Talk:Frederick Swann/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: A.T.S. in Texas (talk · contribs) 00:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I intend to review this article.A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

writing

The prose, spelling and grammar are good. ====Lead====According to the Wikipedia MOS, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points," Elements that I feel are missing in the lead include that he was the son of a Methodist minister, and that he began playing in his father's church at an early age. I found the numerous reviews in the lead to be over much. Perhaps a later section on critical acclaim would be in order. Simply saying that Swann is one of the best-known organists of the 20th and early 21st Century would be sufficient for the lead. His extensive discography ought to be mentioned in the lead.

Accuracy

It is factually accurate The citations are reliable sources It is not original research I do not detect copyright infringement or plagiarism

Breadth and focus

My reaction after reading up on Swann is that the article misses important aspects. The 2014 interview with Swann in Diapason provides some relevant details that would flesh out Swann's early life--unhappiness at home--notable teachers (esp. Thomas Matthews), confirmation as an Episcopalian (rather than Methodist) friendship with significant artists in New York such as the Duruflés, and other aspects would enhance the reader's appreciation of Swann's significance as an artist and educator and would not be extraneous to main subject. Too many of the references are snippets from concert reviews when there are solid interviews with the subject available in published sources. Separately, I have found that Swann has an organ named after him at the Arboretum, which is part of the Christ Cathedral campus. Apparently he personally rescued it from a California church destroyed in an earthquake. It is common to list "honors" that a subject has received, and an organ named in his honor is as noteworthy as the honorary doctorate already mentioned. This is my major concern about the article. It seems to me that there are noteworthy facts about Swann that are missing but readily available. On the other hand, I understand that in evaluating whether or not this is a good article, I may be asking too much. I would be happy to request a second opinion if the author disagrees with my assessment or feels that it is to burdensome to flesh out the article some more. It is focused

NPOV

It is fair and unbiased.

Stability

It is stable.

Images

Images appropriate. Copyright handled appropriately

Result

Hold 7 days A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Frederick Swann

The article Frederick Swann you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Frederick Swann for issues which need to be addressed. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks very much, A.T.S. in Texas, for the thorough review and the suggestions to improve the article. I was not aware of the Diapason article and will incorporate its key points in a revision I'm now working on have now re-written portions of this article per your suggestions, with that RS and some others added, too. —  JGHowes  ^talk 21:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Superb job! I found reading this article today to be very moving. I'm glad that you found the Diapason interview helpful and inspiring after your long involvement with the article. Kudos for initiating it and taking it to such a high level. Congratulations. I accept it as fulfilling the GA criteria. In fact, you have gone above and beyond.

Your GA nomination of Frederick Swann

The article Frederick Swann you nominated as a good article has A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I have completed the process of approving Frederick Swann as a good article. You should now see this reflected on the talk page. I enjoyed working with you on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.T.S. in Texas (talk • contribs) 02:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)