Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carl Nielsen/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:24, 5 June 2015 [1].

---

Carl Nielsen

Nominator(s): Ipigott, Smerus, Mirokado and ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Carl Nielsen, generally considered to be Denmark's greatest composer... Although during his lifetime he was seen as something of an "outsider", since his death, particularly since the 1960s, he has come to be seen as one of the great composers.

The context behind this nomination is unusual. Ipigott, who lives for part of the year in Denmark I believe, only realised about a month ago that the 150th anniversary of Nielsen's birth is on 9 June, a day which will get significant attention not only in Denmark but internationally. We thought what a great thing it would be to have a TFA for Nielsen on 9 June, even if last minute. So in the past month, we've been led by Ipigott to overhaul the article. It recently passed GA. My initial concern was that the biographical coverage wasn't quite as detailed as you'd expect, but I believe the Nielsen website contains the bulk of the detail on this which has mostly already been consulted, and I did ask Tim riley to look in the British Library and he found very little material I think. Several editors mentioned that they thought it should be an FA candidate. I asked Brian to perform an initial peer review himself and asked if he thought it was too late to nom. He believes the article is viable, and has stated that he is willing to do a vigorous review to try to get it up to the required standard. I don't want everybody to feel rushed here, there's still 24 days to go before the day, but I'd like the delegates and reviewers to keep in mind the target, should this succeed here. I believe there's still a long way to go, and wouldn't normally nom without a major prior review, but at least half a dozen of us think the 150th anniversary is worth doing this over, and I want to give this the maximum chance in the time we have left.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Clarifying note: "Brian" above is me (not everybody will know that). I confirm that I said I thought that this could be nominated, but I expect further review action here and will be providing further comments myself. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The regulars will, but I guess FAC is viewed by more people than we think at times!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Some minor finishing touches still coming in to ensure this is the best possible article, hope this is OK given the circumstances here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments and support by Maunus

• I lend my linguistic services if any online sources in Danish need to be spotchecked.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

On a brief overview of citations and sources I am a little apprehensive about overreliance on the Carl Nielsen Edition website and other online sources (BBC, Carlnielsen.org, New Yorker, NYT, Carl Nielsen society) and underreliance of published literature, such as some of the handful of biographies written about him which many of which are absent (the ones cited are from 1947, and one by Lawson from 1997). Newer studies include Reynolds 2010 "Carl Nielsen's voice: his songs in context" (pretty crucial since his songs are what he is mostly known for in Denmark), Grimley 2010 "Carl Nielsen and the Idea of Modernism", the Pictorial biography must also have some usefulness as well as the four volumes of Carl Nielsen studies. I also find the bibliography layout and citation notes (with its mixture of short linked and long unlinked citations) to be confusing and not very aesthetically pleasing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Maunus. That there's an abundance of biographical material readily available isn't true. Even in the British library there's very little.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

On google books there are at least 5 different biographies and in addition his own famus account of his childhood. I've provided the titles of some of the ones that seem to be missing above. Even the ones that are used are not cited more than once or twice each and the bulk of citations are to web sources and the royal library website.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I said readily available. Even the British Library had very little on him. The Lawson book I believe is heavily photographed anyway. Do you stock all of the books in your local library Maunus? Even on amazon.co.uk there's not much available.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I imagine I could get my hands on them within a week or two through interlibrary loan.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The Carl Nielsen Edition is a substantial academic work available in print (isbns are in the citations) as well as on the web site, although I imagine few can afford to purchase the printed version so it is great that we can also link to online files. Reynolds (2010) would be an excellent source for an article about Nielsen's songs, but most of it is rather specialised for this article. We refer to it twice in the section about the songs. Chapter 1 (pp. 13–49) does provide a biographical overview.

I agree that a reference list of all short entries looks nicer. Disadvantages of moving the web-based citations down to the citations list include: an extra click before the reader can open the reference; paper-based and web-based references get mixed up; care needed in naming the link for pages without an author (done quite nicely using publication name in Irataba, a current FAC). An advantage is that the reader can easier answer the question: "what resources have been cited?" because they are in an ordered list. It is though possible to move the citations down if we decide that is preferable. Thoughts from others? --Mirokado (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I always add web sources and book sfn notes together in the citations section and have promoted many articles this way. I'd like to see Maunus get hold of those books and we can see then if he's right about the content in them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I donøt think I have volunteered to do that. There are also 5 volumes of "Carl Nielsen Studies" that are not being used. The reliance on the "Edition" and websources, makes me worried about how well the article represents the literature. It is easy to miss larger themes in the scholarship or subtly misrepresent it if only engaging the academic scholarship superficially.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Worried? Not sure I believe that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Exchange for concerned if you like.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

There are also full long refs to journal articles in the citations mixed in with the short linked ones. There is a mixture of citation styles in use.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I've moved all the longer citations to the citation list, with some tidying up en passant. --Mirokado (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed, and it looks much better now I think. Thanks!--·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• In the section "mature composer" we hear of his son in-law without having heard that he had any children, except for the "love child". I think the children should be in the marriage section and not all the way down in the legacy section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think the "songs and hymns" section needs expansion. This is the crux of his importance within Denmark. Every night I sing a Carl Nielsen melody for my kids as I put them to sleep, and my parents did the same for me. There is hardly a meeting or social occasion in Denmark where Carl Nielsen songs are not likely to be sung. Reynolds' book as well as her article in Carl Nielsen studies vol 4 would be good for this. And so would probably Colin Roth's article in the same volume.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Maunus, for all your constructive comments and your pertinent edits on the content. I have in fact looked at several contributions by Anne Marie Reynolds who has long been the leading expert on Nielsen at the Royal Library. There are in fact significant excerpts of "Carl Nielsen's Voice" on the web, including a summary of her analysis of his songs (p. 24). While I have referred to Nielsen's songs in the article, as their appreciation is limited to Denmark (and possibly the other Scandinavian countries), I intentionally did not include a major section on them in the biography. As my wife is Danish and my children and grandchildren also speak the language, I am of course familiar with many of them myself. I think virtually every Dane can sing or hum half a dozen of his songs (mostly without knowing who wrote them). I would nevertheless welcome further feedback on how far other editors consider they should be covered in detail here. An alternative would be a separate article on Carl Nielsen's songs which I think I could put together quite quickly. That might keep everyone happy.--Ipigott (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the appreciation of the songs is not shared by all is not very relevant given that there is an English language literature about it. A stand alone article would be good certainly, but the current focus is the main article where a summary of three lines is just not enough. I would say that the section needs to be at least three or four times the size of what it is now, mention his collaboration with Laub, his favorite poets (Aakjaer, Andersen) and his three volumes of songs as well as the titles of some of his best known songs - and perhaps his falling out with Laub over their competing alternative versions of the national hymn. And it might be worth including the quote where he states that his songs are closest to his heart.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, a main article on his songs would be the best way to cover it with just a summary here, rather than bloating it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The section is so short that it has to be either expanded or combined into another section. It is not a summary at all and is highly superficial. As it is now I think it falls short of the requirement of comprehensiveness. Carl Nielsen himself stated that he found his popular songs to be closer to his heart than his symphonies btw. This alone means that more than two lines about them is required.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I have expanded the section and (I hope) made clear some of the significance of the songs.--Smerus (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that it is clearly better now, but starting it with a quote comes off a little odd I think. Better would be to start with a topic sentence about his song production and the importance of his songs within his oeuvre. I also think his collections of songs published separately require mention, as do his collaboration with Laub specifically. And I think the short quote on page 121 in Reynolds is better than the one youve chosen (My large symphonies are one thing, but the simple, popular song lies closer to my heart [1924]).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, this is always a question of taste. The quote I chose to begin I think emphasizes that for Nielsen (and for foreigners) the folk music is a 'Denmark thing.' I think the rest of what I have written indicates the importance of his songs to him (and to Danes) and that they ate parallel to , but also separate from thew rest of his output. I will try to add a bit more about Laub and I like the other quote you mention. But if we go into greater details, that I think (I am sure) is something for a separate article, not for the biography article. It's so easy to get carried away with the things that are close to one. --Smerus (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the weakness of beginning with the quote is that it doesnt really bring the reader into the topic of the section. I think it is ok to have a quote, but I think the otherone is both shorter and clearer. I am not suggesting the section should be longer than the section on his symphonies of course, and what Isuggest to add does not necessarily add to the length, of the section for example with a shorter quote and some condensation of the slightly repetitive statements about the national implications of his songs, it would probably end up being the same length as it is now.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think Smerus has done an excellent job of covering the essentials of Nielsen's songs. For the English-speaking reader at least, the initial quotation not only explains Nielsen's love of songs about his country but also summarizes the reasons why his songs fail to strike a chord with foreigners. (Very perceptive of him at the time, n'est-ce pas?) I think we should leave the quote where it is. Sooner or later I intend to write a separate article on Nielsen's songs but to me this certainly seems adequate for the main biography. @Maunus: Are you happy with the way in which your suggestions have been implemented? Is there anything else of importance you think we need to deal with?--Ipigott (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't say I am happy with the way the section works as prose, I don't think the reader is likely to get as much information out of the quote as you suggest because there isn't an introductory couple of sentences to describe his song production. Reynolds by the way is sill not cited in the section, only the foreword by Krabbe. It is not something I will oppose over either, but I may end up adding the information I think is missing to the section myself. I haven't reviewed whether the academic sources I mentioned are being used more than before.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Now I am in fact very happy with the section, I think the latest changes have near perfected it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• I support the promotion of the article. I still think it can develop its engagement with the literature better, and I think criterion 1c is its weak point. But overall it is a commendable article that I am happy to support.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Maunus.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Support by Gerda

