Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Laucke/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2016 [1].

Michael Laucke

Nominator(s): Natalie.Desautels, Corinne, and {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Canadian virtuoso classical and flamenco guitarist Michael Laucke. Lots of research and hard work by over sixty Wikipedia editors has gone into crafting this article and it is now worthy of a promotion to Featured Article. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Lingzhi

Oppose. This article is over-stuffed with cheesy hyperbole. I was gonna copy edit it out, but it isn't my job. bring it back when the glare from the praise has been dimmed to human levels. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by the first note, which is three notes(?). And the references forex number 37 that looks like this: [33][34][35][36].. and a sea of inline links. I think this all needs considerable work. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lingzhi. If you click on [37] in the body, it will take you to [33][34][35][36] in the References section. If you click on any of those singly it will jump up to the germane reference that sits right above [37]. They are in sequential order like this: [33][34][35][36][37] in the References section. [37] is a grouping of the four. Reduces visual clutter in the body. And, instead of having to go back up to the body three extra times to visit the four references you only have to go down to the one group once and the four are right there at your fingertips. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was in a rush and didn't explain. Here's what I think:

1- First, IMO many statements are over-cited. AFAIK, there are only three reasons to have more than one citation per assertion. Perhaps the statement is controversial (that's the strongest reason), or it is really important enough that people might want to look at more than one source, or (finally) to avoid linkrot. But I really doubt much of anything in this article meets either of the first of those two criteria. If you are trying to avoid linkrot, other methods are less distracting (see WP:LINKROT).

Done.

2- Second, it's very strange and confusing to have {{sfn}} or {{Ref}} style numbered boxes inside the References, ESPECIALLY if those boxes are sitting there without any textual explanation, and since moreover they just point to other things in the same References section.

Done.

3- In the Notes section it's very strange to have notes 1, 2 and 3 link to the same note, esp. when two of them point to the exact same spot in the body text.

Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

The first Note, "A guitar transcription consists of ..." is unnecessary. The wikilink to Transcription (music) is completely sufficient. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Then in the Notes, 4, 5 and 6 "Virus Montréal... In 1980... MusiCanada" could easily be combined into a single note with three sentences. Or moved to a "Critical reception" section. Or just as easily, simply deleted. Perhaps you could look at other musician FA articles to serve as a model.

Done.

The two sentences beginning "Pell's former campaign manager.." are irrelevant and should be deleted IMO. The article is not about Pell's former campaign manager Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

User-friendly solution to grouped references implementation

@Checkingfax: Hello Lingzhi. First of all I would be amiss not to thank you for your time in helping us improve this article, and of course your wonderful work for Wikipedia in general over almost 10 years! I might just ask you for some survival tips .

You pointed out some interesting issues which I have admittedly thought about in the past. It turns out that with a little coding wizardry, they are now resolved. Hopefully you concur with my implementations to simplify this matter, and will be pleased. (After 1,787 edits by 63 editors in this article, what's a few more.)

So all these are gone:

Notes 1.^ 2.^ 3.^
reference 37. [33][34][35][36]
reference 74. [33][34][35][36][73]
reference 129. [33][34][35][36]

Yet the information is still available in a non-cumbersome way. If you go to Notes 10 and 11 you can see how I've reworked this.

I followed the suggestion of user MPJ-DK, who was our GA reviewer. He offered a tidy solution whereby Notes would simplify the user experience; it helped avoid disruption in reading, promoted flow and assisted the article in keeping focus.

For example, in the Early career section, I noticed the Grand Prix du Disque caused quite a stir in the media. But instead of cluttering up the section with newspaper quotes and interviews, we simply said 'Music critics took note.[1][2][3]'and moved on! We had simply included a few of the more important critiques in the Notes section, quite out of the way. So the reader can enjoy reading unimpeded, or if something piques his curiosity, he can quickly click to the Notes section and back; ...easy, plain and simple navigation. So that worked quite well although it was a bit tricky code-wise (having a diploma in computer science comes in handy sometimes), and I was able to switch the code around a bit. But the result for the end user is simple. Also, since Laucke apparently performed in 25 countries, we thought it would be interesting to show, by way of mainstream newspapers, the reaction of different cultures to at least some of these concerts, and fortunately good quality, mainstream sources were amply available.

Again, I very much appreciate your input and your help to rectify an issue I have long pondered about. Please feel free to share your thoughts, as time permits of course. kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{...as within, so without} 12:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS. By the way I was delighted not only with the beautiful image on your userpage but also the Wallace Stevens poem; his "The Man with the Blue Guitar" is one of my favorites.

Yes I've spent time pondering the blue guitar as well. As for Laucke, you missed a spot at [109][110][111][112]. I'm still also wondering why seemingly uncontroversial points have multiple cites, as at "He also published articles on classical guitar.[39][40][41]." Is it because of concern about WP:LINKROT? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lingzhi. I will let Natalie.Desautels fix the references with her new method. Getting to your 2nd point, several early editors demanded citations so we had to provide them. There is one citation for each publication (39, 40, 41). The same goes for the rest of the citation bloat in the article: everything was challenged, so citations had to be provided, even in the lead. Cheers! PS: Up top, you mention "forex"; what does that refer to? {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: Hi Lingzhi, I have attended to the matters you pointed out above, which have been fixed as follows:

Because of a discovered redundancy, I deleted the three citations in "He also published articles on classical guitar.[39][40][41]" because "... articles on classical guitar" is already wikilinked to the Articles section where we find these same cites.
[109][110][111][112] have been deleted and are now available in the Notes section, in a non-cumbersome manner. Nice catch!

And now it is made up 'of things exactly as they are' (...on the Bule guitar)

.

PS. For the record, a technical limitation of the 'Notes' linking system, for all of its clarity and other advantages, is that an editor cannot Preview. The link will not work until the page is saved so preparation must be fastidious, and preferably supported by having 3 windows open for reference points. kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{...as within, so without} 22:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: @Natalie.Desautels: If we're gonna keep the multiple cites on multiple statements, can we at least bundle them? [There are many ways to bundle refs, see (WP:CITEBUNDLE). I prefer {{sfnm}}, but some people find that awkward to use, and you are not using {{sfn}}.] I just personally find even more than two of those numbered boxes to be an eyesore. Actually, I dislike to see even more than one in the body text, but perhaps I am a little crankier than the average reader. Checkingfax, you asked about my use of "forex" above. Perhaps Natalie.Desautels fixed the small problem I mentioned so quickly that you didn't see it? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lingzhi. We are using List Defined References (LDR). I believe these two strategies are not compatible. That is why I used refn before.

