Template:Did you know nominations/Guillermo Morphy
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Guillermo Morphy
edit- ... that Isaac Albéniz dedicated his composition Sevilla to Count Guillermo Morphy's wife when he premiered it in a piano performance in Paris on 24 January 1886?
Translated/expanded by Dr. Blofeld (talk) & Romerin (original Spanish-language). Self nom at 10:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Reviewed article: new, long enough, inline citations, hook is in article. Article was translated from Spanish Wikipedia Guillermo Morphy and contains some foreign language sources though the hook is from an Eng source. The DYK probably should have credited the original author on the Spanish Wikipedia. Hook format looks OK (158 chars). Green Cardamom (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Reviewed Etropole Monastery.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little worried about the reliability of the source cited in the first footnote and the one in the fifth. Are those just personal websites or are they recognized publications?--Carabinieri (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- The fifth looks reliable because of the credits at the end which mention co-operative help of the Isaac Albéniz Museum, among others. The first is credited to "Drs Friedrich and Günter Sven Fischer, Bayreuth and Dr. Santiago Izquierdo, Barcelona." .. that's three authors, all Dr's. Green Cardamom (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- In my mind neither of those things is enough to establish reliability. But the latter isn't actually true. The piece is merely dedicated to those doctors.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- I see yes, well the first source is a "monthly magazine published on the Internet" .. This magazine claims to have "100,00's of thousands of subscribers" and claims to be "the leading publication for dissemination in the field of classical music in Spanish." This is a big claim, but see no reason to disbelieve, one would hope the article has cites from the leading publication on Spanish classical music. As for the fifth source, there are no institutions connected with the web site. My personal opinion is the information being cited is simple factual stuff not controversial or opinionated POV, and the article had institutional input in its creation. I'm certainly not trying to change your mind about the Platonic nature of sources, but I think for this subject matter and for these facts being cited, these particular sources seem reliable enough. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- I can't say I'm entirely convinced, but I'll wait for someone else to weigh in. I've also had a look at the third source. It's a website, but there's no telling who wrote it.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Nice job, Esemono. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- I can't say I'm entirely convinced, but I'll wait for someone else to weigh in. I've also had a look at the third source. It's a website, but there's no telling who wrote it.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- I see yes, well the first source is a "monthly magazine published on the Internet" .. This magazine claims to have "100,00's of thousands of subscribers" and claims to be "the leading publication for dissemination in the field of classical music in Spanish." This is a big claim, but see no reason to disbelieve, one would hope the article has cites from the leading publication on Spanish classical music. As for the fifth source, there are no institutions connected with the web site. My personal opinion is the information being cited is simple factual stuff not controversial or opinionated POV, and the article had institutional input in its creation. I'm certainly not trying to change your mind about the Platonic nature of sources, but I think for this subject matter and for these facts being cited, these particular sources seem reliable enough. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- In my mind neither of those things is enough to establish reliability. But the latter isn't actually true. The piece is merely dedicated to those doctors.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- The fifth looks reliable because of the credits at the end which mention co-operative help of the Isaac Albéniz Museum, among others. The first is credited to "Drs Friedrich and Günter Sven Fischer, Bayreuth and Dr. Santiago Izquierdo, Barcelona." .. that's three authors, all Dr's. Green Cardamom (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Needs second look. -- Esemono (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- The sourcing issues have been resolved as far as I can see - Clark's book published by Oxford University Press is certainly reliable enough for a hook. In terms of the two sources that were originally questioned: these are less authoritative, but the statements which they support are entirely within the confines of the life portrayed in the other works (i.e. these statements do not shock, surprise or have a resounding impact, and the issue of sourcing is therefore less important). Hook is good to go . SFB 20:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)