I like the impressive growth of the article from a few weeks ago. I find the prose readable without problems, thank you! Minor points for the moment:

• Please decide a consistent format for works with a number such as the symphonies and quartets. Either "No. 1" or "First". We have Symphony No. 1 in G minor, - I suggest to get the key out -as not part of the title, and link it separately: Symphony No. 1 in G minor. First String Quartet No. 1 in G minor is too much, - First or No. 1 ;) - and for the key as above.

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Same in his works list? I would do it myself but have little time this week.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Are you suggesting we should revise the List of compositions by Carl Nielsen along these lines? And the articles to which they link? Quite an intricate and time consuming job at this stage in the proceedings and perhaps not strictly necessary for the purposes of FAC on the main article? If we only have 24 hours left, perhaps it's more important to deal with other matters.--Ipigott (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggested that to improve the works also on the occasion would be a good idea. It has nothing to do with this FAC outcome, and I didn't suggest that you should do it. - I might do it myself last minute. At the moment I enjoy a few days off, and on returning I have several projects until 7 June. - Remember, I wrote Franz Kafka works as a supplement to Kafka, a DYK on TFA day (and one of very few I wrote to make it to the stats). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• When you introduce a new piece, prepare it by a genre upfront, such as cantata Hymnus amoris, rather than giving only the scoring after the title. - Reading again , I found that it was mentioned before but without link and translation, will change that. How about consistently original titles, with a translation the first time?

Hope this is OK now.--Ipigott (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• His wife with name and profession is mentioned twice in the lead, - the second time could be just "his wife".

Removed in second instance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I am surprised that there is no article about the edition of his works and the catalogue, also some of the people important in his life. Are there articles in Danish for which stubs could be created?

Of course!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I found some and made ill for them. Almost another set in the translation project ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I am also surprises that the children are not in Life but Legacy, and I count five, no?

Now under "Marriage and children" - as also suggested--Ipigott (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I am not happy with images on the left under a header, - old-fashioned training.

Moved as many as I could.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Can we say "Danish premiere"? Premiere in Denmark? (That may be just my limited English)

Yes, that's fine, more common way of saying it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Lead: can we say first what he is known for and then the "difficulties"?

I've made a short addition here but I think it is important to relate his personal life to his musical developments. Is this now OK?--Ipigott (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Early years: Can his mother first give him a violin, then he speaking about it?

Well spotted. I've reworded this slightly. Now it looks fine to me.--Ipigott (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Musical style: Instead of style, we hear about reception first. Perhaps a different para for that, after style?

I've started to sort this out. Might move some of the style section to reception. See also suggestions on talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Translation of Moderen?

done

• Negro Dance (and the others) needs italics or quotation ;)

done

• decide "Op." vs. "Op" consistently, please (didn't find the first because of that)
  • have made Op consistent throughout (I think) --Smerus (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

More to follow --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Progressing nicely!

• Provide "alt=" for all images, as an accessibility feature for people who don't see the image. Tell them what they would see. (first item on the checklist) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Years ago I began to use this for the images in my articles but never had any feedback. Although it does not seem to be a requirement for FA, I'll do it if I have time.--Ipigott (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Done - Both Smerus and I have been working on this. I think you'll be happy with the result.--Ipigott (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Be careful using the symbol for "done", I like it but others think it increases loading time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. When commenting on GA, I was told to use the symbol but I've now removed it and won't use it again. I always try to keep as many people as happy as possible.--Ipigott (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Only one point not yet addressed: consistently original titles with translation in brackets the first time. I'll leave you for a few days, leaning towards support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I am not quite sure what you would like to see here. Are you suggesting that in the lead, for example, we should change the text to read "He premiered his Suite for Strygeorkster (Suite for Strings) in 1888..." (ditto for the other works, Wind Quintet, Maskerade, etc.)? Or are your comments intended strictly for the music section? For me, a bit of variety makes the text more readable. I think it would be less attractive to refer to all his symphonies in the style "Symphony No. 1", if they are also known as the First Symphony and so on, especially in cases when we can also call them by their more familiar names (Espansiva, Simplice...). The use of various names seems to me to be a good thing. I have looked at a number of the other FA articles on composers and they all seem to use the same kind of variety. Perhaps Smerus could comment on this? Maybe your approach is just a wee bit too German: Ordnung muss sein!!! (No offense intended.) It would be a pity if our failure to follow up on this continued to be the reason for your lack of support when we've been doing so much to improve the article as quickly as possible and have been able to implement nearly all your other helpful suggestions.--Ipigott (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I remember Kafka, again. We made a decision early on to use the German titles with English in brackets, because he wrote in German. I admit that music is different. Pieces known by an English title should probably be given in English, and Suite for Strings may be one of them, also symphonies and string quartets, which leaves things as Hymnus Amoris and the Danish ones. If you say the variety is on purpose, that's also fine, - I just noticed that there was no answer so far. - Back to vacation, take your time.