Natalie is rolling out Notes to rebundle the refs. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: Hi Lingzhi, I concur entirely regarding bundles and multiplicity. And I'm eager to proceed after my thorough analysis last night, both with refs and Notes. I'm excited about this fine tuning and I hope you'll be pleased too. I'm taken today until this evening but I plan to finish all implementations over the week-end; will be combing over all 139 references—they will end up somewhat fewer—and Notes (they will end up a little more); any consecutive Notes/refs of 3 or more will be bundled and a few multiple cites of 2 as well. Does beginning next week suit your schedule? PS. No, you're not crankier than the average reader; you should only know what's out there

. kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{...as within, so without} 13:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tasks completed as of May 14, 2016 @Checkingfax and Lingzhi:

Multiple references are now all bundled into one. Deleted and bundled references were:

Notes 1.^ 2.^ 3.^; reference 37 [33][34][35][36]; reference 74 [33][34][35][36][73]; reference 129 [33][34][35][36]; reference [109][110][111][112].

Bundled all multiple citations on multiple statements. The maximum number of references now in a sentence is two. As a rule, when 2 consecutive references were found they were kept and when 3 refs were found, one was deleted.
All duplicate links deleted, first re-occurrence kept after lead, and in infoboxes, tables, and image captions. ...used 'Highlight duplicate links' tool
Deleted Note 1 about music transcriptions since there is a wikilink to Transcription (music) and it's sufficient.
Notes 4, 5 and 6 were bundled, combined into a single note with three sentences.
The two sentences regarding Laucke's first manager/impresario, and Senator Pell's admin ass't, were deleted from body and relegated to Notes section. ...considered relevant info, since Nelson was essential to Laucke's early career as he organized every U.S. concert.
...remains to decide on English or French spelling for 'Three Gymnopedies' or 'Trois Gymnopédies'. I opt for English in the en-Wikipedia...

Done.

kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{...as within, so without} 09:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see any point in including the "Selected Works" section, since it is perfectly duplicated in Michael Laucke discography and filmography. I don't know whether we have a tradition of leaving these sorts of things in, though.@Laser brain:, @Ian Rose:, would either of you tell me yay or nay on that question? Tks.

@Checkingfax: Hi Lingzhi I noticed many WP music articles list a few select albums in the main article along with a link to a mainspace discography. I'd be eager to learn what the opinions are and excited to get to work on trimming/selecting; the discography is stable I think. Thanks again. kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 05:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Throughout the concert, Laucke's playing was a model of clarity, evenness, control and good sense" Once may or may not be too much, but twice certainly is. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

"claves, maracas, special castanets" Ditto.

Done. The works Legend and Flamenco Road each employ different instrumentation with some similarities, hence 'claves, maracas,' are repeated in each group; clarification added.

"The tracks employ five guitars (flamenco, Spanish, classical, and electric guitars), a rhythm section consisting of bongos, four congas, and a rock drum set blended with other percussion instruments such as claves, maracas and castanets, three dancers performing typical "palmas" (hand-clapping) in synchronization, three trumpets, three pianos, and a "country-style" violinist" Oopsie, this needs quotation marks, or rewriting. Prefer latter. Wait... should we be concerned about copyvio or wp:close paraphrase elsewhere in the article...? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In progress.

@Checkingfax:. Lingzhi, No copyright concerns as the entire Flamenco Road production is licensed under Public Domain Dedication (CC0), all rights waived. I put this text in my own words, but it's way too long and clumsy. You made a good point. The source information from the CD jacket is here, lower right-hand side. I'd be happy to rewrite—I can certainly do better—or we could direct quote the original version; I feel it's a nice quote:

"It started with five guitars – all of them either flamenco, Spanish or classical and all natural acoustic guitars played the Spanish way, that is, with all the fingers of both hands and without a pick. The electric guitar with its steel strings was added later for contrast. For the rhythm section, bongos, four congas and a rock drum set were blended with other percs - claves, maracas, and castanets. Our dancers did typical “palmas” or hand-clapping in synchronization. Finally, trumpets, and then a “country-style” violinist…"

Thoughts? Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 02:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ...addressed 'Oopsie' moment of very long sentence, now divided into 3 more compact ones here

That picture with Elton John is really very blurry. Are we sure we want an FA to have a bad photo in it? Hmmm.@Corinne:, @Natalie.Desautels:, @Checkingfax:, hey I put in a request for image help for poor Sir Elton at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

@Jerome Kohl: You gave this as an example where a logical quote is needed: Vivier states that he had: "hardly ever met a musician as committed and dedicated, of such great quality and, above all, of such great completeness and intense capacity for work". But... although the period would have gone after the word "work" in the original source, the text inside the quotation marks here is not a complete sentence. I do not know what to do in this case.. treat it as a phrase, period after quotation mark, or treat it as a case where the period goes inside..? Tks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi. I didn't grow up with logical quotes, so I take my cue from the MoS. I hope you don't mind if I share the way I see it. Here is the second paragraph in MOS:LQ:

If the quotation is a full sentence and it coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark. If the quotation is a single word or fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside.

Marlin said: "I need to find Nemo."

Marlin needed, he said, "to find Nemo".

Since a fragment is a phrase or clause that is not a complete sentence, in your example, above, since the quoted material is not a complete sentence, it would end:

...of such great completeness and intense capacity for work". – Corinne (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Corinne: thanks! And yes, as far as I can tell, your explanation fits with my understanding, but the problem (from my perspective) is that the example that you and I both think should be "period outside" seems to be dealt with in Jerome Kohl's excellent comments as one that should be "period inside". I am a poor and confused little editor. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue with either Jerome Kohl or Natalie.Desautels, but if Jerome is right, then the guideline at MOS:LQ is misleading and should be changed. – Corinne (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Natalie.Desautels: Jerome and I discussed that logical quotation example on his talk page, and he agreed with me and Corinne that his example was wrong. You can undo your edit. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: Hi Lingzhi, ma gracieuse bonté ...get me a drink :). Ok, I just changed it back. Thanks for the clarification. Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 01:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Flamenco road's music video: I assumed the CD and video were separate beasts, but then I read the "Album Notes" section here. Seems some info on that website is missing from our article?

Done. ...clarified enhanced CD with two videos

I don't think he was "discovered" by Pell (mentioned twice). he was performing concerts before that...

Done. ...second occurrence of 'discovered' deleted. ...clarified Senator Claiborne Pell's role as impresario/representative.

What song required 24 tracks? Did all 10 songs require 24 tracks? Did we mention that there are 10 songs in all?

Done. ...clarified which work comprises 24 tracks, and 10 works on CD

Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lingzhi. Things are further along per your comments and others. Care to comment or !vote? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"that would later make him a national hero in Spain" citation needed.

