ago... Glad I'm not the only one. Grover cleveland 23:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classical pages/thanks

Glad to help; as the Beatles said on the rooftop, I hope I passed the audition :) Best, DJRafe 04:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for WB-C editing

Many thanks, Grover, for your sterling work in editing/adding to the William H. Barrington-Coupe/William H. B. Coupe/Barrington-Cooper? article. It's just the sort of bolstering of the article I was hoping for when I penned it yesterday. (I must say that the transmogrification of 'Barrington-Cooper' into the much more aristocratic sounding 'Barrington-Coupe' strikes me as very plausible.) -- Jmc 05:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7Q5 revert

Please read the discussion page before reverting material. You stated that no reason was given for the modifications made to the "counter-arguments" section, but I gave many reasons on the discussions page. I have experience reading greek manuscripts and the modifications that I explained and made were based on that. Again, please don't simply revert material if you haven't read the discussions page and are not familiar with the arguments. Thanks.

My apologies: it is standard practice at Wikipedia to put a note in the edit summary such as "see discussion page" in cases such as this. If you don't put an edit summary other editors will assume that the edits were unjustified. There are so many cases of this that there isn't always time to look at the discussion page. I'll respond to your arguments on the discussion page later if I have time. Grover cleveland 16:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the lack of time, and I should have written a brief edit summary, but since it has been a long time since I edited a wikipedia article, I had forgotten about the edit summary. Even so, editing a source like wikipedia where many people come to get accurate information is important, and so the discussion page should usually be quickly perused to make sure that there is no argumentation before reverting information. People should probably focus on a smaller subset of articles if they want to do a reasonable job of editing. Anyway, thanks for acknowledging. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.185.183.212 (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Alexamenos graffito

First, I should say that my own choices are by definition subjective, and that my personal reactions are generally to error on the side of caution. It could possibly be considered a "B" by others. I guess my primary reservation is the length. There are a number of references included, which is wonderful, but a bit more elucidation in the text as to what is being refered to might be in order. Basically, I get the impression, possibly inaccurately as impressions are inherently subjective, that there is a substantial amount of at least expressed opinions out there which are not being described in detail. If I am wrong in that, and I easily could be because I know nothing whatsoever about this particular subject, that would likely improve the assessment grade of the article. John Carter 21:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll see if I can do anything to improve the situation. Grover cleveland 22:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out that WP:PR might be a good place to go for a more formal review. I know on the basis of my having expressed similar concerns about Maximus the Confessor, and the subsequent work by the editor involved in that article, an article of rather short length has recently been promoted to FA status. So, if you can indicate that the other content which is available is not really relevant, then this too could conceivably, after review, possible revision and discussion, get FA status. John Carter 23:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar Problem?

What is the grammar problem here?

After Japan regained it's sovereignty, freedom of religion remained as part of the new Constitution of Japan.

Sovereignty is something a thing, in this case Japan, possesses, hence the apostrophe. So what's the problem? Brentt 23:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophes aren't used with possessives of pronouns: see its Grover cleveland 03:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No content in Category:Works by Alexander Mosolov

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Works by Alexander Mosolov, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Works by Alexander Mosolov has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Works by Alexander Mosolov, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachmaninoff's First Published Score

I noticed you removed a claim about The Rock being Rachmaninoff's first published score. The claim was made in the 3rd reference I have listed on the article concerning The Rock. I am not sure when the First Piano Concerto was published relative to the aforementioned tone poem; I will look into this. Thanks. -- Chewieblue

David Tholen

I question the appropriatness of adding a tag that recommends the use of "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" to a protected article.