@Gerda Arendt: Glad to see you finally came back on line, Gerda. I saw you had been away for a couple of days. I didn't know I was bothering on your holiday though. Hope you're enjoying yourself. I don't really think we should adopt the Kafka approach for composers. I think it all reads very nicely as it is. So are you now willing to support our efforts? You say "take your time". Is that because you think it's too late to meet Crisco's deadline? I must say for the past three or four days I've spent hours and hours trying to respond to all your suggestion and those of the others on this page. Maybe it has all been in vain. Now I think the ball is in your court. Whatever the timing it would be really helpful if you could lend us your support.--Ipigott (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks {{|u|Gerda Arendt}} just noticed, I've been busy!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods

done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• File:Carl_Nielsen.jpg: this will need a US PD tag, but currently there isn't enough information to support the current tag - what is the source, who is the author...?

Done - Image replaced with details of author and source. PD US tag included.

• Everything with only a life+70 tag will also need some kind of US PD tag

Done - I think they now all have the necessary tags but will now look in detail at the files mentioned below.

• File:Carl_Nielsen_ca_1880.jpg: if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?

Done - Author identified with dates.

Same with File:Carl_Nielsen_at_childhood_house.jpg

Done - Have changed licence as it is not a work of art

Same with File:Nielsen5_poster.jpg

Done

• File:Anne_Marie_Carl-Nielsen.jpg: when/where was this first published? What steps have you taken to try to find the author? On what basis would this have been PD by the URAA date? Also, the source link is dead. All of these also apply to File:Anne_marie_Carl-Nielsen_with_statue.jpg

With the help of We hope, wWe've found a new image of the family which I think meets all requirements.--Ipigott (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• File:Carl_Nielsen_family_at_Fuglsang,_Lolland.jpg: Source link is dead, and how do we know the author died over 70 years ago?

archived page link. We hope (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• File:Saul_og_David_(Carl_Nielsen),,_Stockholm_1931.jpg: when/where was this first published?

There are additional details here indicating that it was first published in January 1931. Have added these details to Commons.

• Sound clips should indicate licensing status of the works themselves as well as the performances

Comment: what do you (all) think of moving most sounds to the work in the works list, leaving only one representative here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Done: now only in Wind Quintet article.Ipigott (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• Since freedom of panorama in Denmark only extends to buildings, File:Vestre_Kirkegård_Carl_Nielsen.JPG should reflect the licensing status of the work as well as the photo

the grave was designed by his wife who died in February 1945. It is therefore PD in the EU and I have edited Wikicommons accordingly. But I don't know whether this meets Wikipedia criteria.--Smerus (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately the rule of "life of author plus 70 years" in countries like USA, UK, Australia, France, Germany, etc. all allow the copyright to run until year end, so the actual grave won't be out of copyright until 31 December 2015 in many countries. Sorry. --RexxS (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I am told by Nikkimaria that the life of the photographer needs to be taken into account - which I find surprising. But I have now deleted the image. If anyone can sort the licencing out, perhaps it can be restored but I will not undertake any further attempts myself.--Ipigott (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• File:Front_side_of_Danish_100_kr_note_(1997_series).jpg: the fact that he was put on a banknote can be explained in text - will need further rationale for including non-free image

• on banknote see comments here.--Smerus (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• There is a good fair use rationale for the use of the image already on the image page. The template used is {{Non-free use rationale 2}}, which - as I understand it - is a perfectly acceptable means of providing an FUR and is used as part of the upload wizard. I can't see a problem with what is there already. Unless the objection is that no image should be used at all because it can be replaced by text? --RexxS (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes - I've seen the rationale, it's not wrong, I just don't agree that it in combination with the text justifies the use of a non-free image in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I would argue that it is important to display an image of the 100 crown note here. It is a major item in indicating the importance Denmark accorded this composer. Without the image, the text would not be very meaningful. (My opinion of course.)--Ipigott (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Now finally removed from the article despite major efforts to have it maintained. (See also below}.--Ipigott (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose simply because of the number of problems here - will be happy to strike once at least some are addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: We have been trying very hard to deal with all the issues you raised and I think we have made substantial progress. I hope you will now be ready to waive your opposition. Thanks very much for explaining all the problems which needed to be addressed. It's the first time I have been involved in an FAC and I am no expert on image copyrights, etc., so I hope the modifications are in order.--Ipigott (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Given the improvements made I have stricken my oppose, though to be clear this is not yet a pass.

• We still disagree on the banknote, as discussed above - Crisco, thoughts?

Smerus was very upset this image had been removed and I tried to restore it on the basis of the explanations from the Danish National Bank but I was told that it was still not allowed. Now finally deleted.--Ipigott (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• • I've generally considered such things to fail NFCC No. 8, as there is no "critical" discussion, and no detrimental effect to readers' understanding if the image is not included. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the image of the banknote.--Ipigott (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems to have been re-added? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It has now been removed. See above.--Ipigott (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Sound clip issue from above has not yet been addressed

Now in Wind Quintet as suggested.--Ipigott (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• Anything using {{PD-US}} or similar needs to demonstrate that the image was published, not just created, prior to 1923

• PD-1996 has a similar issue - images using this tag need to be published, not just created, before 1978. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• File:Carl_Nielsen_in_1901.jpg: if this only has a life+70 tag, it wouldn't have been PD in home country in 1996 and so wouldn't be PD in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I am astonished that this image is not acceptable, especially as it was uploaded by the highly experienced Dr. Blofeld. From Nikkimaria's explanations, it appears to be a matter of finding the right licencing tags. The photograph was taken in 1901. The photographer died 71 years ago. Is it really the case that these criteria do not justify PD? Maybe it is not a work of art? I have replaced the licencing tags in the hope that they apply. Perhaps Crisco 1492 or Diannaa could offer assistance here as the image is an extremely important component of the article.--Ipigott (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

If it's not a work of art, it would be PD - I would argue that it is, but that's a matter of judgement, so I'd be happy for Chris or Diannaa to weigh in. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• File:Carl_Nielsen_family_at_Fuglsang,_Lolland.jpg: source link is dead, and how do we know the unknown author died over 70 years ago? Given the creation date it is possible they did not

Live link now restored (here. I've added it to Commons. This appears to be an amateur photo (not a work of art) and therefore should be PD in DK. The tagging needs to be changed.--Ipigott (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the licence tags and think this is now perfectly in order.--Ipigott (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• File:Nielsen5_poster.jpg is not a photographic image
• File:Anne_marie_Carl-Nielsen_with_statue.jpg: source link is dead, and on what basis do we believe it was PD in Denmark on the URAA date?

