Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/July 2011

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

• For promoted entries, add '''Promoted Example.ogg''' --~~~~ to the bottom of the entry, replacing Example.ogg with the file that was promoted.
• For entries not promoted, add '''Not promoted''' --~~~~ to the bottom of the entry.
• For entries demoted, add '''Demoted Example.ogg''' --~~~~ to the bottom of the entry.

Use variants as appropriate, e.g. with a large set of files, all of which pass, '''Promoted all''' is fine, but if one of them didn't pass for some reason, make sure that's clear.

1812 Overture

Reason

This is an extremely famous composition ant it meets all Wikipedia:Featured sound criteria.

Composed by

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

Creator

United States Army Band

Articles in which this recording appears

1812 Overture, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, United States Army Band

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose—The second chord is out of tune, and so are a lot of the other chords sung by the choir. The instrumental ensemble is fine, but surely it's playing an arrangement of the original ... where are the strings? Now, as far as the performance goes, let me make an educated guess: the instrumental players are all professionals; the choir has a core of quasi-professionals, but they've boosted numbers with ring-ins from the services. They are under-rehearsed ... this is easy homophonic music to perform, but they haven't got it. First thing I'd do with them is to get them to hum it, phrase by phrase, then get them to sing it on the same syllable (even "la-la ..."). It's a pity. Tony (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I have added an audio file because for the reader on a slow connection the 10.3MB audio is a much better option than a 68.37MB video.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose both For once I agree with Tony1. This is an arrangement and without the strings it sounds like... well, a brass band doing orchestral music. I think this severely limits its EV and cannot be "our best work" or illustrate the music fairly. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tony1, this is definitely not a high EV piece, the sound is also very wavy and distorted, I hear some clanging as well. It is definitely not well-rehearsed with the presence of longer than usual notes, occasional squeaking and otherwise inaudible sections especially in the signature movements which is disappointing. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:26pm • 04:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think we should generally avoid selecting band arrangements of orchestral works as Featured Sounds. By the way, who is the arranger, and how do we know the arrangement is in the public domain? ReverendWayne (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Not promoted Clear consensus against promotion, due to the lack of activity I've performed this close. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:50pm • 11:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Assassination of Alexander of Yugoslavia

Articles

Alexander I of Yugoslavia, Louis Barthou

Reason

This is a very historical footage as it shows the assassination of King Alexander and including the crowd and police beating up the assassin at the end. It is one of the most notable peices of newreal in exsistance. It is used in his article and Barthou article.

Nominate and support. Spongie555 (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry Spongie, but while it is certainly a notable event and it's very interesting to see it on film, the sound is awful in places (especially the musical sections). I don't think it has a place as a Featured Sound for that reason; I think it would certainly be a good candidate for a Featured Video though although the transfer has been done pretty badly. I'll see if the Mpeg2 version is any better.Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comments: it's the voice-over as well as the introductory music that is not in good shape, but it's not a deal-breaker for me. Can the audio be improved? BTW, who, at en.WP or Commons or somewhere else, is the guru/expert on sound-file improvement? I'm sure there are applications that can do better than ogg at improvements. Second, the script is ... well ... a bit POV. I noticed this in the other newsreel file currently under nomination. To what extent will the angles taken by the voice-over be taken as WP's views? Tony (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Newsreels are propaganda at its best. I may do a Wikipedia:Reward board offer to find one that is NPOV. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Exactly; surely no-one takes the images at Nazi propaganda to be WP's opinion? Certainly newsreel was POV, but that was typical of its era. I don't think we should discount it for POV reasons. To comment further on my first post, the original transfer from 16mm (or whatever stock they were using) has been done pretty badly by whoever did it; the MPEG2 file shows similar problems to the OGV file we have, so I can't support it as an FS. I could possibly support it as an FV when the time comes for that... Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Do you guys feel that the caption of such a newsreel needs to function partly to position the voice-over as a particular viewpoint? There are ways of doing that which could work smoothly. Tony (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Support My standard on this one was whether an audio file of this content would stand as an FS. I listened with the video off and felt that I would support just the audio track. Given that we are dealing a historic event on a topical area in need of representation (non-musical and non US or UK history), I am supporting this regardless of video quality (or lack thereof). I think an audio file should be created for the reader as an alternate file. I am on a slow connection at the library and the video file took about 7 or 8 minutes to load. I know some people still even use dial up so we need to be considerate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Not promoted --Guerillero | My Talk 04:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Myrrha Gavotte

Virgil Solis – Myrrha and Cinyras

Reason

Myrrha was a teen-aged girl who tricked her father into making love and then ran away and turned into a tree. Wicked girl. But somehow people like to write music or plays or stuff like this about her. What is cool about this sound is that it is a composition being used to illustrate the subject of the composition rather than in an article on the composer or the piece of music.

