Talk:Tarik O'Regan

Composers Project Assessment

I have assessed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. My assessment (demotion to Start class) is on the comment page. If you have any questions, feel free to respond there, here, or on my talk page. -- Magic♪piano 14:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Article is still deficient from composer perspective; most of the issues I outlined in my review of two years ago still exist. Thus demoting composer/contemporary rating back to Start. Magic♪piano 14:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleting material on this page

I have restored the above entry relating to the project assessment, which was removed without explanation. Entries on talk pages should not normally be deleted by other editors.Straw Cat (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you needed to: user 66.108.11.17 reverted the deletion (originally made in error) in revision 404391789. Please look at the revision history before posting needlessly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.11.17 (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I did however look at your posting history, and noticed that all edits you have made to Wikipedia with one exception are to this article. Clearly you seem especially interested in this composer.

So, you will already know that at least two other editors have commented in the composer project assessment referenced above that this article resembles a promotional rather than an encyclopedic one. You removed a tag about this. Nevertheless the relentlessly uncritically hyperbolic tone and content is both alien to WP, and off-putting, and does the talented Mr O'Regan no favours with a casual reader. Detailed suggestions for improvement are in the assessment. Why not make a start on that? Musical influences, childhood? Straw Cat (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, well I've tried to do as you both suggest, finding what I can on the internet and making it more "encyclopaedic". I've tried to answer the summary points and detailed suggestions made by Magic♪piano.

Yes, of course I am interested in this composer, hence trying to maintain this entry. One thing worth mentioning is that music publishers and composers have a slightly different relationship to book publishers and authors. Often the publisher of a living composer has the only verifiable list of works, list of commissions, list of broadcast dates etc. If you claim that music publisher websites are entirely "NPOV", and thus unusable, then almost all living composer Wikipedia entries would need to be re-written from scratch.

Anyway, I think this is an improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.11.17 (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

'Magic♪piano suggests a works list, but I don't want to copy the works list manually from the publisher site ([1]) in case you consider this to be NPOV and delete it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.11.17 (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, before today's edits, there had been some improvement. I was uncertain whether the information needed for proper encyclopedic coverage is publicly available -- it appears on the basis of today's edits that some of it is, although much of it seems (unsurprisingly, given his age) to be from interviews with the subject. A brief search for reviews of O'Regan's works turns up generally favorable reviews, which is probably a good thing for him, but also makes it difficult to assess whether publishing a lot of positive spin here is a Good Thing (this is where it is hard to avoid accusations of WP:PEACOCK and/or WP:NPOV).

One key complaint that you are perhaps confused on in my commentary is this: a one-sentence summary of his "style" is not particularly useful. Does he write orchestral music? chamber music? for what instrument combinations? does he write for electronic or other "exotic" instruments (vis a vis traditional European classical music)? Compare his music to that of other composers; is his music like that of Stockhausen? Rachmaninov? Frank Zappa?

Commentary on form: the form of this article reads almost like a CV, not an encyclopedia article. I could rewrite Philip Glass into this format, to its detriment; can you rewrite this article into the form of that one? (I use the Glass article as an example of a modern living composer article that isn't bad; it has its flaws, but will suffice for this exercise. Another article where I worked with the subject to craft a reasonably neutral article is Pedro Vilarroig.) I'm also concerned that the form of this article is possibly being biased so that sites that reuse WP content by extracting the first part of the article are getting content intended to promote (in this case the "current project").

I see no problem with copying a works list from the publisher's site, BTW. Magic♪piano 01:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

OK! Brief responses and an "action plan":

• I have tried to use "strong" third party sources (i.e. national broadcasters and national newspapers) where information has been gleaned from the subject being interviewed.
• I will try and fill out the style section as per your suggestion, but I would feel uncomfortable suggesting that a composer "sounds" like another composer, as this is so subjective and probably not NPOV (my Stockhausen may be your Zappa, for example).
• The Philip Glass article is pretty good, but I'm not sure how that format would work for someone who is in their early 30s. Are you - in essence - suggesting a chronological entry?
• I can remove the "current projects" bit, but (as far as I can see) this represents his first opera, so quite an important thing to be listed somewhere in the entry.