Image removed.--Ipigott (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• File:Vestre_Kirkegård_Carl_Nielsen.JPG: as above, life+70 needs to be supplemented by a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Still not fixed - the first given PD tag applies only to the photo, not the gravestone. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I have removed this image as I cannot understand how to address the gravestone. I have been asking for assistance on all this for over a week but cannot find anyone to offer advice. The first helpful response (on my talk page) came from Diannaa just a few hours ago but I cannot reasonably expect more help at this late stage. I think it's a pity there is no central authority on Wikipedia where advice can be sought on such issues. The other editors involved in submitting this for FAC (Dr. Blofeld, Smerus and Mirokado) have not been able to help either.--Ipigott (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You can always ask over at WP:MCQ. However, the issue is not the life of the photographer, who in this case has released the photograph into the public domain. Because this is a 3D work not covered by freedom of panorama, we also need to consider the copyright of the creator of the original work. As Rex points out above, life+70 won't be accurate until the end of this year - at that point that tag plus {{PD-Pre1978}} will work. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Nikkimaria Would you please kindly help solve this yourself? Personally I'm not particularly concerned what images go in the time being, so long as they all comply. Long term I think our best bet would be to contact the Nielsen museum and get them to donate Nielsen images into the public domain. I still find it absurd that we can't use an image taken 114 years ago, but Nikki is the expert on this. If there's no decent portrait image freely useable we could probably get away with fair use for it anyway. The easiest thing really would be for you to simply say "This is what you can use", I think it's reached a point where it's difficult to know what to do here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Contacting the Nielsen museum would only work for cases where they own the copyright - keep in mind that owning the image is not the same as owning the rights to it. However, they might be able to provide an indication of when and where the images were first published, which would help immensely with some of the URAA images - without that information there's not much I'm able to do right now. At this point, we either know we can't use or don't have enough information to know we can use:

• the gravestone
• File:Carl_Nielsen_and_family_1904.jpg (which we can use under life+100 at the end of this year) :*File:Carl_Nielsen_family_at_Fuglsang,_Lolland.jpg
• File:Carl_Nielsen_at_childhood_house.jpg
• File:Saul_og_David_(Carl_Nielsen),,_Stockholm_1931.jpg
• File:Carl_Nielsen-1928.jpg

Finding a pre-1978 publication for all of these but the gravestone would allow us to use them. File:Carl_Nielsen_in_1901.jpg and the banknote are both judgment calls - I would tend towards neither being acceptable, but waiting for input from Chris or Diannaa on the former. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Do we have any examples of what has been considered "photographic works" in Denmark? The lighting and deliberate posing suggests to me that this image was certainly well planned, but I don't know what the threshold is. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

We do indeed. There are a considerable number here on Commons. Most of them are portraits, similar to the one causing concern here. Several also have lighting and poses comparable to the image of Carl Nielsen. I have been able to pick these ones up quickly based on the Commons category which indicates that the US PD (e.g. PD-1996) is missing. I am not expert enough to be able to find those correctly coded but I would imaging there must be many more. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I have also found lots with the US licence too, for example: File:Jørgen_Haagen_Schmith.jpg, File:Peder Mandrup Meyer.png, File:Frederick IX of Denmark.jpg.--Ipigott (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Crisco 1492. I think I misunderstood your question. All of the above are portraits with PD-Denmark50 licences. I think what you are asking for are images which are not in this category because they are works of art. I'll see it I can find any.--Ipigott (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• More or less: the template says "'photographic works', which must display artistic merit or originality, enter the public domain 70 years after the death of the photographer"... so thus, the copyright status of the image depends on whether or not this is considered a "photographic work" and not just a photograph. If we've got previous cases, we can come to a more definite conclusion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: I have not been able to find any photographs from Denmark in this category. All the historic photographic portraits I have found, including those taken by court photographers, carry the PD-Denmark50 licence. I would argue that the portrait of Carl Nielsen could also be licenced in the same way. There is after all no indication it is a work of art, even if the photographer can be identified. I'm afraid I cannot spend much more time on this today - we have visitors.--Ipigott (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: After a lot of searching, I have finally been able to find just one photograph on Commons licenced PD-art. It's not Danish but Ukrainian: File:Vasyl Dmytrijuk.jpg. I hope this makes it possible to arrive at a conclusion more easily.--Ipigott (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• It's not as simple as that. Take a look at these images: 1, 2, 3. Can you guess which of them was deleted from Commons for being a "photographic work" and not a simple photograph? Without reading the corresponding pages, I wouldn't have been able to do so. I'm not comfortable using this when the copyright status is so unclear; there is no clear definition of how much creativity is necessary for a "photograph" to become a "photographic work". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• • @Crisco 1492: Unfortunately on the basis of your links I cannot "guess" the reaons why each of these files were deleted from Commons but I think that if the image of Carl Nielsen now under discussion is deleted from Commons, at least 80 per cent of the photographic portraits of famous historical Danes should also be deleted from Commons. This would, of cource, not only affect the articles on the EN wiki but especially those on DA wiki. I would be more than ready to support Nikkimaria on all this if only we could establish some clear user guidance on the matter. I have now spent about four hours per day every day over the past week looking at Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia and Creative Commons trying to find guidance on these licences but have not been able to find anything of substance. All I have had to go on, apparently like you, is the very occasional deletion by an administrator from Wikimedia Commons. In most cases, such deletions seem to have been based on personal preferences rather than on a generally accepted rationale. On the entire range of Commons photographs worldwide, as far as I can see there is only one photograph surviving (mentioned above) with a PD art licence. Perhaps this should be deleted too along with all Danish photographs which have a PD-Denmark50 licence but no corresponding US licence? On a rough calculation, this would lead to the removal of the lead images from at least 80 per cent of the historic 19th and early 20th century biographies on the DA wiki, including most of the corresponding articles on the other language wikis. Maybe this would indeed be in the interests of the important objective of safeguarding copyright on Wikimedia Commons which, of course, I fully support but I think it should at least be subject to deeper assessment? As a former European offical who over some 15 years (until my retirement in 2006) actively encouraged participation by the EU national libraries, museums and archives in numerous collaborative projects including TEL, TEL-ME-MORE and especially Europeana, I would have thought that this might be a rather rash step given the EU's overall objective of providing wider access via Creative Commons to accessible resources from Europe's cultural institutions, but I also accept that US PD requirements may exceed the regulations established in the various countries of the European Union. In the absence of any significant examination of the legislation in place, would it be acceptable to maintain the lead Carl Nielsen portrait File:Carl Nielsen in 1901.jpg on the basis of fair use until we reach a final conclusion on the issue? If not, why not? En passant, I see you pinged me from here but cannot understand why or what you would like me to do? Perhaps I should add that Rosiestep suggested INeverCry could assist in resolving some of these Carl Nielsen image issues. I would of course also welcome any advice he/she is able to give. Respectfully --Ipigott (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    • All three of the images I mentioned above were nominated for deletion a couple years ago. Numbers 1 and 2 were considered normal photographs, and thus kept, but number 3 was considered a photographic work and deleted; this is mentioned on Commons, with links to the deletion discussions if you want to check. The similarity of the deleted and not deleted images is such that I don't think we've got a clear enough definition for an image in an FA. I agree with Nikkimaria that File:Carl_Nielsen_in_1901.jpg should be nixed. As to the ping on my talk page: We hope has uploaded File:Carl Nielsen 1917.jpg (first link in WH's post), which is 100% most definitely free in the US (which is all we need for the English Wikipedia). I figured you'd be interested in having an image you can use to replace troublesome ones. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
      • @Crisco 1492: I have replaced the 1901 photo with the 1917 one mentioned by you. Nominators are free to revert my edit. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 03:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Ssven2: Thank you for helping to sort this out. At this resolution, the image does not look too bad and I certainly think it should be maintained. I don't imagine Dr. Blofeld and Smerus will have any objections either. I would also like to thank We hope for all the trouble she has taken to ensure we have a usable image, and also Crisco 1492 for encouraging further efforts on the images. I suppose the article can now be reassessed for FAC.--Ipigott (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• From a very quick lookover, I do believe the images are ready. User:Nikkimaria, what do you think? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed one more: File:Carl_Nielsen_at_childhood_house.jpg. The article should now be good to go. It appears that Royal Danish Library images were "published" (publicly available) as of 1976. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: I do not intend to reinsert the image but for future reference (i.e. looking for other images to illustrate the article when I return to Denmark at the end of July) I would be interested to know why you think it is not in the public domain. It certainly does not appear to me to be a "photographic work". Is there something wrong with the way in which it is licenced?--Ipigott (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• It is PD in Denmark, but the {{PD-1996}} tag (which accounts for its status in the US) requires details of the first publication that we just don't have at this point - we don't know whether it was first published before or after 1978. If before, it's certainly PD in the US; if after, it may or may not be. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for your quick response but I think the guidelines here need to be revised. I have studied them carefully and cannot see why there is any problem with US copyright whatever the first date of publication. If this image is not acceptable, then only images with clear evidence of the date of publication can be included in Wikipedia articles. But this is a matter that probably deserves to be addressed elsewhere. In any case, thanks for your interest in this article and all the time and effort you have spent on reviewing the images.--Ipigott (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by RexxS