Done. Changed phrase to 'which has become arguably his best-known composition' and implemented a more solid source from Billboard

How can it be "arguably the first time a guitarist other than de Lucía himself would record these works"? Do we not know who has recorded them? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ...changed to 'In 1991, he recorded compositions de Lucía taught him' as sorces in nationla magazine 'El Popular'. (...could no longer find origianl source)

"arguably the only version for guitar to include all of the notes of the original piano composition" Ditto. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ...Satie guitar transcription claim sourced from original sheet music published by Waterloo Music Publishing Co.

...just a quick note of thanks, Lingzhi, for your excellent and astute observations! kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 10:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"their secrets and knowledge jealously guarded". All direct quotations always need a citation Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to suggest thatthis should be deleted: "Nelson helped organize U.S. President Jimmy Carter's inauguration and dedicated a photo of the event to Laucke" Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about performing for jet set calvin klein etc. is offered twice in body text. Please choose one location and delete the other.[Is it notable enough to mention in the lede? if so, shorten shorten shorten.] Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Laucke was introduced to flamenco by"; 'Although Laucke had played flamenco for his own pleasure since he was a child' spot the contradiction. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nikkimaria

Media review

"Media" section is messy in terms of formatting. Why include the large icons? Why not a single column or row?
File:Michael Laucke With His Great Friend Paco De Lucia.jpg: what is the copyright status of the signature?
For music samples (whether audio or video), we need to account for the copyright status of both the music and the performance (and, where relevant, the arrangement). This means that several files are lacking complete licensing.
File:Laucke during the CBC Documentary on the Great Wall Of China.jpg: if this is from a CBC documentary, how is it possible that Laucke is the copyright holder? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nikkimaria. Natalie.Desautels has been around the block a few times with the copyright issues so I will let her take on those answers.

The Media section is messy looking. Can you please fix it? A single row may not render well on small screens or on mobile devices. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nikkimaria. Please take a look at the Media section now and ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Checkingfax - it's certainly better, but is there a reason we need those type icons? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nikkimaria. As far as I know the speaker icon is a system default. The camcorder ones are added for visual harmony and to be an icon to show that it is a video vs. a song or an image. The "play" triangle is hard to spot on videos as it is not a high contrast. Please advise. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax:. Hello Nikkimaria, Many thanks for your interest and helping us make this article the best it can be; much appreciated. I did lots of translation work for SOCAN, our Canadian copyright organization, so I do understand copyright concerns; yes, we have to account for music, performance and arrangement copyright permission status.

For the two photos, see these two links and kindly look at the description text here and here for provenance.

For the audio and video files, please see one example here . They have all the same permissions: Public Domain Dedication (CC0), with an all rights waived license, and, importantly, Commons has an OTRS attached to all files signed by Laucke. He has 100% ownership and is, verifiably, at times composer and always arranger, performer and producer of these works. As it says, 'Producer' which means that he paid for the production, he owns the work and has made this sample available for free, pending correct attribution. ...solid authorization. It's not surprising since Laucke is quite the businessman according to this mainstream article. ...things are ok to me in the copyright area. Kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 10:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Natalie. I did look at the media description pages and the URLs linked from them, but I still have some questions about copyright here.

File:Michael_Laucke_With_His_Great_Friend_Paco_De_Lucia.jpg: yes, I see that the photo was taken by an employee or hired photographer. However, it was signed in Canada, under Canadian law signatures are typically eligible for copyright protection, and Paco De Lucia is neither an employee nor a hired photographer. Has he agreed to the licensing?

For the audio/video files, where Laucke is the composer and arranger of course he can license the work as he pleases. But for several of the samples in the article, he is the performer but not the original composer of the works. For example, File:Satie_Gymnopedie_No_1_performed_by_Michael_Laucke.flac was originally composed by Satie. For such works, we need to know the copyright status of the original music as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nikkimaria (with cc to Natalie.Desautels). Satie died in 1925 which was 91 years ago, if that is any help here. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria (cc to Checkingfax), Regarding copyright status of original music of works by Eric Satie (died 1925), Isaac Albéniz (died 1909) and J.S. Bach (died 1750), all are in the public domain as copyright expired 70 years after their death; see List of countries' copyright lengths. (N.B. ...just some background... Public domain means that anyone can perform these works without paying royalties, but a work by a living composer can also be performed by anyone as long as royalties are paid.) All works are samples taken from Laucke's production, the Flamenco Road CD; the inside cover credits as well as the back cover show copyright secured (copyright symbol © on bottom) by © SOCAN and © Intermede for Laucke's performances of all works. Record companies have to secure copyright before distributing albums commercially; this has been done here or the album could not be released. Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 12:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia follows US law, which per that list applies life+70 only to works published after 1978 - the original works in question here were published before that, even though the derivatives were published later. Wikimedia Commons also requires that files hosted there are in the public domain in their country of origin. In both cases the files will need licensing tags explaining their status. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

De Lucia signature: a signature only needs copyright status if it is a trademark. In this case, de Lucia autographed a photo for Laucke and this is considered a celebrity autograph. Once an item such as a photo, poster, etc, is autographed, the person who signs it is deemed to have given consent for it to be used freely and this right is automatically assigned to the recipient (Laucke), who has every legal right to even sell the signed item. The photo, taken by Laucke's photographer, is owned by Laucke as is the autograph. kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 12:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't true - any signature, whether a trademark or not, is copyrightable in most common-law jurisdictions. See commons:COM:SIG. You would need to check whether Canada is an exception to that. While Laucke may own the physical copy of the signature, he won't hold the copyright unless there was some kind of arrangement to that effect. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nikkimaria (with cc to Natalie.Desautels). I read commons:COM:SIG several times and my takeaway is that in this case the signature is only copyrightable if it is deemed to be a work of art.

This page in a nutshell: There is no legislation or precedent that deals specifically with signatures. Common sense must be used:

The usual signature, that reproduces a permanent model and is used by its author as a personal identification, bears no artistic significance. Its legal status is similar to that of a brand or logo: it may be reproduced, as long as the reproduction cannot be mistaken for an authentic signature.
Some signatures are drawn with an artistic intent, usually as part of a work of art. Being the result of an artistic work in its own right, such signatures characteristically do not follow a fixed model. They must be considered protected by author's right.