What items do you believe are in need of citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightingale0 (talk • contribs)

Umm -- every single claim in the entire article. I don't see any citations at the moment, and of course they are required by Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. Grover cleveland 08:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy states: "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed." I didn't notice any quotes, and don't see any challenges. There are embedded links in the article, for example the link to a list of Urey prize winners. What items do you believe are in need of citations? Also, you have not answered the point about recommending "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" on a protected article. - Nightingale

OK: here are the claims that I think are "likely to be challenged" (I will challenge them right here if you think that's necessary) and should therefore be sourced: the claims about Tholen discovering asteroids, and the Hale-Bopp incident. Embedded links to other Wikipedia articles are not themselves citations. To be honest I really don't care about the Bold, revert, discuss cycle -- my purpose in tagging the article was to draw attention to its lack of sources and recommend that they be added: how this is done isn't something I particularly care about. I can't imagine that it would be that difficult to find, say, articles in astronomical journals about the asteroid discoveries. Grover cleveland 16:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have a non-Wikipedia link to the prize, and as you say, information re the asteriods should not be hard to find - I'll do some searching next week when I have a bit more time. I don't know much about the Heaven's gate stuff, but there is a link showing Tholen's response to the faked images, and the same site has more information about the incident. I'm not sure that it really deserves such prominance in the article though. - Nightingale

Sargent

Thanks for your tip. I was asked to provide a reference for the sentence in question but couldn't, but I shall bear in mind your sage advice. Tim Riley 13:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just because Lebrecht said it, that doesn't make it true. Lebrecht gives no source or basis for this opinion. It appears, from all the other references, that Lebrecht's opinion is dubious - rumour at best and possibly a spiteful lie. I don't think this source qualifies as a WP:RS. -- Ssilvers 16:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi S. Value judgments, especially about artistic matters, are inevitably subjective. That is why Wikipedia has the NPOV policy to ensure that comments and criticism are attributed to their authors rather than plainly asserted in the article. For this reason I'm not sure that it makes much sense to say that Lebrecht's comment is or is not "true" in any objective sense. To say that it is a "spiteful lie" would imply that Lebrecht didn't really believe that Sargent lowered the quality of the orchestra, but just said it anyway to hurt Sargent or his admirers. I don't think that there is any reason to believe that this is the case -- I've heard many people comment negatively on Sargent's skills as an orchestral builder.

If you disagree with Lebrecht's criticism, I suggest that you add other citations that contradict Lebrecht -- right now I don't see any. I suggest that we put further messages on this subject at Talk:Malcolm Sargent -- I'll be checking there for any replies. Thanks. Grover cleveland 16:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't want to clutter up the Sargent talk page any more. I respect your argument, but I do not think that all sources should be given the same weight. If you read the Lebrecht book (just the page you can see by clicking), it's just a bunch of purple prose and unsourced invective. I really don't think it is a serious source for this topic. I think we can say that certain sources are just not reliable enough to be quoted in Wikipedia. Let's see what Tim says. He as read all these books on Sargent. I agree with you that I, personally, have not done the research to properly refute Lebrecht, but his statements are patently outrageous and sensational. It is not easy to "wreck" an orchestra, and I think we should have more solid evidence than the Lebrecht book for describing his impact on the BBC Orchestra. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 17:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a moment perhaps you'd cast an eye over the para I've added as suggested on MS's C20th repertory, and see if you think it suitably balanced. Grateful if you could. Tim Riley 11:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crucifixion eclipse

Deleting paragraphs without prior discussion is a violation of Wikipedia policy. You should have recorded your concerns in the discussion section prior removing the texts. A brief declaration in the edit summary does not constitute compliance with the Wikipedia policy. Such actions have the appearance of vandalism. I welcome discussions on such topics. With respect to my educational background in this area, I have earned a baccalaureate degree in physical science; a doctorate in Christian education administration; and have completed over a dozen graduate hours in theoretical physics. The material you had deleted has been restored. Tcisco 04:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I cannot accept your contentions about Wikipedia policies: there is, as far as I know, no policy forbidding deletion of problematic material without prior discussion. If you can point me to such a policy, please go ahead. You might want to check out Wikipedia's fundamental No original research principle while you're at it: much of the crucifixion eclipse article will probably be, or already has been, deleted for violating that policy. Your qualifications are irrelevant. If you have published material in peer-reviewed publications that would qualify as reliable sources then feel free to cite them: with that exception Wikipedia is not the place for your personal views, knowledge or theories. If you wish to share your views about the crucifixion eclipse on the internet I would suggest a newsgroup or blog, not Wikipedia. Sorry. Grover cleveland 05:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rach 2