The text size and colours used meet our standards outlined in MOS:ACCESS. Unfortunately, not one image in the article has alt text. That will result in some visitors who use a screen reader hearing something like "Link Saul og David open parentheses Carl Nielsen close parentheses comma comma Stockholm 1931 dot jay pee gee {then} Carl Nielsen with the cast of Saul og David, Stockholm 1931". --RexxS (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Can you clarify please, is alt text a requirement for FA status, or is it an optional improvement? If the former, are formulas such as 'alt=photograph' acceptable?--Smerus (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• (watching, and I made the same request above): the alt text tells a person who can not see the image what he would see, as a service to that person. To say "photograph" is better than nothing. Perhaps look at examples that were recently accepted, such as BWV 165 where the FAC has a detailed list of accessibility features. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Personally I encourage the use of alt text but, no, it's not a requirement for FAC and won't be until or unless it's mandated for all articles under MOS. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You're wong. WP:FACR #2 requires the article to follow "the style guidelines". The link there is to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, of which Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility is now an integral part. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Images begins with the words "Images should include an alt attribute ...". Alt text is just as mandatory for articles as any other section of MOS.

Additionally, FACR has this opening sentence: "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing" (my emphasis). I maintain that a professional standard of presentation on a website demands compliance with WCAG 2.0, and no professional web-designer would get away with creating a website where images had no alt text. If Featured Articles are genuinely to exemplify "our very best work", then they must accommodate visually impaired readers - at the very least by not forcing them to listen to the sort of garbage that the example in my opening remark illustrates.

What is worse on Wikipedia is that almost all of our images are linked (because of attribution) and links require something for a screen-reader to read out. That's why we get the filename read out in the absence of alt text.

You can kid yourselves that you can ignore sections of the MOS that you don't like; but the MOS is there for a reason. How you deal with such uncomfortable truths is, of course, completely up to you. --RexxS (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. all done. What's with the 'kid yourselves' stuff? I only asked for advice.--Smerus (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being brusque, but the advice you got previously was sub-optimal, and from somebody who should know better. My apologies also for not addressing your question fully. If you use alt text that says "photograph" then that is what the screen reader will announce as the target of the link. If you imagine you're using a screen reader, you can make a decision at that point to follow the link (it might be something interesting) or continue on to hear the caption. I'm not sure that "photograph" is going to help inform that decision, but it certainly is a lot better than "Saul og David open parentheses ... dot jay pee gee" which is probably what you'd get now. I'd suggest something like "Carl Nielsen with several actors" might do a better job; it's difficult because the caption is already partially describing the image rather than concentrating on developing the reason why the image is there in the first place (as it should per WP:CAPTION). Getting the right images in the appropriate place with the right alt text and caption is a tough job if we want to make this an example of our very best work. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

OK much clearer, thanks. I may revisit in this light.--Smerus (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Easy does it, Rexx. At no stage did I say FAC should ignore MOS, more the opposite, that if MOS mandates the use of alt text then so should FAC. There have been many discussions on alt text in FAC and the latest consensus I recall was that the MOS guidance was problematic and therefore difficult to make a requirement, quite a different thing to "ignoring a part of the MOS you don't like". Granted it's been quite some time since then and if things are more straightforward now then perhaps it should be revisited. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If you think that the guidance in MOS:ACCESS #images is problematic, then you need to raise your concerns on that talk page. In the meantime, that guideline enjoys community consensus in just the same way as any other part of MOS, and is mandatory in articles to exactly the same extent as any other part of the MOS, no more and no less. I accept that writing good alternate text is difficult and finding reviewers who can adjudicate on that aspect of the MOS is not easy, although I've always found Graham87 to be unfailingly helpful with questions concerning screen readers, as he has used one or another for many years. I do remember when Eubulides invested so much effort into the issues of alt text that he burned himself out and sadly retired, resulting in the FAC process dropping the requirement for alt text at the time. Since then, I believe that things have moved on, and I would recommend that you re-visit the current guidance as a whole: the purpose of images in articles, focussed captions, and complementary alt text together form an area that still offers many opportunities for improvement in so much of Wikipedia. I have no wish to try to force anything upon the FAC process, but it is worth reminding the regulars, once in a while, that Featured Articles are copied by large numbers of editors and even a small improvement in an FA can cascade into very many improvements throughout the rest of our project. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just skimming through the comments prior to a review, and came across this. There is nothing mandatory about following what are guidelines, rather than bright-line policies. Advisable, certainly; good practice, definitely, but not mandatory. This is, however, all rather moot, as the images all now carry the alt. My review follows shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who suggested that "it's not a requirement for FAC and won't be until or unless it's mandated for all articles under MOS". The whole of MOS is a guideline, not a "bright-line policy" (whatever that may be - see WP:PAG for definitions), yet I read it as a requirement for FA status under criterion 2. Of course it's not mandatory for any any article to meet FAC criterion 2, but I had thought it was necessary to meet that in order to be promoted. Can I take it that the next time an objection is raised under any other part of criterion 2, you'll be opposing that objection on the grounds that adherence to MOS is advisable and good practice, but not mandatory for FA status? --RexxS (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

As I've already said, it's a moot point, and I have no wish to continue any discussion. You have your opinion. It's not one I share and I will leave it at that. - SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "follows the style guidelines" does not mean that an article has to be 100% compliant with everything in the MOS. Because MOS is not a brightline policy but a guideline. An FA should follow the general spirit of the MOS, not every letter. Alt-text is good.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting thought, Maunus. But how is anyone to know which of the MOS guidelines an article doesn't have to follow to be promoted to FA status? Because as soon as we start saying we can ignore 1% of the guidance as long as we follow the other 99% (or whatever fraction you pick), there's a "thin end of the wedge" argument that rapidly devalues the entire process. Should we amend Criterion 2 to read "It follows most of the style guidelines" or "It follows the general spirit of the style guidelines"? --RexxS (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Trough consensus, RexxS. No need to change the criterion since it already doesnt say "complies fully with the MOS", and since the MOS isnt a policy with which one can request compliance.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally I've never seen much use in Alt text, in fact I'm not sure why people would think it compulsory and can't recall ever adding it to an article in nearly ten years here. I've seen some cases like "man with curly hair smiling at the photographer" and wondered how it was encyclopedic. I must be missing something.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