Do list any other suggestions, and I'll try and get to them! --66.108.11.17 (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It would also be useful to state under whom he studied at Oxford and Cambridge, assuming he studied music at both. Does he belong or subscribe to any particular school or group of composers? Straw Cat (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Comparative statements are sometimes made by reviewers, or the subject in interviews; your opinion on the matter is original research. In re formatting: just because someone is young doesn't mean one can't write chronologically, and in prose, about them. The (over)use of bulleting and lists is what makes this article look most like a CV. Magic♪piano 15:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Plans for revision

1. Add works list
2. Re-work material into a chronological/prose style
3. Re-work lead
4. Add suggested items (teachers/"school" of composition) etc
5. Re-work "critical reception" to avoid WP:PEACOCK, although I think we're safe on WP:NPOV as these stem from a great variety of international sources of excellent repute.

Much of this new information will have to come from a printed composer brochure, which his publisher (published by the publisher itself) sent me recently. But there may be verifiable on-line sources too.--66.108.11.17 (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

OK: I have started on a works list. Before I go on, are there any problems or suggestions? Is there a way of making an "initial sort" for the list? For example, it might be useful to have the list sorted initially by premiere date.

I'm not sure how to sort the conductor list by surname, although I'd like it listed, intially, in the first name/surname format (as it is now)

Also, I have added a references section (primarily to source the works list), but I have no idea how this formatting works. It doesn't look right to me...--66.108.11.17 (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks OK to me so far. See the {{Sort}} template for how to introduce sorting keys into tables where the key differs from the text (as it does with things like dates). The "initial sort" will be the order in which entries appear in the article source; I recommend a chronological listing. Web sites used as references are best formatted using the {{cite web}} template. See also Wikipedia:Citing sources. Magic♪piano 15:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you: I have fixed these issues using {{Sort}} and {{cite web}}. Do you think reverse-chronological order is more useful to a casual reader for the discography and works list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.11.17 (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Revisions undertaken

I've read through much of the above and have tried to revise the article as per suggestions by User 66.108.11.17, Magic♪piano and Straw Cat, especially the following:

1. Added works list
2. Re-worked material into a chronological/prose style
3. Re-worked lead to avoid WP:PEACOCK
4. Added suggested items (teachers/"school" of composition) etc
5. Re-worked "critical reception" to avoid WP:PEACOCK as much as possible, trying to keep WP:NPOV