Thank you for your comments. I often find it difficult to phrase my objections in a neutral tone, and your measured response was refreshing. --Alexs letterbox 05:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Article

I struck my statement, I really was not trying to imply IP’s were not welcome. I actually pride myself on not resorting to Wiki-rules when dealing with other editors. Sometimes I do bate a troll, which I know is bad manners, and usually results in me needing to apologize, but that is about as close as I come to enforcing community civility. Take care,--Riferimento 00:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you coule be a little more careful about putting in the citation needed tabs. The information on the Council of Jerusalem comes most of it from Ogg in Peake. It IS cited, and it seemed otiose to put footnotes to the same article on every line. I wonder if you could read Ogg or just delete them. Roger Arguile 10:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is also more helpful to provide citations rather than point out their absence. It is, with respect, comparatively easy to note that statements need support; it is a much more helpful though laborious task to insert them. One of the problems I notice with WP is the small number of editors who make substantical contributions and the larger number who add information without always having read the article in full and who add inconsistent information. I despair at the retention of the 1910 CE. It defeats our intention to be credible. Roger Arguile 10:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roger. Thanks for your comments. I agree that it is more helpful to provide citations than to point out their absence: indeed I have started to do this to the article (starting from the top). Just think of the "citation needed" tags as "to-do" notices that are useful markers for places that might be good places to add references. It does somewhat impair the aesthetic look of the article, which is a shame, but I think the point is that this is supposed to prod people into actually adding the citations. Adding the tags is very common practice in Wikipedia: just look at the first page ofo Category:Articles with unsourced statements since July 2007 to see that there are more than 200 Wikipedia pages to which this tag has been added so far this month that begin with the letter "A"!

You say that much of the content in the Council of Jerusalem section is supported by Ogg. If this is the case, then please add inline citations with page references so that this can be checked by any other editor. The tags can then be removed. Since there is a lot of controversy surrounding Paul, it's always good to imagine what would happen if someone reading the article disagreed with some of your contributions. How could they verify that the material is not original research but was backed by reliable sources? You can't really expect them to read the full text of every single book in the bibliography at the end of the article in order to verify a single claim. Inline citations with page numbers are much more useful because it enables them to verify the material very easily. If there's a web link to the page, as there is with most of the references I added recently, then it can be checked almost instantaneously. You might want to check out Wikipedia:Attribution#How_to_cite_sources for more on this.

You are probably right that the 1910 Catholic Enyclopaedia is obsolete today, but even an obsolete source is better than no cited source at all. Cheers. Grover cleveland 15:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that you feel that books accessible online are better than nothing and, of course, Raymond Brown is a widely recognised scholar, but in the long run, there is no substitute for reading the books on the subject without limitation. As I have disocvered in other fields, the reliance on online libraries is not sufficient. White's assertions, such as his reference to Paul's bravado, are less than careful. Using his work may satisfy the strict adherance to WP guidelines, but there are plenty of maverick scholars around and a wider knowledge of the literature will provide a much better article than online 'scholarship'. Roger Arguile 11:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a good number of your tags. My contention is that it is not necessary to end every sentence in a reference. My preference for books rather than quotations on line is due to my belief that those who want to question can read the book rather than treat books, whether biblical or otherwise as a collection of quotations. You even tagged sentences in quotation marks. I assume that your own understanding of the Bible is such that you know where to find a chapter. I repeat: the purpose is to enlighten the reader. The requirement to assume good faith means also that one does not expect people to be trying to trip one up all the time. As for CE1910, your argument would be like saying that rather quote Newton on relativity than nothing at all. Roger Arguile 12:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to this at [[5]]. Grover cleveland 17:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With great respect, you have not responded to it in a satisfactory way at all. Your remarks are general and nowhere refer to specific edits. You do not note the odd absence of standard books of reference in the editing or the use of McGarvey (online) or 1910CE (online). Far from my deserving rebuke, it seems to me that those who defend edits and requests for citation might helpfully show that they have read the literature. I hate repetition but I notice that you have not commented on this defect in the editing. I can't prove that I have sources for what I have added; I can deduce from the preponderance for online sources a preference for them, whose cause I can only guess at. I repeat my scepticism about inline references: they are inconsistent because they can only apply to certain books; they are likely to apply to books in the public domain (McGarvey) CE 1910); they therefore don't include modern works of scholarship. I assume 'good faith' but good faith can be tested to breaking point.