That is a somewhat disingenious thing to say unless you are actually accessing wikipedia through a screenreader. Kind of like saying "ive personally never seen the use of wheelchair access ramps" while having full use of ones legs.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same thing here? Define alt text for me. I'm talking about the lame "alt" captions you see in articles like this which say "Pitt smiling".♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we are talking about the same thing. But you seem to not realize that that lame text is the only way that people who access wikipedia through a screenreader know that there is an image and what it is depicting. In absence of an alt text that can be grabbed by the screen reader the reader simply reads the name of the picture file and the html. That has to be pretty annoying to listen to. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If they can't see the image I don't see the point in describing it. Either they can see it or they can't. I suppose if the image file is being read anyway and alt text replaces it then it is an improvement, but why can't there be some coding instead which tells their screen reader to avoid reading File: or something ending in .jpg or .png, wouldn't that be better than having to read the lame "bearded man smiling" thing? I'm not sure why it would be an absolute essential to an article, it's sort of like saying a plane isn't fit to fly because it hasn't a ramp and seat for disabled folk. I suppose that there are some people who use screen readers and we should cater for them too, but I don't think it should be an essential for FA in my opinion anyway. Editors should be encouraged to be considerate to people who use screen readers I think, but to say "this can't possibly pass FAC, it doesn't have alt text", seems a bit extreme. But if Rexx or anybody else thinks it's important I'm not going to object, feel free to add it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Every non-decorative image has to have a link (for attribution). When a screen reader reaches the image it will announce a link and read out the alt text. If there's no alt text, it may read out the filename of the image. So in your Brad Pitt example, they hear something like "Link Pitt smiling", which is better than hearing something like "Link Brad Pitt Fury two zero one four dot jay pee gee"; and clearly preferable to announcing "Link", but not saying what it is a link to. The point of describing the image for someone who can't see is to supply them with the information conveyed by the image. Not every blind person has been blind since birth and many will have a memory of what objects look like, so it behoves us to do our best with the description. Our vision is not "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge (except blind folk)". Alt text is by no means essential for "the regular user", other than the regular user who is visually impaired, or the regular user who has a low bandwidth and turns off images, or the regular user in a third-world country who can't afford to pay the data charges for large images. As for the flying analogy, it's a bit more like saying the airline isn't doing its job if it doesn't make reasonable arrangements for disabled passengers. You may find https://www.gov.uk/transport-disabled/planes and http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/publications/disabled.htm enlightening on that issue.

I don't think we're disagreeing that some people will feel that making reasonable changes to improve the experience of some of our visitors is a good thing. I accept that we shouldn't impose such a burden on editors preparing for FAC that they feel it becomes a barrier to them, and that we have a job to do in encouraging editors to consider all the accessibility issues. But let's take small steps at a time, where we can. Thank you, Smerus, for supplying alt text for this article. You've improved it. And that's what counts. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rexx, yeah I don't have much experience with blind people, I wouldn't know what works best for them. But if there are a significant number of people who use screenreaders we should probably cater for them. Admittedly I didn't actually realise the purpose of the alt text all of these years, that's why I was ignorant of it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• @RexxS: and @Maunus: I've expanded on the alt text as I think the general idea is that people should be given an idea of what the images actually depict, not just something approximating the caption. In any case, I think you'll find it is now adequate for the requirement.--Ipigott (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Ipigott, you're right: alt text is meant to be a replacement for the image for those who cannot see it. You've made a further improvement by reducing the overlap between alt text and caption, and that makes it just that little bit nicer for those using screen readers. I'd like to compliment you especially on the alt text you provided for the theatrical poster because you've given the same information to someone who can't see that poster as a sighted visitor would get from reading it - that's a perfect example of alt text! Cheers --RexxS (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I had my grounding years ago in the articles on Van Gogh where it was really important to describe the paintings. These images are less critical. Do you ever get any feedback from those with visual difficulties? It would be interesting to know whether our efforts are worthwhile. Perhaps you should reply on my talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

Early years

• "Nørre Lyndelse near Sortelung south of Odense": comma after Sortelung?

Done

• "Nielsen gave an account of his introduction to music: "I had heard music before, heard father play the violin and cornet, heard mother singing, and, when in bed with the measles, I had tried myself out on the little violin".[4] He had received the instrument from his mother when he was in bed with the measles at the age of six": do we need to be told about being in bed with measles twice? (If these were on two separate occasions, this should be made clear and the wording tweaked).

Done

• "However..." Always a bit of a red flag, and I'm not sure it is needed here

Done --Ipigott (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Studies and early career

• "Valdemar Tofte (da) (1832–1907)," is this how we do links to other language wikis? (I've not come across it before, and it confused more than enlightened me).

I've left this as it is for now as I will start an article on Tofte today or tomorrow.

This is how we do red links to topics which have an entry in a different language. The confusion will be gone as soon as the red link is filled, which will happen before the birthday, promised. Seven of ten are already done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there something from the MoS that could be shown? I wouldn't take the word of the QAI project on anything. - SchroCat (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I can understand why some might not like the look of it but I think it's very productive to alert editors in articles and we should aim to transwiki them asap. That link will be cleared soon enough anyway!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that it may be useful, but it's not something I would expect to see in an FA. Things that break the reader's flow, or cause them to stumble, especially a non-standard piece of formatting, shouldn't hinder understanding. A stub would remove the need for the confusing (da), or even dropping the Danish link into a footnote where it could be properly explained would be better than this format, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a FA better has no red links. In FAC state, it's a good idea to invite translation of related articles, which I did in the form, helping both to notice it and to have easy access to the article in the other language. Thanks to SusunW (a QAI member) for the translations. - The collaboration on this article by all involved is delightful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• "Hans Demant (1827–97)": I think the full year is needed on the second figure for life span years.

Done - You are right as per MS-DOB.-- Ipigott (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Mature composer

• Is there a reason that Musikforeningen is italicised?

As it's a venue it shouldn't be.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I see this has been fixed.--Ipigott (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• "Fourth (1914–16) and Fifth Symphonies (1921–22), arguably his greatest works": according to who?

In addition to Fanning, others including Bernstein and the conductor Alan Gilbert also saw them as masterpieces. See for example this.--Ipigott (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• "Fifth Symphonies": should be a lower case "s" I think, as it's not the title

You are right. It's been fixed.--Ipigott (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• "Hansen was unable to undertake publication": it does beg the question why not...

I remember reading that it was partly to do with Hansen's financial difficulties at the time but I haven't been able to find the ref. I'll keep searching and try to add something.--

Final years and death

• "The final large scale orchestral works were his Flute Concerto": it's a new section, so I think we should stretch to including his name

done

• Is there a picture of the statue that could be included here?

Unfortunately hot possible in Denmark because of copyright restrictions.--Ipigott (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Shame! - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

First section—the biography—done; the Music section to follow in the morning. – SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Continuing...

There are still a two cases of Op., as opposed to Op

done --Ipigott (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Style

• Is the punctuation in this quote "a poor boy...passing through adversity and frugality...marches into Copenhagen and...comes to conquer the position as the uncrowned King" as it is in the original, or are these malformed ellipses in search of spaces?

Sorry, I don't understand what the problem is here. The quote appears to be based on sequences with points de suspension. It can be found here and also here but I do not have the necessary subscriptions to access the full articles. How can we resolve this?--Ipigott (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've got jstor access and seen the original now. With the removal of small sections of text the ellipses should have a non-breaking space before the three dots - I've done this one here. - SchroCat (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ditto on the quote "We must go back...to the pure and the clear"

• And on "in music... [I]t is intervals"

I have corrected the above ellipses, thanks.--Smerus (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. I can see these have now all been corrected.--Ipigott (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• "These two sides were "officially" brought together": is officially a quote?