I think it reads pretty well now...108.41.125.31 (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a much improved article. I've nominated it for Good Article review.Grovereaper (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tarik O'Regan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Petergriffin9901 (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 09:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Note - This is a tempted quick-fail. The article is not broad in its coverage, and there are several examples of poor prose throughout. All of the references, while mostly reliable, are missing vital parameters such as work, publisher, authors etc. Unless there is a major expansion and change within the next seven days, this will result in a fail. as it appears, you aren't even a main contributor to the page. Not a good sign when IPS developing an article and you have nothing to show for it.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tarik O'Regan/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==Composers Project Assessment of Tarik O'Regan: 2008-11-14== This is an assessment of article Tarik O'Regan by a member of the Composers project, according to its assessment criteria. This review was done by Magicpiano. If an article is well-cited, the reviewer is assuming that the article reflects reasonably current scholarship, and deficiencies in the historical record that are documented in a particular area will be appropriately scored. If insufficient inline citations are present, the reviewer will assume that deficiencies in that area may be cured, and that area may be scored down. Adherence to overall Wikipedia standards (WP:MOS, WP:WIAGA, WP:WIAFA) are the reviewer's opinion, and are not a substitute for the Wikipedia's processes for awarding Good Article or Featured Article status. ===Origins/family background/studies=== Does the article reflect what is known about the composer's background and childhood? If s/he received musical training as a child, who from, is the experience and nature of the early teachers' influences described? no discussion of childhood influences ===Early career=== Does the article indicate when s/he started composing, discuss early style, success/failure? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? academic institutions named, no personal or musical influences named ===Mature career=== Does the article discuss his/her adult life and composition history? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? Not applicable, subject is only 30. ===List(s) of works=== Are lists of the composer's works in WP, linked from this article? If there are special catalogs (e.g. Köchel for Mozart, Hoboken for Haydn), are they used? If the composer has written more than 20-30 works, any exhaustive listing should be placed in a separate article. Discography is presumably complete, but does this mean it lists all works? No separate works list. ===Critical appreciation=== Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)? Positive press is shown, but no description of musical style is given. ===Illustrations and sound clips=== Does the article contain images of its subject, birthplace, gravesite or other memorials, important residences, manuscript pages, museums, etc? Does it contain samples of the composer's work (as composer and/or performer, if appropriate)? (Note that since many 20th-century works are copyrighted, it may not be possible to acquire more than brief fair use samples of those works, but efforts should be made to do so.) If an article is of high enough quality, do its images and media comply with image use policy and non-free content policy? (Adherence to these is needed for Good Article or Featured Article consideration, and is apparently a common reason for nominations being quick-failed.) Article has a non-free picture of subject, and non-free album cover art. The amount of art is adequate for the article length. There are no sound clips. ===References, sources and bibliography=== Does the article contain a suitable number of references? Does it contain sufficient inline citations? (For an article to pass Good Article nomination, every paragraph possibly excepting those in the lead, and every direct quotation, should have at least one footnote.) If appropriate, does it include Further Reading or Bibliography beyond the cited references? Referencing is adequate. ===Structure and compliance with WP:MOS=== Does the article comply with Wikipedia style and layout guidelines, especially WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, and possibly WP:SIZE? (Article length is not generally significant, although Featured Articles Candidates may be questioned for excessive length.) OK with comments. Lead is short, but so is article. Album art should be in a gallery. ===Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review=== Images and media have copyright/fair-use issues (WP:IUP or more specific GA/FA criteria) Article lead needs work (WP:LEAD) Article footer material needs organization (WP:LAYOUT) (album image gallery) I think a GA review might also fail due the content deficiencies (see Summary) ===Summary=== This article give a very basic overview of the subject. Things I don't know about him after reading it: what is the style of his musical compositions? what kinds of works has he written? how many (as of some date)? commissioned? when? by/for whom? whose music and/or teaching influenced him? where did he grow up? what was his childhood home like? were his parents and other childhood influential in his musical development? This article is almost more promotional than biographical. I rate it as a Start class composer article. -- Magic♪piano 14:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC) ==I agree== No context - therefore virtually no use except for promotional purposes, as noted by Magic♪piano. I would happily demote. --Smerus (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC) ==Article revisions== I think many of the above points have been corrected. Not sure how to request re-assessment, but I think it's a B on the scale, maybe higher.Grovereaper (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 07:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tarik O'Regan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111020223221/http://www.roh.org.uk/whatson/production.aspx?pid=17248 to http://www.roh.org.uk/whatson/production.aspx?pid=17248

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Mention this event?

Mention this? Agnus Tarik O'Regan: Agnus Dei. Sciencia58 (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

MI tags

Hi there, I don't think I see any issues around Wikipedia:coi or Wikipedia:autobiography. Obviously I've contributed many edits to this page over time, but so have hundreds of others. I have no connection to the subject. The page seems factually correct, and sourced independently. It could definitely be shortened, and I'll look for any areas which might be hagiographic to remove soon. So maybe cleanup/rewrite is OK. Grovereaper (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the Wikipedia:coi tag. I think Wikipedia:autobiography is wrongly labeled too. The contents of the article is entirely third-party sourced. Comparing the format of this article to e.g. Philip Glass, they seem very similar. If the issue is using sources from Glass's or O'Regan's publisher, then I don't really see a way forward to clearing the [cleanup] tags because publisher websites are often the only source of information on a composer. e.g. this - https://www.wisemusicclassical.com/composer/540/Philip-Glass/ - is a source on the Glass page, which links to his publisher (who happens to be the same as O'Regan's). Grovereaper (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I've looked through this article again. In light of the Wikipedia:Autobiography tag, and per Help:Maintenance template removal, I'm going to remove it, after trying to discuss here and on my own talk page ("3. If it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed or was added in error. Consider first discussing the matter with the original placer of the template (unless this user is no longer active on Wikipedia). In any case, if the issue appears contentious, seek consensus on the talk page"). Unless I'm missing something, I think the tag has been placed in error. Thank you. Grovereaper (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

So I've gone ahead and cleaned up quite a bit here. I've removed anything which appears to be non-neutral POV, as well as quite a bit of tidying. Unless I hear hear otherwise, I plan on removing the MI tags. Thank you. Grovereaper (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)