I realise that it is very tiresome to have your work unpicked bit by bit. I accept that you have responded to the request - your own and rightly - for secondary sources. The next step is that we give up on public domain stuff unless it justifies itself by its superior content. Editors must read as wellas write. Roger Arguile 18:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. I have added more at the Paul talk page that I hope will provide the specificity that you asked for. Your remark that "I can't prove that I have sources for what I have added" is revealing. According to Verifiability, which is a binding policy on Wikipedia, if you do not have a source for material, and cannot, when challenged, provide a reference to that source, then you should not be adding the material in the first place. Any editor is entitled to demand a source: there is no requirement that they must have read any books on the subject in order to do so. I quote from WP:V:

Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

and

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

. If you cannot bring yourself to agree with this policy then I suggest that Wikipedia is not the place for you. Grover cleveland 19:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have explained myself earlier. Roger Arguile 20:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul van Kempen etc.

GC, thanks for the kind note. It was actually fairly easy to Google-translate & paraphrase the German PvK article, so the rest was sort of duck soup. I haven't had much chance to find some more of the other neglected ones, but in due time, barring the end of the world. Best, DJRafe 20:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Times

I've found the Musical Times links through JSTOR, not the same as Google books. I confess that I was remiss in putting links, because if one is at an institution that has access to full texts of JSTOR scanned articles, that's not the same as a private person who would have access to only the first page, if that. If you think it's best for me to add the links, I can start to do so. Thanks, DJRafe 05:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DJ. I wouldn't worry about the links too much: most people (including me, unfortunately), won't have access to them. Keep up the good work! Grover cleveland 05:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 18:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of comments on Maria Callas and Bel Canto

Dear Person,

I am sorry (Grover Cleveland) for my lack of understanding regarding Wikipedia's rules and instructions. I have read what you referred and understood.

I would like to honestly state my intentions were pure and I have contributed with the hope of informing a broader public of historic practices. The statement on Renata Tebaldi about Maria Callas, I considered public domain, such is my immersion in my field of opera. I simply don't have the time to prove everything simply on behalf of a statement on Maria Callas. I really added nothing that is not already there.

Self publishing is by choice because I like the freedom of it, and I prefer as an "educated and experienced professional", to have my own point of view. I do have personal friends who are editors at major publishing companies and my mentor is a noted writer of African-American history, but Callas is not along those lines, even if she exemplifies the scope of my work.

I should only hope that one day, as I am still rather fresh as a professional, my work will become sources matching the unique rules of Wikipedia. I think the time will come, and rest assured that your decision is not taken as an assault on my worth, which I prove everyday. In the meantime, I will refrain from contributing alas, for I have thoroughly enjoyed it.