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax:. Hello Nikkimaria , Thank you very much for your further help. As per your kind advice, I will do research to find the licensing tags you mentioned, explaining each work's status, over the weekend. I am busy off-wiki at the moment but I shall take the pleasure to get back with my findings within the next few days or sooner. PS. The list I sent you, to wit: List of countries' copyright lengths, may not be that useful after all; a closer look shows that it talks a lot about 'publications', not that much about music. kind regards, Natalie

Public domain issues for works by Satie, ALbeniz and JS Bach

@Checkingfax and GrammarFascist:. Hello Nikkimaria, Following your kind advice, I found some licensing tags explaining the status of each audio and video work we were discussing, as well as some relevant links, to wit:

Public Domain tags found on Discussion pages (not on main page) for Satie Gymnopedies 1 , 2 and 3, Albeniz and JS Bach. Meanwhile, here are
Complete list of transcriptions, arrangements and original works by Michael Laucke. All works are registered with the Canadian copyright organization SOCAN. and there is a pdf link to the full SOCAN catalog here. All works under discussion appear in this pdf from SOCAN, as registered by them. N.B. The status is in French: DP means 'domaine public'.
Ruling on Unpublished works in the USA is 'Life of the author + 70 years' for works from authors who died before 1946. 'Unpublished' means the work was registered in another country, Canada in this case.
In same document, we find 'Works First Published Outside the U.S., Before 1923'. The copyright Term in the United States is deemed 'In the public domain'. (Peter B. Hirtle's Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States)
Rule of the shorter term does not apply as per 'In any case, the term shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed' according to the Berne Convention, article 7(8). That would be Canada in this case.
Regarding the signature issue, same tag is found for the signature we were discussing hereand also an OTRS tag on main page.

Once again, I very much appreciate your time in helping us advance. Kindly let me know your thoughts, if you feel all is now in order and what else I might do to be of further help. Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 23:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The case of Satie is a bit more complicated. Take a look at WP:NUSC - it is quite likely that the wartime extensions apply.
The Albeniz term would actually have been 80 years, which still means it's PD but this should be clarified on the image description page
What about the music in File:Between_Two_Seas_("Entre_dos_Aguas")_by_Paco_de_Lucía,_arranged_and_played_by_Laucke.flac, File:Legend_(Leyenda)_performed_by_Michael_Laucke.flac, File:Pour_Guitare_by_Claude_Vivier---written_for_and_dedicated_to_Michael_Laucke.flac, and File:Me_duele_Espana_by_Francois_Morel.flac?
I don't have OTRS access - do you know what was submitted? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax:. Hello Nikkimaria. It will be my pleasure to attend to this toward the end of this week. It is extremely busy as I have been once again engaged as one of many interpreters (eng, fr., es, de) for 2016 International Olympic Games in Rio this summer with talks taking place here in Montreal until Thursday. But I'll be back in the WP saddle right afterwards and I'll chime in by smartphone ...just a thumbs up. Many thanks again for your wonderful input. kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 20:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax:. Hello Nikkimaria, I delighted to report that several administrators at OTRS (Open-source Ticket Request System) all agreed and have now approved every single audio, video and image file used in this article and none are missing at present. Every one of these files in Wikimedia Commons now displays, prominently and right on the file page, “This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission ...”.

You can click on any item to see this. For example, click the very first photo, and then once in Commons scroll down to Permissions where the brave little OTRS tag and text can be found under Permission. I would be amiss not to send my sincerest thanks to you for spurring us on to perfect the overall copyright security and bring this aspect to FA worthy status. Without your help I really don't think we would have thought to put so much effort into securing such solid permissions. This is important going forward too, because it means that the article will not end up with dead links because Commons responded to a file delete request. I'm delighted to have their stamp of approval and I'm sure other contributors will be as well. We still have to attend to the many very good suggestions by Jerome Kohl below, and that will be attended to over the next few days. kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 09:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that they've added OTRS tags. However, I don't see that those tags apply to the underlying compositions as well as the performances? Do we know what the OTRS message said, or could we invite an OTRS admin to comment on what it covers? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS tags issued on all audio, video and image media found in article

Done, with copyright issues.

@Checkingfax: Hi Nikkimaria, I've started this new section as the above one seemed to be getting somewhat long and hard to navigate. Yes, on all files stamped by OTRS, the copyright overseers, the message says "This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission. Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket # [different ticket number depending on item]." ...example. My understanding is that this applies to the compositions as well as the performance since it refers to the totality of this work. There is an email address for them; perhaps Checkingfax knows it.

I'm about ready to defer to their higher understanding of the issues. I see that many experts in copyright over at Commons have deemed all works used to be in proper standing, content and performance, so I'm quite happy about this since just as an article about a painter should have at east a few examples, so it is for musicians. And it seems WP is now protected. I imagine Commons copyright experts did their research and perhaps one of the things they discovered was that the atonal works by Vivier and Morel, not written by Laucke (which seems to be your concern) were commissioned by him, written for him, paid for by him and that of course means he owns them. Of course, I cant know what went on behind the scenes but certainly all these aspects must have been considered. At any rate, the onus falls on the person who issued the copyright, and that would be Laucke himself I suppose. That alleviates WP of any responsibility which is a good thing for us.

My experience with copyright has been in translating SOCAN's annual report for 3 decades as well as their monthly newsletter. Translation means that you really have to understand the original intent before rendering into a different idiom, but I admittedly don't live copyright law. In this case, I am happy to defer to the experts in Commons. My understanding is that even when a work is written by someone else, that does not mean they own the work; it depends. For example, I could commission a work from Paul McCartney and if I pay him to write it for me, I own it. So Laucke can play Claude Vivier and still own the work. Then again, there's copyright and royalty distribution and it can be broader than that. Usually, anyone can play material copyrighted by anyone else; if you have no share of the royalties, it just means that you are not entitled to receive any money, but you can always play the work. For example, the SOCAN catalogue tells us that Laucke has 25% on the Satie arrangements he made. Laucke has the right to play Satie anywhere, and he decided to make his arrangements of Satie freely available at Commons, so as we say "chapeau" (hat's off :)) There would be a problem if Laucke declared that he composed the original Satie work and is entitled to 100%, or other such nonsense but that’s obviously not the case and the SOCAN catalog is clear on percent of ownership. I have only seen one exception, ever; that was a work by singer Sting where felt that only he should sing a certain song, for a while anyway. It makes perfect sense really; either let other artists perpetuate your art or let your work fade into oblivion in many cases.