Done. Quotes dropped.--Ipigott (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• I see that below you have "being typically 'Danish'." in a single mark. If official isn't a quote, then go for consistency.

Done --Ipigott (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Symphonies

• Could the first two short paras be combined? (Push back on the comment if you wish, but at least consider it)

Done. Good suggestion.--Ipigott (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Image caption "premiere of Carl Nielsen's fifth Symphony": Should it be "Fifth Symphony"?

Done. (Of course it should.) --Ipigott (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• "Op 50 (1921-2)": should be "1921-22"

Done. Already corrected.--Ipigott (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Operas

• Ditto my comments further up on being confused by "by Vilhelm Andersen (da),": a stub would suffice in the short term to remove the unclear "(da)".

Now a blue link.--Ipigott (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Is there any need for the {{clear}} at the bottom of the section – on my monitor there is a socking great whack of ugly white space in there.

OK on mine, but I'm guessing you use the default tiny text. Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Orchestral music

• "Op 39 (1907-8)": needs a double digit on the second figure

Done.--Ipigott (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Chamber music

• "four large scale chamber works": I think it should be large-scale, but I'm always on slightly shaky ground with hyphens

done. You are right. Also under Final years.--Ipigott (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• "an example of the composer's 'progressive tonality',": is there any need for the single quote marks here?

Done. No need as already wikilinked above.--Ipigott (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Keyboard works

• Ditto on the single marks for "The 'anti-romantic' tone": I'm not sure how such a use measures up to the strictures of our MoS, but I'm more concerned about whether they are actually needed.

Done.--Ipigott (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Done to the beginning of the Reception section. More to follow shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Schro, some excellent comments here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Finishing off...

Reception

• Consider merging those two stubby paragraphs at the beginning

Done. --Ipigott (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• "euphoric reception": I'd support that with the name of the person who said so, to avoid accusation of WP:PEACOCK terms

Toned down. --Ipigott (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• "snob audience... filthy music": another question over whether the original punctuation has it so, or if this is an ellipsis needing a space?

Done. Reworded.--Ipigott (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Para 4: we have "large scale" and "large-scale" in close proximity

Done. --Ipigott (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• "composer's personality, warts and all": is this entirely encyclopaedic?

Done. (Deleted) Ipigott (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)--

• "his music is now a regular feature": when is "now"? "as at ..." would probably suit better

Done. Reworded.--Ipigott (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Legacy

• "the outstanding organist": most people on the page are "outstanding" for one reason or another, and adding such praise to one and not the others looks odd.

Done.--Ipigott (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• The banknote is an interesting one and should, I think, be retained if possible, although given such scant coverage in the article it may be difficult to justify the inclusion of the non-free image. Is there something pertinent in the news media at the time of its unveiling to explain why Nielsen was selected? An additional line or two saying the Danish Mint (or whoever) chose "exemplary Danes", or "cultural heroes of Denmark" would help secure the image in place.

Have added something here.--Ipigott (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• "anniversary of the birth of Carl Nielsen": just Nielsen will do

Done.--Ipigott (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• You will also need to check your footnotes in a few places. A quick skim shows things like FNs 16 and 104 which need to be pp., not p.

All good, aside from that, in an interesting read. I hope these help. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much, SchoCat, for all these useful suggestions. I've tried to follow up on everything. Hope I've done a good job. Well past my bedtime now!--Ipigott (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I've tweaked the ellipses again, per WP:ELLIPSES, which staes that "this ... is the correct method". They shouldn't go in brackets, and the use in brackets at WP:ELLIPSES is to demonstrate the differences in the dots, not the examples of how they should be used.

Support on prose. Good luck with the deadline. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Schro.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

I reviewed this article for GA, and remarked at the time that it was approaching FA standard. Since then it has been further improved. It is thoroughly and widely sourced, a pleasure to read, balanced in approach and well proportioned. I have been much involved with composer FAs myself over recent years, and I think the present article is of the same standard. While rereading it with FA in prospect I have continually compared the article with that in Grove (by David Fanning). The Wikipedia article loses nothing by the comparison, in my view. – Tim riley talk 07:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Tim, that means a lot coming from somebody with as much experience in composer articles as you. Many thanks for the earlier review of this too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Support from BB

I carried out a somewhat hurried talkpage review of the article before it was nominated here, and have since been looking more closely at the Music section. Most of the issues in that section that I thought needed further work have been raised by other reviewers; having just read through the section again, I'm satisfied that it meets FA requirements – an excellent introduction to Nielsen and his music, very helpful to readers without knowledge of this under-appreciated composer. (Scandalously, in his Lives and Times of the Great Composers, Michael Sheen ignores Nielsen's existence.) Meeting the requested TFA deadline for Nielsen's 150th may not prove possible, but all credit to the team for trying. Brianboulton (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Brian, not only for your support but above all for your encouragement and your extremely useful informal review. I believe today or tomorrow could be the deadline for TFA for 9 June, if I have interpreted Crisco 1492 correctly. Maybe we can still just make it?--Ipigott (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've still got the ninth open. The images are still an issue here (as I mentioned on my talk page before the nomination), and I'd expect that to hold up the FAC. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That's good to know. We've been working hard on the images and hope to receive reactions from Nikkimaria shortly. If there are still minor details to be attended to, I hope she will bring them to our attention so that we can sort them out as soon as possible. Maybe you Crisco 1492 could be more specific yourself? I'm afraid I'm far from being an expert on the Commons copyright rules but have been trying to do my best to sort things out.--Ipigott (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've got some RL stuff to handle first, but if there are still outstanding issues when I've got the time, I'll take a look. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a suggestion which I'd rather not need to make, but would the main authors of the article be willing to have someone like Chris remove the photos which are at issue and keeping the article from FA status? Since time is so, so short right now, it's the only thing I could come up with that would get the article to FA by the deadline. We hope (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course, I understand we have strict standards so please do whatever is necessary.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Needs must etc.--Smerus (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I've already removed several of the problem images. Possibly the others can be dealt with by correcting the tagging? I'm not sure how the poster should be handled. It certainly looks to me as if it should be PD. Perhaps We hope can sort it out? And also the tagging of the image of the grave which strictly speaking in now PD. Perhaps Crisco can then delete any that are still causing a major problem for FA. I have found other images with the names of photographers, etc., which could no doubt be added later to enhance the visual quality of the article but I don't want to introduce any additional problems at this stage.--Ipigott (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I have found and updated the source on the Fuglsang image so this looks OK now provided the right tags are used.--Ipigott (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I have also added a US tag to File:Carl Nielsen and family 1904.jpg which should also be OK now.--Ipigott (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The "just in case" files-

I spent some time at HathiTrust last night and found a 1917 photo of him which is in the PD in the US as it was published in a 1917 Danish book on music. The problem with HathiTrust is that those not in the US aren't allowed full viewing or any copying due to an apparent IP "discrimination" system the site uses. Dr. B. and I have worked and dealt with the issue in the past (various works of William Burges, Ritz, London) by my copying the needed material and hosting it on my OneDrive because there was a lot of it.

Much of what those in the UK were locked out of with Burges and the Ritz were 100+ year old British trade magazines. Am quite sure those in Denmark are not able to fully view the 1917 book the photo came from; a better solution for HathiTrust would be to allow viewing only for non-US IPs as reading something doesn't violate any copyrights anywhere.