My best to the Wikipedia community. --Jacocks5671 17:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Bruckner 8 ii dm theme.png. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Bruckner 8 ii dm theme.png--david@andromeda mbruckner 8 ii dm theme.png. The copy called Image:Bruckner 8 ii dm theme.png--david@andromeda mbruckner 8 ii dm theme.png has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 06:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Hatto

Hi :-) I made an edit to the page to remove the references section you moved the New Yorker article into, I'll say why here as the edit summary box character limit was too short:

If it's not a good idea to put it in the intro, then IMO it is best as an external link (which it was anyway, I didn't notice the duplication) rather than in a references section, as that implies something in the WP article came from the page, but I don't think that it did, and if it did, it should be added as a reference to the specific quote, to make it more useful. It serves better as a "further reading" article - as it's so good I may move the link to near the top of the external links soon (they need a sorting out anyway, it's a very long list). Generally lists of "general" references (opposed to ones inserted into the text to back up key claims) should probably be avoided when there is already a long list of direct references, and perhaps incorporated into that list if need be.

Feel free to revert if this seems a bad idea, as I'm not hugely invested in it either way and don't want to tread on any feet :-) Le the 11:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks. Grover cleveland 15:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consonant table

Thanks for noticing where I've goofed in the occurrence tables. I can be a real asshat sometimes. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 16:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures for Bruckner symphony pages

I was thinking that for the Bruckner symphony pages, we could choose pictures that are a little more contemporaneous to the time he wrote the Urfaßung. The Wöss edition of the 0th, for example, has a picture of Bruckner as a young man, while the same edition of the 9th has a picture of his death mask. Though on the other hand, if we did this, it could be seen as a kind of plagiarism... Anton Mravcek 21:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest adding such pictures in the article. For the template, it is probably good to have a uniform appearance. Grover cleveland 14:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preity Zinta FA

Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vedic period

thanks for helping clean out the substandard additions to the Vedic articles. dab (𒁳) 07:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Phoenician brahmi ph a.png. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Phoenician brahmi a.png. The copy called Image:Phoenician brahmi a.png has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Musicians who left Nazi Germany

Category:Musicians who left Nazi Germany, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Microvillous inclusion disease

Hi Grover,

Why is microvillous inclusion disease non-diagnosable with amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling? (I'm asking 'cause I don't have access to Recent Advances in Paediatrics.)

Is it that the gene has not be identified?

(That's what I'm thinking, as there are only approximately two dozen identified cases world wide according to OMIM. If it is so, we should include that in the article -- 'cause it isn't that it is non-diagnosable by genetics, it is just that we don't yet know the gene/exactly where to look in the genome. :-) ) Nephron T|C 19:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nephron,

You can go directly to the referenced source (Recent Advances in Paediatrics) by clicking on the link in the reference, which goes to Google Books. Hope that helps. Grover cleveland (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the source. It is impossible to tell what the references are for that statement, from what is available online. I'm not impressed by the textbook; saying it is only diagnosable by biopsy is a very weak statement for a disease that is genetic and appears to follow an autosomal recessive pattern. I found a better reference (Nestle Nutr Workshop Ser Pediatr Program. 2007;59:73-85; discussion 85-8. PMID 17245092). It states what I thought; the gene(s) are not known. Nephron T|C 21:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Grover cleveland (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel of Thomas

I did not want you to think I was starting an edit war with the revert I just did. Here is my thinking. I went to that article to do some research on where the book came from and how it is viewed. The article did not help my cause much. I found the page I referenced and it told me exactly the info i was looking for. I understand that the sentance I addded was stated in the article but I believe it should be included in the intro so that someone can just read the intro and get a quick glimps of the issue. I do not have time now to look for a better reference but I will in a couple of weeks. If you feel it needs to be reverted I understand. I will also add that the whole article seems to be WP:OR and has very few references. Cheers - Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful editing of Joyce Hatto

Grover, the comment further up this page from Roger Arguile seems very pertinent in respect of your recent editing of Joyce Hatto: "It is also more helpful to provide citations rather than point out their absence. It is, with respect, comparatively easy to note that statements need support; it is a much more helpful though laborious task to insert them." -- Jmc (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And, if you read WP:V, you will see that both are vital things to do. If neither you nor anyone else wants to provide the citations, the statement should be removed, per WP:V. Thanks. Grover cleveland (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Furtwangler Bruckner 5 intro.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:Furtwangler Bruckner 5 intro.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeux edit