If I may offer another example: One could record an instrumental album for classical guitar of Beatles' song arrangements; the musician would not get royalties, but he would probably sell albums ...happens every day but no copyright restrictions prevents him from playing his Beatles arrangements. So I feel comfortable with the present situation and see no risk, and no danger, further comforted by the fact that several experts in copyright at Wikimedia have assigned due authorization. There is a slight caveat though, since each file has a condition in the description that must be respected, and, indeed the article does respect these demands. ("If you use this photo, you must use the correct attribution"). Your thoughts, time, comments and help—to make this article as good as it can be—are much appreciated and valuable to me. Kindly tell me which compositions you may still be concerned about, if any, and I will follow up as always. kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 23:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully an OTRS admin can weigh in on what exactly was said. Generally speaking, it's not necessarily true that someone commissioning a work would own the copyright of that work - it may be a work for hire or the composer may retain copyright, depending on the nature of the agreement made. (And of course the Satie works were definitely not works for hire). It also isn't necessarily true that an absence of royalties equates to an absence of copyright protection, and it's the latter that matters for Wikipedia's purposes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: Hi Nikkimaria, Yes, it would be interesting if an OTRS admin could weigh in with greater detail. Be that as it may, I am happy with their decisions. To conclude our discussion, for works by Satie and Albeniz, they were published well before 1923 (Satie in 1888, Albeniz in 1892) and are therefore deemed 'In the public domain' as per Peter B. Hirtle's authoritative publication Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, as I imagine the OTRS experts realised. SOCAN, copyright's largest representative in Canada, (catalog here) also shows Laucke owns 25% of his arrangements of the 'public domain works' by Satie and ALbeniz. I concur that—one does not own a work simply because one commissioned it, depending on the agreement made, as you stated, and that no general rules apply to something as complicated as copyright law. Still, even if Laucke did not own the copyright, I believe he could still perform them on WP or elsewhere, just like these arrangements of The Beatles for Classical Guitar. To clarify 'absence of royalties', I simply meant that a performer is free to play whatever he likes, but will not get royalties if he does not own at least part of the work. Again, my appreciation for your time, care and kind help. Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 22:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No - if someone other than he holds a valid copyright on the underlying music, then the files cannot be hosted on Commons, and could only be hosted on English Wikipedia under a fair-use claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria. Yes, of course; good point. I should have included that caveat, to wit: If Laucke did not own the copyright, he could still perform them on WP or elsewhere, if no one else holds a valid copyright on the underlying music; otherwise, a Wikipedia fair-use claim would be needed. Many thanks. kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 00:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nikkimaria. Things are further along per your comments and others. Care to comment or !vote? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Checkingfax, I'd still like to see confirmation from an OTRS admin of what exactly underlies those tags. I also think the life+70 tag on the Satie works may be wrong given the timeframe - have you verified that the wartime extensions did not apply to his work? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: Hi Nikkimaria, Thanks so much once again. I've done a bit more research into the life+70 tag on the Satie works and the wartime extensions. My findings are as follows: The first and third Gymnopédies were published in 1888 and the second Gymnopédie was published in 1895. As per Peter B. Hirtle's authoritative publication Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, works 'First Published Outside the U.S. before 1923' are deemed 'In the public domain'. Further considering wartime extensions, and that 'The normal duration of copyright is 70 years following the end of the year of publication of the work', one would add 6 years and 152 days for World War I and 8 years and 120 days for World War II. Even though The Paris Appeal Court ruled against applying the extensions in 2004, if the extensions are applied, my understanding is that Gymnopedie nos. 1 and 3 became public domain in 1972 (1888+70+6+8) and Gymnopedie no. 2 in 1979. Thanks once again for your input; ...hope this helps. Kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 07:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting publication+70? French copyright law is that for known authors copyrights on musical works expire at life+70, plus any applicable wartime extensions. And even if the works are now PD, we still need accurate copyright tags on them. Same with the Bach piece, which currently lacks any tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: Hi Nikkimaria I'm sorry I couldn't get back earlier. We've been busy putting the final touches on the article ...busy off Wiki as well; life is a busy affair. The life+70 for copyright info in France is here: Droit d'auteur en France where it says the normal time frame is 70 years before considering Wartime copyright extensions here Regarding Satie’s Gymnopédies, the publication dates are 1888 and 1895, and he died 1925. Bach died in 1750 and the copyright tag is here; you have to scroll down to the Permissions section. Since you mentioned above that what counts for Wikipedia is the US copyright law, that's where I originally directed my research as noted above. I now looked further into French copyright and found no illegality either. I guess that if the copyright experts at Wikipedia Commons have deemed that all these files are in the public domain, well, I wont argue with them as I'm sure they know a lot more than I do in this area. According to their OTRS tags for Satie and Bach works, the copyright has expired, the works are in public domain, and they may be used by anyone for any purpose the OTRS team says. However, if your research turns up anything to contradict this, kindly advise and I will certainly ask more questions; I am always eager to learn of course. Thank you very much for your kind suggestions, and along with everyone else's wonderful comments and recommendations the article stands quite improved, regardless of the FA outcome, and of course I'm delighted about this. What a wonderful collaboration! PS. I'm sorry I really don't understand the concern over public domain issues regarding Bach since he died 266 years ago; could you kindly help me understand this? Kind regards, Natalie

The original music by Bach will be in the public domain, no one disputes this. The issue is accurate representation of that fact. The file you indicate currently has a CC tag; that tag does not cover Bach's original music (as there is no possible way Bach licensed anything under CC). We need a public-domain tag to explicitly indicate that Bach's work is PD and why. Similarly for Satie, those works may well be in the public domain also, but we still need accurate tagging to indicate why. The larger concern though is still the works that are not old enough to be obviously PD, and so I'd still like to hear from an OTRS admin about what exactly the releases for those say. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: Hi Nikkimaria, Thanks so much once again for your time and feedback. After a bit more research, I think the following will provide more information on why OTRS copyright experts concurred on granting free rights and their rationale. Here’s a sample for the work by J.S. Bach where the OTRS tags on the main page say 'may be used by anyone for any purpose, without any conditions ...you do not need to request permission' and so on. My new findings on the Public Domain tags you mentioned are here: for more details, one clicks the associated Discussion page, to find a detailed explanation where the OTRS experts have laid down their rationale ("This file is in the public domain, because composer J.S. Bach (died 1750) is from Austria and copyright there, which is life + 70 years or less, has expired.") and which they highlighted in bold. The second tag, just below this one, talks about this work as a 'piece of music that has been released into the public domain in the United States and in those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.' One finds the same authorization for the Satie works. Also, when one clicks their public domain link, Wikipedia says Works published before 1923 are in the public domain.' Thank you again for your kind participation; ...hope this helps. best regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 13:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: Hi Nikkimaria, P.S. I guess the most important thing out of all this is that Wikipedia states Works published before 1923 are in the public domain.' Would you concur with this finding? kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 13:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So why not put the tags from the Bach discussion page on the main image page? In the case of the Satie works though, it's unclear whether life+70 is correct, and for the newer works that wouldn't apply at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nikkimaria (with cc to Natalie.Desautels and Corinne). Per your suggestion I have copied the PD tags from the file Discussion page to the File page here. Is that OK? Do any other media files need a similar treatment to pass muster? Thank you for your patience and participation while we resolve this. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: Suggest doing the same with the Albeniz file; the others will need more in-depth checking for resolution. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nikkimaria. Done, for Albeniz here. Please provide a checklist of the ones open for discussion. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Between_Two_Seas_("Entre_dos_Aguas")_by_Paco_de_Lucía,_arranged_and_played_by_Laucke.flac and the Satie works. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nikkimaria. What would you like to see added to "Entre dos Aguas"? Right now it has CC BY 4.0 and OTRS on the File page. On the discussion page, Laucke states this:

In simple terms: I registered this work with the Canadian copyright organization SOCAN and I, Michael Laucke, detain 100% of its copyright ownership of this public domain work. I am arranger, performer and producer of this work. 'Producer' means that I paid for the production, own this work and make this sample available for free, all rights waived, pending correct attribution.

Please let me know how we need to bolster this. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see confirmation that he is the copyright holder of the original work and not just the arrangement. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must say that I'm very surprised that some of the media in this article are useable, the photos with Paco and Bream especially. It does look like a copyvio or COI or something, but if you did get permission fair enough.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dr. Blofeld. Thank you for visiting this FAC. Your peeking in is an honor. We are not worthy. If it puts your mind at ease or makes any difference, the photos with Bream and Paco were by an employee of Laucke's under Laucke's direction, so they are considered a work for hire. Laucke has done an OTRS validated release of their use on the Wikis or anywhere. See you around, hound. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sainsf

Going to give a thorough read. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 02:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sainsf ...very excited about your kind visit, care and excellent suggestions, with which I mostly agree; ...should be completed within 2 days. ...always a pleasure. kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 11:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Checkingfax has diligently fixed most things. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General

As we discussed in the GA review, the tone of the article does not sound too positive anymore, but I feel the lack of counter-views. Has Laucke been criticised or been involved in any controversy? It would be amazing if he has not been, as almost every biography I come across here does discuss some criticism or controversy.

Done. I did finally find a less favorable critique in The Washington Post on one work performed at the National Gallery; see end of World Tours section.

Great. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check that the article is completely in either American/British English.

Done. Article now conforms entirely to Canadian English.

"Highlights and awards" looks more like, and could be renamed as, "Timeline".

Done.

Lead

The lead does not seem to cover the aspects of Laucke's life before de Lucia's entry. I would recommend adding a few lines covering the sections before "Styles and influences" to the first para of lead.

Done. ...added a few lines, hopefully not too many. Have a look?

I think you should follow a chronological order in the lead. As such, the line he began performing in 1965, recording the first of 16 albums in 1969 (early life) appears misplaced.

Done; better chronological order

I think the third para may be praising Laucke a bit too much. Could be trimmed.

suggestion for trim?

As the lead should mention only the most important facts, I would suggest trimming it to "Laucke has studied with several classical guitar players, including Julian Bream, Alirio Díaz, and Rolando Valdés-Blain. With his more than 100 transcriptions of classical and flamenco music, Laucke is credited with having broadened the guitar repertoire. Several notable Canadian composers have written atonal works for him. SOCAN's The Music Scene magazine considered Laucke to be one of "five of Canada's best-known soloists". He has received many awards and honours throughout his career, including the Grand Prix du Disque for Best Canadian Recording." I am worried this para appears to praise him a bit too much, but if you honestly can not find any controversy involving him to present counter-views, we must have to make do with this. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Trimmed lead; good compromise I think.

Early life

I think Laucke's brother and any other siblings should be mentioned in the first para, as a general introduction to his family.

Done.

Early career

Laucke studied with several classical guitar masters Their names should be linked here, as they are in the lead.

Done.

Laucke was introduced to flamenco by Spanish guitarist Paco de Lucía Wikilink Paco de Lucia, it is his first mention in the main article

Done.

Music critics took note A pretty short line, can be combined with the earlier one.

Done; made into one sentence.

The device measured eight by four inches Can use convert template

Done.

Consistently say "de Lucía" throughout the article.

Done.

Teaching

from his teachers Andrés Segovia, Julian Bream, Alirio Díaz, and Valdès-Blain Looks a bit like repetition to me. Just "his teachers" could do, as you discuss them in the previous section.

All removed.

Styles and influences

He was given, by the Canadian federal and provincial governments When?

Done; reference now indicates date as to 'when', quote and url

and is one of "five of Canada's best-known soloists" "is" looks vague, as of when is his in the top five? Is he still there?

Done; reference now indicates date as to 'when', and url.

Wikilink percussion instruments, acoustics

Done.

Paco de Lucia

He was asked by his mentor, Valdès-Blain "mentor"should be apparent by now, you have mentioned often that he was one of his teachers

Removed.

I think this subsection does not belong to this section, it should rather go to "Early career", where you discuss de Lucia first. The part from Laucke was frequently hired to play at the launches... until the "Teaching" section can be made into another subsection, so that we have three subheadings under "Early career".

It is a bit of a restructuring in this section, but I have conceived how to implement this, ...tomorrow; your outline is good. The three subheadings under "Early career" will be called "Teaching", "Paco de Lucía" and I am trying to find an appropriate name for the third ...perhaps "New York", or "Early accomplishments"?

Done.

"the closest thing to the 18th century intellectual and artistic salon to be found anywhere these days" This quote does not look very relevant here

Deleted.

Contributions to the guitar repertoire

Wikilink "atonal"

Done. Atonal is wikilinked in the lead, and in the Early career section.

That should be it. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sainsf (with cc to Natalie.Desautels and Corinne). All points raised to date by you have been addressed. Thank you so much. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 16:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The changes fix the issues I found, thanks for your cooperation. However, as I am new to music articles, I would feel more confident to support once someone more acquainted with this field posts a review. Will wait till then. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sainsf. Things are further along per your comments and others. Care to comment or !vote? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will, but only after at least two of the other three (who are reviewing the prose) have !voted. I am keeping an eye on the goings-on here, by the way. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jerome Kohl

This is probably going to seem rather petty, but I notice some inconsistency in punctuation usage throughout the article. In particular:

Serial commas, or not? Although there are more instances with serial commas, there are also a substantial number of cases where it is omitted. For example, under Flamenco Road album, there are two examples in a row: "(claves, maracas, special castanets mounted on wood blocks, chimes and a large gong), bass and flute", and in the second paragraph of the same section, two more: " claves, maracas and castanets" and "three trumpets, three pianos and a 'country-style' violinist", alongside two counter-examples using the serial comma: "five guitars (flamenco, Spanish, classical, and electric guitars)" and "a rhythm section consisting of bongos, four congas, and a rock drum set". Naturally, this criticism does not apply to direct quotations from sources (or to institutional names) not employing the serial comma,.