Composed by

John Phillip Sousa

Creator

Adam Cuerden

Articles in which this recording appears

Myrrha

• Nominate and support. TCO (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support, good quality Mottenen (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• OpposeNeutral, In my view the recording of this piece of music sounds like it's just been learnt and lacks the depth of playing, a sort of aliveness quality, that could come from experience. Also my computer won't play .mid files. I would prefer that it's recorded or converted in .ogg format. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 06:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sounds better as .ogg. Certainly adds value to the article, striked oppose. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Support, I was just glancing over the criteria and it seems to meet all in my mind except maybe number 3; what sort of value is added to the article by having this recording in there? NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's probably not as illustrative as a painting (showing a girl or the like), but I think the point is similar to some of the paintings in that we see that the myth has inspired works of music, as well as works of literature and painting (and naming bugs and all). At first I thought it was a reach, but more and more now, I think it's fine. Sousa was a very famous composer and all. So it's as good as a bug or such.TCO (talk) 05:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I could see that; learning that the myth has inspired music then actually hearing the music is pretty neat. The experience is definitely enhanced for the reader, and I'm a supporter if the file format is usable by everyone. Is it an easy conversion for you?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment is there any way to have this as a .ogg file. My computer doesn't play this file type --Guerillero | My Talk 00:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask for a conversion at Commons — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs)

Support --Guerillero | My Talk 04:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support I understand the oppose but think that the music is expressive enough (speaking as a person who likes music but doesn't know how to play it) that it adds value to the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Well done Adam for doing this, and it is very interesting to see it illustrate an article in this way. While dynamics are obvious in this performance, I have a real problem with supporting this as our best work because it is a recording of a very artificial-sounding midi piano. Therefore Oppose. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, understood, and not trying to change the vote. Just want to add that Adam did some extra fancy shmancy stuff above a normal midi recording to try to help it. (I don't know the technical details, but alluded to and file given in description.)TCO (reviews needed) 21:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Myrrha Gavotte 3.ogg. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:16pm • 07:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Speech by King Zog

Articles

Zog of Albania

Reason

Very rare speech and possible the only know recording of king zogs voice to date. The translation of the speech is in the descrption. At the end its the soilders screaming.

• Nominate and support. Spongie555 (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't see how this adds EV to the article or is notable. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• Interesting find and this could be high EV for the article. A shame that the file is stuck towards the top of the page rather than later in the text when it would be more in context. There is a funny musical interruption towards the end which has no explanation, although I suspect is from a TV broadcast or something. Would it be possible to trim that? I would then feel happier about SupportingBen (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I love that we have it and it does add to the article. We should keep adding sounds to articles. I guess, I just think the combination of the fellows low notability, the speech not being an important one, lack of a translation, all just make it low EV.

Not promoted. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:43pm • 07:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Remarks on Birth Certificate

Reason

This was a widely covered issue in the media and it meets all Wikipedia:Featured sound criteria.

Creator

Whitehouse.gov

Articles in which this recording appears

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories
Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama (2011)

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• I think there should be a video version of this --Guerillero | My Talk 00:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I was unable to download the file at the source. In fact this audio is a sound capture of the video.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose—starts with loud mike noise, then off-topic comments on "the networks". Insufficient documentation—here or at the SDP—about the issues involved. Concerns about what distinguishes any old political interview or speech from the rest, to qualify not just as notable, but as featured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• I tried to do some cutting to remove the first 30 seconds. The issue is that the mic was too close or the processing was bad that there is static all over this file. There is too much for me to try to remove the static. (There are some other mic noises that aren't exactly pretty from what sounds like his breath.) --Guerillero | My Talk 05:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Some of the "static" sounds like camera noises to me. Graham87 13:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • It sounds like he is standing close to someone typing on an old typewriter. This sound is difficult to remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 13:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm getting towards the stage of suggesting that the criteria should state a requirement that the transcript of speeches be places on the SDP, if not available through an internal or external link. That would make it more usable by editors and readers, and would be important to judging whether the text is "among our very best work". Tony (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
      • The transcript is there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Poor quality and one of his less important speeches.TCO (reviews needed) 19:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Poor quality audio - the audio on the video version is better; there is evidence of mic-clipping. Illustrates the page Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories very well. I would support if the audio was replaced. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• There is no way this can pass so I am closing it. Guerillero | My Talk 04:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Not promoted. I think Guerillero forgot to close it, so I've done it instead. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:47pm • 07:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Bison call

Reason

A free recording of a mammal call

Creator

NPS

Articles in which this recording appears

American bison

• Nominate and support. Guerillero | My Talk 03:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support—Pity it's so short, and chopped off. I presume the source was not of longer duration. Tony (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I went back to the source when I made the ogg file a while ago and this is all there was. Its a shame. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Adds something hard to do without the file. TCO (reviews needed) 19:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Per TCO. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Bison.ogg. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:49pm • 07:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yellow Rose Of Texas

Reason

This article contributes significantly to wikipedia and is a fine example of our best work.

