Template:Did you know nominations/Carl Nielsen works
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Keilana|Parlez ici 22:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Carl Nielsen works edit
Carl Nielsen in 1928
Carl Nielsen in 1884
- ... that Carl Nielsen (pictured) assigned Opus numbers only to selected works of his compositions, from Op. 1 for the Suite for String Orchestra in 1888 to Op. 59 for Tre Klaverstykker in 1928?
- Reviewed: Neena Schwartz
Created by Gerda Arendt (talk) and Ipigott (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 16:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC).
- It's probably worth noting that there were gaps in the sequence. ALT1:
- ... that Carl Nielsen (pictured) selectively assigned an Opus number to only 44 of his compositions, running from Op. 1 to Op. 59?
- Alakzi (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting but not actually part of this article, and abbreviated a bit, because he assigned to some more (such as the operas) but dropped them later, as List of compositions by Carl Nielsen has the details.
- ALT2: ... that Carl Nielsen (pictured) assigned Opus numbers only to selected works of his compositions, between Op. 1 for the Suite for String Orchestra in 1888 and Op. 59 for Tre Klaverstykker in 1928? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- I would suggest a hook covering the three sections of the article:
- ALT3: ... that the works of Carl Nielsen (pictured) have been classified by opus number (selectively), by a fuller FS listing, and recently by a comprehensive catalogue of CNWs? --Ipigott (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- I would prefer to mention a bit of music, and added an image of the promising composer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Full review needed. Perhaps the reviewer will have thoughts on which of the hooks are the most interesting. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Long enough and new enough, ALT1 short enough. The second paragraph in the lede is unsourced, as is the entire Details of collections section. The Table of compositions section is abysmally sourced - proper references are much preferred - and the hook fact must have a reference right next to it. I see no copyrightn or neutrality problems, but although the image in the article is fair use, the nomination includes two images, and the second image isn't in the article.--Launchballer 23:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- The second paragraph is only a description about how to read the table. Every single work is sourced in the last column. The details to single compositions could repeat that, or could be dropped altogether, - they are meannt as a help for those compositions which are to complex for the table. The image can go to the article if considered to be used. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. Is it worth, then, moving the second paragraph to between the header and the table and converting the Details to notes?--Launchballer 13:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Second paragraph moved. I consider to avoid duplication of this article and the list of songs (See also) by linking the songs to the other article, which would leave only few other pieces with too much details for the table. Unfortunately the refs are unavailable right now which happened before. I hope it's temporary and will work on it when back. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- I established that kind of link for FS 12 and FS 14, several more are possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- By notes, I meant <ref group="note"></ref>. That was my fault - I wasn't clear enough. I can do this for you but I would need to ask for another reviewer.--Launchballer 16:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- I was probably also not clear enough. The site is back, thank goodness. I mean that I will merge (now) the details with the list of songs, leaving only a few details. - Let me understand: do you mean to replace the links to the CNW site by notes? I am afraid that would be a disservice to readers: to be sent first to a note section, click again, and then two more clicks to return to where they started. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- I moved the songs over and would like to write notes for the remaining three sets of pieces: site unavailable again, sigh. Will ping when successful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Launchballer, site down (still or again I don't know), but I cited the details now to the list following the FS numbers. How is that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- My apologies, I thought my comment five days ago had sent, apparently not. I'm afraid I still think it worthwhile to shift the last few details of collections into List of songs composed by Carl Nielsen.--Launchballer 15:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, because they are no songs. They could rather be sqeezed back in the table. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Launchballer, your response to Gerda, please? Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think you can squeeze them into the table.--Launchballer 21:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- How would that be better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- I believe it would be neater to have it all in the same table.--Launchballer 23:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- They are all in it, just FS3 one entry - and that would not change. Late here, will look tomorrow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- I believe it would be neater to have it all in the same table.--Launchballer 23:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- How would that be better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think you can squeeze them into the table.--Launchballer 21:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Launchballer, your response to Gerda, please? Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, because they are no songs. They could rather be sqeezed back in the table. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- My apologies, I thought my comment five days ago had sent, apparently not. I'm afraid I still think it worthwhile to shift the last few details of collections into List of songs composed by Carl Nielsen.--Launchballer 15:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- By notes, I meant <ref group="note"></ref>. That was my fault - I wasn't clear enough. I can do this for you but I would need to ask for another reviewer.--Launchballer 16:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. Is it worth, then, moving the second paragraph to between the header and the table and converting the Details to notes?--Launchballer 13:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- The second paragraph is only a description about how to read the table. Every single work is sourced in the last column. The details to single compositions could repeat that, or could be dropped altogether, - they are meannt as a help for those compositions which are to complex for the table. The image can go to the article if considered to be used. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: A polite reminder - its now mid-August. If your only objection is about the layout of a table then give your approval and then argue about it. Your role here is to approve articles according to DYK rules. Your suggestions are welcomed but they are not a requirement. Do you have an objection that is in line with DYK requirements then do state it and I will assist with fixing it too. .Victuallers (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