Done.

Logical quotations. I see many article on Wikipedia that assume logical quotation means always putting a closing comma or period after the quotation mark, but this is not the case, and this style seems to be well-implemented here, but there are some cases that may be mistakes. The difficulty with this style of punctuation (preferred on Wikipedia) is knowing when a closing punctuation mark is part of the quoted material or not. For example, the section Original works ends with a quotation from Claude Vivier (translated from the French) that ends in a complete sentence, so the period at the end belongs inside the quotation mark. (The reference note here has a typo in it, by the way: "Canadian compser Claude Vivier", and this title does not appear to be exact, since the title in the URL begins with the word "Renowned" and continues "for Michael Laucke". The next section, "World tours", contains apparently conflicting examples. In the first paragraph, one newspaper quotation (from Soleil) ends with the period before the closing quotation mark, but this is immediately followed by another with the period after the quotation mark. This might be correct, if the second example (from Guitarra magazine) is actually an incomplete quotation, but it has the appearance of a complete sentence, just like the first one. The second paragraph also has two quotations from the Washington Post, both of which appear to be complete sentences, but the first has the period after the quotation mark, and the second one before it.

Done.

I share the concern of other commentators about the over-intensive use of citations. One thing that would help a little is if clusters of citations could be combined into single footnotes. The additional use of content notes aggravates the problem. I have always felt in such cases that, if the material in the note is worth retaining, then it should be incorporated into the main text. Banishing it to a footnote not only makes it appear unworthy of notice; it is also distracting for the reader.

Done. Maximum number of sequential citations is presently two, mostly at the end of sentences or paragraphs. Several citations, mostly critique quotes and such, were moved to footnotes in order to keep better focus, improve flow and be less disruptive. Using these footnotes is more in keeping with the general thrust of the article. Instead of deleting slightly divergent information which the reader may still find relevant, it is relegated to a footnote instead of in the body where it felt slightly intrusive.

The footnotes need to be gone through with a fine-tooth comb to make the formatting consistent. I notice that an assortment of templates have been employed, which need to be handled with care. These all contain two sets of parameters, the "author=" parameter, and the "last="/"first=" pair. It is common on Wikipedia (though not, in my experience, in the publishing world at large) to confuse the intended use of these parameters. The former (in which the author's name is given in normal order) is intended for footnotes, while the latter, which inverts the name, is for alphabetised lists. There are several citations here using the correct name order for footnotes ("Nancy Louden", "Hazelle Palmer; Nancy Louden", "Alfred Fisher", "Nancy McGregor", "Eric McLean"), but many more using inverted name order (e.g., "Urquhart, Carl", "Plant, John", "Deschênes, Bruno"). While I personally deplore the latter practice in footnotes, the important thing is that a consistent style be adopted. The placement of bracketed year of publication (and, worse, day-moth-year of publication) immediately after the author's name is also a layout feature for alphabetical bibliographies (and the day-year matter belongs wityh the issue number, not in the brackets after the author's name), but objecting to this is futile, since there is no option offered by the templates, as far as I am aware.

Done.

On the whole, I find this not only an informative but also entertaining article (the bit about yo-yo championships is particularly endearing), though despite recent toning-down it does still occasionally veer into an overly promotional tone (too many laudatory newspaper reviews, for example). I think this aspect should be given serious reconsideration, though I have no opinion on what should be cut and what should be allowed to remain. I hope these rather finicky comments will prove useful, and result in an improved, Feature-worthy article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jerome Kohl. Things are further along per your comments and others. Care to comment or !vote? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Things have definitely gotten better, but I think a vote is premature. Punctuation is still rather scrappy. For example, in the section Paco de Lucía, the second and fourth sentences each contained a superfluous comma: "He was asked by Valdès-Blain, if he would mind sharing ..." and "In the Quebec, French-language newspaper Le Soleil, ...". I have removed these already, as they seemed uncontroversial edits, but the entire article should be gone through with a fine-tooth comb to discover if there are others like them.

The main thing that still bothers me, however, is the superfluity of reference numbers, and the mish-mash of content and reference notes. Are 140 citations really necessary for this article? There are quite a few cases where a single verifying citation ought to be sufficient, and yet there are two in a row. For example, the section "Style and influences" has three such cases (notes 37/38, 39/40, and 5/43). This problem is compounded by the fact that each of the first four contain extended commentaries or quotations (at least some of which properly belongs in content notes, since they are being used separately in this article anyway). This already extravagant situation is compounded by having citation notes embedded in many of the content notes—most notably the tenth and last content note, which contains no fewer than eight footnotes. The confusion is increased further by having a cluster of content notes (3, 4, 5, and 6) all linked from the same number in the text, so that the following content-note numbers do not correspond to the numerals found in the text. At least one of these (content-note 7) fails to link back to its place in the text, making it impossible to tell what it is meant to be commenting on. Another example occurs in the section "World tours", where the first sentence ends "on the Great Wall of China", followed by two footnote numbers, 76 and 8. The first note seems relevant ("China Minister of Culture letter"), but clicking on the second appears to link to the footnote with "Building Is His Hobby", about seven-year-old Michael's toothpick-boat project! It takes some detective work to discover that this "note 8" actually links to content-note 10, "Other countries where Laucke performed include ...". One makeshift solution would be to cause the content notes to be identified with letters instead of numbers but, in my opinion, the content notes should be eliminated altogether, by incorporating the information into the main text where it is useful, and simply omitting any that are not. The excessive annotation gives a defensive appearance to the article. It should not be necessary to annotate separate words in the same sentence, as in the third sentence of the Transcriptions section, or the egregious content-note 10 (alias 8). It is usual to collect all the supporting citations at the end of a sentence, and WP:CITEBUNDLE should also be considered here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax and Jerome Kohl: I am eager to attend to these interesting and generally excellent recommendations over the next few days. Although the LDR (list-defined references) technology used is incompatible with bundling, I have quite a few ideas on how to clear up the navigation, content and reference notes issues; and many of the above ideas will be helpful in this regard. Indeed, a single verifying citation may very well be sufficient in most cases. Jerome Kohl's reasoning seems very sound to me; considering this broad overview, it is perhaps time to reduce citations which exist simply because editors insisted on them and reduce their abundance. Merci Jérôme; j'apprécie beaucoup votre contribution et votre temps. Je veillerai à ce que la mise en œuvre de vos commentaires soit fructueuse. Cordialement, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 08:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: Jerome Kohl Here is a quick update. Following your excellent suggestions, I subsequently made 70 edits, deleted 20 references—down from 140 references to 120. The content Notes section (11 references) was eliminated altogether by incorporating the information into the main text, where it is useful, and deleting any that were not. I more carefully matched references with precisely the correct sentence and did some reference bundling too. So that was an amazingly productive collaboration