Creator

United States Coast Guard Band

Articles in which this recording appears

"The Yellow Rose of Texas (song)", Battle of San Jacinto and American folk music

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
• Wow this is pretty and amazing but its EV is fairly low. The song is a pub song/marching tune. ^example Its too embellished to do that; to make thing worse the army seems to only loosely follow the melody of the song. I will have to oppose. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per G-man. (Would probably have supported otherwise.) I like the straighter Youtube version better than the deviation.TCO (reviews needed) 02:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Guerillero and TCO. Sounds great, but can't be a fair representation of the music and so low EV. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Not promoted. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:24pm • 08:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

January 25, 2011 State of the Union Address (Barack Obama)

Reason

This is a standard piece of history that meets all Wikipedia:Featured sound criteria.

• • I feel this is another situation where both an audio and a video could be at FS. The audio is more than 50MB smaller and would load much more quickly for many readers on slow connections. In addition video is not a viable technology for some readers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Creator

Whitehouse.gov

Articles in which this recording appears

2011 State of the Union Address & Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama (2011)

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Above is a video version that I have added. I did the best I could considering the 100MB limit. It is the lowest quality video possible and the highest quality audio that would fit under 100MB. Since the audio quality is pretty respectable, I think it meets our standards. I Support both audio and video.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• I oppose the video. The picture is small and blurry. Also ,the blue bar that take over half of the screen. The audio version has stunning clarity. I support it. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Per Guerillo on the video. As for the audio, it's over one hour long. What makes it "among our best work"? How do we distinguish political speeches that qualify for featured status; why not make every political speech in the world featured? Tony (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That is what WP:WIAFS is for. Every political speech nominee that meets the criteria is suppose to pass. In all likelihood, almost all State of the Union Addresses will pass, IMO. They will all be professional quality production and execution and thus likely to meet WIAFS. Go to GAC. Yes all The Simpsons episodes that meet WP:WIAGA will pass. Sure we will have a ton. Sure WP:FT and WP:GT will eventually be overrun with them. However, they all meet the criteria and we should pass them. We do not seek variety by constraining their promotion, but by attempting to encourage others.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
    • So what's to stop another editor coming up with some bog-boring speech to the Manitoba parliament? Why should this one be promotion material, and the other not? We really need clearer criteria to guard against a possible waterfall. Otherwise, I'm tempted to be WP:POINTY and waterfall this process myself. Tony (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The aspect ratio is all wrong, and the blue box which takes up half the image is distracting. While I appreciate this is the best we can do, I just can't support a video of this quality. A state of the Union address is of obvious importance, so I could support an audio-only version (there is one on the 2011 State of the Union Address page) if the quality was right. I just can't sit through over an hour of bad quality video. I gave up after 1 minute and 30 seconds. Discussion of having both the audio and the video versions as FS is taking place elsewhere. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • • • Please judge against WP:WIAFS. Boring is POV. Every subject is boring to some. This is a process where we will get many political speeches. Just evaluate them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support audio, oppose video. Good EV, but video is not high quality.TCO (reviews needed) 01:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose video. Weak oppose on audio. Video: we have technical standards to maintain. Technical modifications need to be made to the MediaWiki software to better support HD video (or even SD) streaming. Fails enough miserably #5 to not even consider any other bullets. Audio: I do not understand what is so special (especially notable) here. The US president makes a State of the Union address each year, as it is mandated by the Constitution they vow to serve. There was nothing historic about this address, AFAIK, or at least such seems way too soon to obecjtively assess. _{offtopic rant: Actually, the speech seems like one big FAIL, as he doesn't seem to remember to mention that he is leading the World's most indebted country in an obstinate political stalemate while waging two crazy wars and shutting down the only thing his nation could feel proud of. // end offtopic} --hydrox (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Not promoted. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:41pm • 08:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Three versions of Amazing Grace

Reason

This is a tremendously important and famous folk hymn. As the subject of a WP:FA, the article contains numerous renditions and notes that the lyrics have been set to about 20 musical arrangements. Due to the numerous musical settings it is quite likely that many versions are appropriate at FS and I am nominating three herewith. Note that one is a brass band, but since this song has been associated with 20 musical settings even a brass band arrangement may be appropriate. They all adhere to the Wikipedia:Featured sound criteria. I am also nominating this now since I believe I am about to be banned from WP:FS and these are the last of the audio files that I have uploaded that are not duplicates of video files. The lyrics were set to the tune known as "New Britain" (published in 1829) in 1835. The two instrumental versions thus depict the commonly associated melody.

