Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Flamenco Road

< Template:Did you know nominations
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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator

DYK toolbox

Flamenco Road edit

(
)
Dramatic red and white lighting highlighting guitarist and female flamenco dancer dressed in sleek male-style bullfighter costume
Michael Laucke and flamenco dancer
  • ... that the new flamenco enhanced CD Flamenco Road contained a video that was No. 1 on the charts in Canada for five consecutive weeks?

Created/expanded by Natalie.Desautels (talk). Nominated by Natalie.Desautels (talk) at 16:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC).

  • The article was moved into mainspace on June 18, is about 1800 characters long and a search for copyright violations returns a clean bill of health. The problem I have is that the hook is incorrect - the article asserts it was number one on the video charts, while the source given is a Flickr snapshot of a music chart (which in itself is copyright violation and hence a bad idea to use a source) and does not seem to support the claim given. When you think of something like "(Everything I Do) I Do It for You" which was number one on the UK charts for about 4 months, it's not a particularly outstanding hook in the first place. See if you can dig out an interview about the album from the Billboard or Rolling Stone archives, and if something "hooky" or "quirky" leaps out at you, put it in the article and use that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Ritchie333. Hook refined. Will work on an ALT, and anybody else is of course free to chime in with ALTs too. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
That still leaves the lack of general "hookiness" for the hooks, which are all basic variations on the same theme. I would recommend following the above advice to see if there's anything hook-worthy in other sources that has not yet been added to the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ritchie333 and Checkingfax: I did have in mind what I think would be a better hook but need to dig up the reference I misplaced. It mentions that the Flamenco Road CD is the first album in the 'new flamenco' (neuvo flamenco) genre to use a 24 track recording process. (Flamenco began with just guitar, voice and dance, and evolved to Paco de Lucia's sextet, but 24 tracks is unheard of in this genre). ...will try to find the ref. Many thanks for your time and feedback; much appreciated. Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 20:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ritchie333 and Checkingfax: PS. flamenco Road is an instrumental album; almost all hits are voice these days so an instrumental hit is really quite rare. One thinks of 'The Ventures' 40 years ago when instrumental hits were more common. Also, for an purely instrumental work with no singing to pass Diana Krall and Leonard Cohen on the charts is also kind of quirky. Maybe this fact can be worked into the 'hook' somehow. ...just my two cents . kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 20:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ritchie333 and Checkingfax: I added Alt 4 above, and added alt image text as well; hoping it's better ...not sure if this is the right procedure to implement a new ALT version. kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 20:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@Natalie.Desautels: I don't want to sound like I'm causing trouble, but ALT4 doesn't really grab me as being "hooky" enough for the main page. I think trying to get something on chart placement is probably a bit of a dead end. Plus the article only says the album was probably the first album to employ 24-track recording, not that it definitely was. We need to get this information right, otherwise people will complain as soon as it hits the main page and file reports on WP:ERRORS. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: This music is right up your street, can you help? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ritchie333 and Checkingfax:...updated the article to quote source more precisely and support the DYK claim, to wit: "According to Voir magazine, Flamenco Road is the first recording in this style to employ such elaborate instrumentation." ...still, not quirky enough perhaps... kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 16:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Natalie.Desautels, I've just made some copyedits to the article after striking ALT4—at 224 characters, it was well beyond the maximum length allowed. I've also had to strike ALT5 because it gives a 1990 date for an album that was released in 2001, and the article gives no indication that the release was eleven years after the recording. I'm definitely puzzled about the second source, since anything dated 1990 cannot possibly be referring to an album released in 2001. The elaborate instrumentation does not automatically imply 24 tracks, so I don't think that wording is useful and is why my copyedit changed it (nor is it part of what you've translated)—it's the usage of 24 tracks that's germane, and while I reworded the phrase, the 1990 source date casts it all into doubt (unless the date of the source is wrong, in which case please fix it and, if at all possible, add a link to the voir.ca page where the article resides). I think, however, what concerns me is how very close the article text is to the various source text translations in some places, most notably the second half of the second paragraph, which is almost identical to the program notes it is taken from (as translated in the reference). It might be better to quote some of those notes, even if it reduces the total original prose count for the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ritchie333 and Checkingfax: Many thanks for your time and good work here. Sorry for the late reply; I am presently overloaded as interpreter/translator for the Rio Olympics, as mentioned on my talk page. The year of 1990 is incorrect; ..no idea how it got there. It should properly be 2001 so I corrected it. I also heeded your kind advice to put in quotes what is directly quoted from the album jacket. The voir.ca article I translated parts of is already included. I'll update ALT4 AND ALT5; hope it's better but, as stated, perhaps not quirky enough. kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 07:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I have restruck ALT4, as it remains well above the maximum hook length and thus ineligible for DYK whatever the facts and wording. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed to check ALT5 and any other remaining issues; the previous reviewers have not returned. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • - @Natalie.Desautels: New reviewer here - So the article says "believed" that he was the first, the hook states it as a verified fact - which it is not. No QPQ needed as this is only the second DYK for Natalie. So everything else checkes out but the hook is slightly off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPJ-DK (talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I adjusted the main article to more precisely reflect the content of the Voir magazine article, to wit: 'a Voir magazine article declared it to be the first recording in this style to employ 24 tracks'. The source article and the hook from which it is derived now say the same thing. kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 03:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Natalie.Desautels: Thank you for providing the quote as well, that really does help. I may be splitting hairs here but "to my knowledge" as stated in the source is slightly different than the fact the article presents it as. I totally get the problem with trying to prove something is for sure the first, like trying to prove a negative it is hard to do. So without suggesting a new hook to disqualify myself from reviewing I do believe the main information of the ALT5 can be retained without stating it as a stone cold fact and more of an "informed opinion".  MPJ-DK  01:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Thanks very much. I believe an "informed opinion", as you mentioned, would be correct. When you say "main information of the ALT5 can be retained", do you mean that it should be left as is? If not, perhaps I could add "arguably" or some such go-between? kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 08:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Natalie.Desautels:, I believe you meant to ping @MPJ-DK:, who wrote the previous comment and pinged you; I just placed a courtesy note on your talk page in case you hadn't seen the earlier ping. I'll let MPJ-DYK reply to your question. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Yes, that is correct; many thanks for helping out. kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 06:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Natalie.Desautels: - I agree with your suggestion to adjust it to be less of a fact and more of an "informed opion" or "believed to be" - and no I do think the hook needs a slight adjustment, but I cannot specifically suggest a hook phrasing or I would not be able to promote it.  MPJ-DK  20:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@MPJ-DK: Thanks very much. I adjusted to text to be more in compliance with article content, specifically the Voir magazine quote. kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 06:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • {{subst:DYKAGFtick}} - Natalie.Desautels - the hook matches the article which mathes the source, that was the last piece of the puzzle. Everything else was previously verified so now it's good to go.

double fail above, never drink and edit (just kidding I never do, but seriously don't drink and edit.)  MPJ-DK  11:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Pulled from prep per WT:DYK discussion that indicated that 24-track recording was far from unknown on flamenco records even before that time. A new hook needs to be devised that has nothing to do with that particular topic. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Guys, BlueMoonset and MPJ-DK. Many thanks for your good work! At this point it's probably best to throw this fish back for lack of 'hookiness' (pun intended). Alt 1 through 3 have some floundering potential though, but ...perhaps best to heed Budhha's advice ~ 'don't think you can save the drowning man (or fish, as it were)'. kindest regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 17:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Flamenco_Road&oldid=1021761889"