That characterization about Emile Vuillermoz is in the Berman article, but it's no big deal to take it out. The entry is fine w/o it. DJRafe (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think it would be fine to say that "according to Berman, Vuillermoz is one of the work's few defenders", but stated as straight fact it leaves a very POV taste in my mouth. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mahler's Symphony Nº 8

Hi, Grover. I had never seen this image of the dress rehearsal of Mahler's magnum opus. Amazing stuff ! Regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you like it. I found it in Richard Specht's book "Gustav Mahler", published in 1913: it's a real Alladin's cave of illustrations, many more of which could probably be used in Wikipedia. You can view the complete book for free on Google Books: here's the link to the 8th symphony rehearsal picture. Grover cleveland (talk) 07:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grover, you're right: the Specht book is a treasure trove (thanks for the link). The possibility of using material like this is what makes Wikipedia unique. I look forward to reading you future mahlerian contributions (by the way, your trimming of some POV stuff on his Symphony nª 6 was most welcome). Regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing comments of users on article discussion page

Grover, thanks for the tip about changes I made on the discussion page of article English. It was an honest mistake, in fact I did sign it and put the comment in brackets so it should have been clear that I was interjecting not modifying, but I didn't follow the correct formatting. Now I have discovered and used the undo-edit feature; it is the simplest solution. Tim Richardson (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

clinton dosent call for ferraro resignation

i think the source i got adresses the issue. see the discussion page on the article. Cubguy83 (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geraldine Ferraro

I have a few concerns about your changes to the referencing. Using the templates is good but I'm not sure CNN is really a stronger source than the Politico (which is journalistic blog so it has some credibility) and your change from the Baltimore Sun blog to the Reno Gazette. It's not that I disagree, necessarily but it seems rather arbitrary. gren グレン 02:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V does allow that blogs under the full editorial control of a newspaper etc. may be cited, but surely a formally published piece by a major news organization is preferable as a source? Do we know exactly what level of editorial control and fact-checking goes on before a blogger on a site like Politico makes a post? I don't but I'm pretty sure that it is less than what would be expected for a essay or article. It doesn't seem arbitrary to me. Grover cleveland (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ureli Corelli Hill

Thanks for letting me know. I have put the places of birth and death back into the article. I think this situation is unusual because the infobox creator invariably takes information from the article, not the other way round, but I will watch out for it in future. Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classical music blogs

Thanks for spotting and removing the anti-Lebrecht rant. There had been so many changes to the article before I removed the blog links section that I never noticed that had been slipped in there too. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Democratic primary, 2008

Thank you for your edit of my change. I had forgotten that SC was one of the four. Although I wish that could be referenced in that passage, it would be clunky wording. Charles Oppermann (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victor de Sabata

Actually, I think it's a very high B, and added it to my watchlist to work on at some future point and nominate for GA, which is the next step. I think it has FA potential too, and would love to help you with it. Some quick suggestions:

There are a number of unreferenced statements and paragraphs. I'll go through and put cite needed tags on them.
Two images is slim for an article of this length. If there are more images out there, they should be added.
The anecdotes of musical abilities section should be changed from a list into straight text.
The selected discography should be changes from a list into a discography table (I can work on this - I have some experience with tables)
I'm not sure what MoS says, but it seems odd to me to have the media section midway down the page, with more text after it. How is this handled on other classical music pages?
The family connections and quote sections are unnecessary and should be folded into the biographical text.
Again, I don't know how this is done with other classical music biographies, but I think the selected discography, compositions, notable premieres, and even media sections might be able to fit as subsections of one larger 'Works' section.

Those are just my first thoughts. I think the best next step, after these changes but before GA nomination, would be to get Yannismarou or someone like him to take a look at wp:bio peer review. Marrio (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]