I also went to flickr, where the Carl Nielsen Museum has uploaded some photos. Did not select any of those with sculptures in them due to possible copyright issues, but these photos could be used to "flesh out" the article if necessary. A hand with enlarging the Commons descriptions of these files would be most welcome! :-)

• File:Carl Nielsen 1917.jpg

Dont think we need this any longer. The one we have now is better.---Ipigott (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• File:Violin, Carl Nielsen museet (4885183894).jpg

Not appropriate to illustrate anything in my opinion.--Ipigott (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• File:Carl Nielsen museet (4884582709).jpg
• File:Carl Nielsen museet (4884581479).jpg
• File:Carl Nielsens barndomshjem (4885198262).jpg

What can be done about the photos at issue is for someone to contact the Carl Nielsen Museum and the Danish Royal Libary to ask if they will grant OTRS permission for the photos wanted for the article. This can be done after the conclusion of this FAC, because there's just not enough time to get permission granted now. We hope (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I've seen all these any cannot yet see their place in this article. There are others at the Odense Museum which may be more suitable. Thanks anyway for all you interest and the useful work you have done in connection with the article. Hope we can work together in the future.Ipigott (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@We hope: I suggested at least three times here and on email to Dr. B that I could contact the Royal Library and the Odense Museum for further background on the images but never received any support. As a result, I now think it is most important to make do with what we have at the moment so that we can post the article on 9 June. I will nevertheless look into the above suggestions but I think our problem is mainly a result of insufficient expertise on the need to include appropriate licensing tags on some of the images we had already included in the article. As you will have noticed, I have played around with some of them (including the one you uploaded yourslef) and have added PD licenses, etc., but I am really no expert. I have also found several others (not yet uploaded) fom various sites with a specified photographer but I don't want to upset anything at this late critical stage. I think you have been doing a great job to help us along but I have noticed that you had not always included the necessary tags. I have tried to rectify the situation for two or three images but I may have made a mess of things. At least Crisco 1492 has something more to take into account before deleting more images.--Ipigott (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott:-The above files were gathered for a "worst case" scenario after image decisions re: what goes and stays are made. If, for example, everything or nearly everything has to go because it doesn't fit with one license requirement or another, the article would be left with very few or no photos at all. It wasn't my intention to offer these except for that. We hope (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'd just focus on getting the images free enough to pass FAC. We can add more images later. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: I've tried my best to get the licences right for all the images in the article. I hope everything is OK now.--Ipigott (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'll let Nikki have a look. Wouldn't want to cut in.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: No reactions from Nikkimaria for the past two days. I am worried that we are getting dangerously near to the deadline if further work is required, even though you say you have reserved the article for 9 June. If other images need to be removed from the article, would it continue to be a candidate for FA or would new images need to be introduced? If the latter, I could try to examine the copyright on some alternatives. I hope this can be sorted out reasonably soon.--Ipigott (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• She may be busy, Ipigott. Don't worry too much about the date... I've discussed things with Brian, and we've got an agreement worked out. So long as this passes, of course. Nikki, if you want me to take over, just let me know. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Thanks for your immediate response. That's quite a relief. I look forward to further reactions on the images soon.--Ipigott (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Support from Cliftonian

Went into this one with basically no background knowledge, looking forward to an enlightening and enjoyable read. I was not disappointed. Well-structured and finely written; a pleasure to look through even for a classical music philistine like myself. I copyedited a little here and there but found nothing to stop me from lending my support. Well done indeed. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Cliftonian, also means a lot coming from a "classical music philistine"!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Support from Cassianto

A thoroughly enjoyable article with nothing to report. A fine collaborative effort on an important composer. Cassianto^Talk 23:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Cass!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Support from FrB.TG

Sat for an hour or two (actually don't know) to find something requiring a fix, however, nada. Very good work. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 14:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Very grateful, Frank, for you solid support. I hope this will help us reach TFA for 9 June but we are still facing major problems with the images.--Ipigott (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The image problem has been fixed now I believe? So please strike that so as not to mislead the delegates!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Done.--Ipigott (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Support from Rationalobserver

I've read the article twice now, and I can only identify very minor things that probably come down to personal style choices. For example, it would be nice to avoid composer twice in the first sentence; "he soon started to develop his own style" could be trimmed to "he soon developed his own style"; "Nielsen maintained something of the reputation of an outsider during his lifetime" could be "Nielsen maintained the reputation of an outsider during his lifetime", etcetera. Minor style points aside, I think this is an excellent article that is definitely worthy of FA status. Great job to all involved! RO^(talk) 17:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rationalobserver: Thanks for your support and for these recommendations which I've taken into account.--Ipigott (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou very much RO, much appreciated.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Coord comment

Judging from the latest comments re. images, we're good to go in that respect, but has anyone carried out a formal source review for layout/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Dead links

"Performances" dead link replaced with www.carlnielsen.org/en/events (from the same site)--Ipigott (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

"Ross, Alex" dead link fixed (typo).--Ipigott (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

"The Carl Nielsen Museum" - link fixed (new URL).--Ipigott (talk) 07:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Still getting an error on FN38. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I've replaced the link to here.--Ipigott (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Generally, quotes of longer than 40 words should be blockquoted - there's a couple that aren't

Have reworded the lengthy Fanning quote so that it is now well below 40 words but I cannot see any others that merit blockquote.--Ipigott (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The Saga Dream quote and the Simpson are both long enough to warrant blockquoting if not reworked. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Sage Dream blockquoted; Simpson reworked.--Ipigott (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• "thus the supposed "authenticity" of these recordings is now debatable" - would like to see direct sourcing of this, rather than simply the preceding statement

I've removed the quote as I didn't think it added much extra value and I've removed the quoting of "authenticity".♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• FN38: that doesn't appear to be the correct spelling of the publisher in either English or Danish

Fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated

Some work seems to have been done here. I cannot find any further inconsistencies.--Ipigott (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Compare Fanning 2001, pp. 888–89 to Schepelern 1987, pp. 346–351. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You certainly have an eagle eye for these things. Now fixed.--Ipigott (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• FN62: caps

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• FN117: suggest using publisher name rather than website

I'm not sure who the publisher is, I think it's OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Now 118, it's Odense City Museums. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Done.--Ipigott (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Why translate FN119 but not FN121?

I prefer no translated title so I've removed the one to make it consistent.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• How does Gutsche-Miller meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP

Replaced with other sources.--Ipigott (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Why is Cenicola where it is in the Sources list?

The source was there but for some reason wasn't stored under C. Moved up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when you include publisher locations

fixed--Ipigott (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you spell out editions or use numbers. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

  I've changed the "Seconds" into "2nd". --Mirokado (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much Nikkimaria for the enormous amount of assistance you have provided by listing items which required attention in this article. As far as I can see (as a newbie to FAC), we have now attended to them all.--Ipigott (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Great work so far - see responses above. Also, FN40 is not linking correctly to its Source listing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I've managed to fix everything except the link to White. Perhaps Dr. Blofeld or Mirokado can see what I've done wrong?-Ipigott (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)-

Fixed Ref 40.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Anything else?♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

One minor thing: FN41 magazine title should be italicized. Once that is fixed this should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Done. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 12:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Ian Rose: As far as I can see, all the outstanding issues have now been resolved.--Ipigott (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • As there seem to have been no further comments for a few days I'll be promoting this shortly -- pls note that there are several duplinks in the article that you might care to review before the article hits main page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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) 08:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

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