, for which I send once again my profound thanks. Work remains to be done on citations and the discography section. ...and the question raised on my talk page about '|Quotes=' translated in Citations and original language inclusion, or not. If you would like to peruse the article again, I would be delighted and of course any further recommendations are most welcome. ...more soon. kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 07:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Michael Bednarek

Why is this biographical article categorised in Category:Atonal compositions? I also queried the purpose of Category:Gymnopédies at Category talk:Gymnopédies; depending on a response there, that category may have to be removed here. Related: repeating this article's categories at Michael Laucke discography and filmography is wrong; that article should be in some subcategories of Category:Discographies and in Category:Filmographies. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Michael Bednarek (with cc to Natalie.Desautels). The Michael Laucke article is more than a biography. In fact it originally was all about the music and little about the person. Furthermore, this article contains multimedia: images, a signature, audio, and video, including atonal works and the Gymnopédies. The discography/filmography article is new and still being refined. Thank you for your observations. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: Hello Michael Bednarek Thank you so much for your interesting input, and also for your posting at Category talk:Gymnopédies. I am most interested to learn of the results there and have 'watched' that page. Regarding the related discography article, you are correct of course in that it does need some refining when it comes to categories. Thank your for spurring me on in this area; I now intend to put more time on this task. Expanding on Checkingfax's comments, at its inception the Michael Laucke article seemed to be almost exclusively about atonal music, one of my main interests/passions. Besides the 25 atonal works written for, dedicated to and performed by Laucke, some in Carnegie Hall, there's also the fact that most of these 25 composers are wikilinked in the article, so a rich tapestry emerges here around atonal music. Laucke is also one of 3 guitarists in the world to have performed what has been called, arguably, the world's most difficult atonal composition, Boulez's 'le Marteau sans Maitre' (The Hammer without a Master). ...a 21 minute atonal work won the guitarist a Grand Prix du disque, and so on. So there are just so many connections to atonal music that we think the atonal music category should remain. Again, your time, comments and help—to make this article as good as it can be—are much appreciated and valuable to me. kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 22:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with this article's categorisation as Category:Atonal compositions. Donizetti wrote more than 70 operas, but his article is not categorised as Category:Operas. Many composers have written works for Siegfried Palm, but his article is not categorised as Category:20th-century classical music. Lastly, Laucke's name (& his discography) are oddly the only non-compositions among the members of Category:Atonal compositions. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

@Checkingfax and Lingzhi: Hello Michael Bednarek, You are correct. Seen from a broader perspective, you have deftly made a very valid point. "Laucke' is not an atonal composition just as "Donizetti" is not an opera himself. If there is ever a category called "Performers who play atonal works", than that might fit the bill. Until then, I have deleted Category:Atonal compositions since its links should be to atonal compositions. ...even godfather Arnold Schoenberg doesn't display this category. So it is gone, withered away like the proverbial tide over the sandcastles until we say "What was it, where did it go"

. Many thanks, kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 21:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Michael Bednarek. Things are further along per your comments and others. Care to comment or !vote? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pdebee

As you requested, I have gone through the whole article, including the 'Notes' section, in order to check all punctuation. There are three comments I would make:
1. Serial commas - I decided to re-instate serial commas, because of this specific case, where I felt we really needed the serial comma, otherwise the adjectives 'classical' and 'electric' would have seemed to qualify the preceding 'Spanish', which made no sense. Yes, I am aware that the enumeration makes it clear that we are talking about four types of guitars (I added 'types' in the prose to strengthen the point even more) and so, logically, we shouldn't need the serial comma. However, I added it because there were already some serial commas upstream in the article and, therefore, I decided to apply serial commas consistently and throughout the article. Having said all this, I just hope I have really been consistent, as I was also needed away from the Wiki today. In any case: you are the creatrix of this article and I will let you decide whether you want them or not; if not, then I will go through another pass of removing all serial commas. It makes no difference to me, so please don't hesitate to indicate your preference and it will be done with grace.
2. Other edits - As you have already noticed, I have done a bit more than check punctuation. In fact, it is this simple task of checking punctuation which has made me re-read the prose with greater scrutiny than ever before () and, as a result, I found several opportunities to re-word it in a way that I thought might improve the reader's experience. If there is anything you dislike in these changes, then please don't be bashful () and tell me exactly what you want changed. Better still, feel free to revert or "re-improve" (there should be such a verb...) any of my changes; I promise I won't mind...
3. Possible regressions in the prose - If I have done anything wrong, then please forgive me and simply go ahead and revert/change anything you don't like.
Finally, I didn't add any supporting comments in the article's talk page, but please feel free to crib any of the above, to add it as a summary to some other talk/project page if you deem it appropriate or necessary.
Enjoy the final stretch and, as ever, I send you my very best wishes of success with the heady heights of your current drive towards FA. (Wow, just writing this last sentence makes me feel so high I am having a 'mental nosebleed'... ).
With kindest regards, as ever;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^(guestbook) 17:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: Hello Pdebee. Thank you so much; ...much appreciated. I have taken the pleasure to carefully study each and every one of your fine edits and found them all tastefully and deftly done indeed! Serial commas are now consistently implemented throughout, in fact, very consistently

, and no further adjustment is required. The re-wording was excellent and I only reverted the SOCAN/Montreal Gazette sentences to point to the correct references. Finally, as you can see, I transcluded your comments to this Featured article candidates comments page. It remains for me to send my gratitude for your astute, meticulous, and skillful editing, 'et d'avoir passé le peigne fin'. If I can further be of help with your Québécois/French translations, or with other languages for that matter, you know where to find me

. Toutes mes salutations les plus amicales et mes vœux les plus aimables, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 07:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lingzhi, Pdebee, and Checkingfax: In the interest of continuing this thread and at the same time respecting the conciseness of this FA revew page, I have copied Pdebee's kind response onto his talk page here. His comments were immensely helpful and his acknowledgement deeply appreciated. I believe I may be responsible for the mix-up since I simply copied the text without implementing the transclusion code. ...too much haste I guess... 'you have to run twice as fast to stay in the same place

'. kindest regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 14:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment

This has been open around six weeks and we're clearly a long way from achieving consensus to promote; I'd suggest that after further improvements Peer Review should be the next stop before considering a re-nomination at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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