Composed by

Charles H. Spilman and Benjamin Shaw (melody), John Newton (lyrics)

Creator

United States Air Force Band

Articles in which this recording appears

Amazing Grace (only jazz version)
John Newton
William Walker (composer) (only instrumental versions)

• Nominate and support all. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• The brass version is to die for, I have mixed feelings about the string version, and I despise the jazz version. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Does that translated to Support, Neutral and Oppose?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I would count it that way if he never answers.TCO (reviews needed) 01:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support mainly the string version, but weak support for the others as well. ResMar 12:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support brass and string versions. (I'm sound stupid, but they just sound great. Jazz one not as much, plus seems less generally useful.) (re-signed, late TCO (reviews needed) 15:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC))
• Support the brass and the string versions on condition that the file description page and the caption mention that this is the tune "New Britain" rather than Amazing Grace as there are no words sung.By all means mention that this tune is best known as the melody for Amazing Grace. Pedantic? Very possibly, but isn't that what WP is for? To describe these inaccurately and without further explanation is a disservice to the work as a whole. Very well played with a high level of EV. Oppose the "Jazz version. I dislike it and I don't think it can be our best work as, frankly, it is really only loosely connected to New Britain the tune. While it is well played I can't say it has a high level of EV. I also had to sit through 6 and a half minutes of it! Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Amazing Grace (USAFB strings).ogg and Amazing Grace (USAFB brass).ogg. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:34am • 00:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The Corps

Reason

This is a sound file of high quality that has significant EV. It meets all Wikipedia:Featured sound criteria.

Creator

United States Army Field Band

Articles in which this recording appears

The Corps (song), United States Military Academy

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support. Excellent performance. Tony (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support I like it, it's crisp. ResMar 12:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Sounds great, high EV. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Very pretty recording, but I want something more kick-ass martial for an Army song. Plus it is "second" per nomTCO (reviews needed) 00:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Promoted The Corps.ogg. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:48am • 00:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

William Tell Overture (symphony)

This is one of the classic classics. It is famous for its 3rd movement, which is a notable example of a Ranz des Vaches (beginning at 5:30), and its 4th movement, which is a finale that served as the The Lone Ranger theme (beginning at 8:13). It is on my short list of sound files that I would most like to contribute to WP and I was pleased to have found it. This file contributes significantly to the following articles:

• Gioachino Rossini
• William Tell Overture
• Ranz des Vaches
• The Lone Ranger
• Transcription (music)

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Regretful oppose This is an excellent transfer of a vintage recording that highlights the 1920s taste in orchestral performance and the sound of early electrical recording. This being said, I don't believe that the license is compatible with our free content mission. I started a discussion on the license on the talkpage, so feel free to engage me there. ThemFromSpace 14:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Suspend request while licensing is resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I have given up on getting the licensing issue for this file clarified and thus give up on its promotion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• I would be willing to support this if the license were straightened out. I will run it through deletions to get a thumbs up or down. Also if it is non-compliant, our bigger is is hosting and article usage NOT the gold star. So let's make it "come to Jesus". ;0TCO (reviews needed) 21:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Not promoted. The file was deleted. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:51am • 00:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Delist: Skye Boat Song

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Bagpipes

• Nominate to delist. Guerillero | My Talk 04:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Yuck! Not a good sample of bagpipes at all. Graham87 13:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Get rid of it now!!! Heavens above that is bad, especially given it is a modern recording —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 1:10pm • 03:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Dreadful stuff. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral. I can't tell the difference. what does muted and chopped mean? The traditional one sounds a little richer, less scraping (although plenty of upside down cat-tail biting still going on).TCO (reviews needed) 21:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Delisted. Due to the lack of activity I have performed the close. Consensus was in favour of its delisting. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:57am • 00:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Paganini's Cantabile

Reason

This file is a high-EV contribution to WP and meets all Wikipedia:Featured sound criteria. I am nominating both since for some people the smaller (14.56MB vs 2.51MB) audio file is the only option.

Composed by

Niccolò Paganini

Creator

Whitehouse.gov

Articles in which this recording appears

Cantabile, Joshua Bell, Sharon Isbin, Niccolò Paganini

• Nominate and support both. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose—In audio terms: the guitar overpowers the violin in many places (this is a miking problem; didn't they do a sound check beforehand? It's amateurish). I can forgive a few tuning issues in the violin, and a few "poked" notes on the guitar that are less than beautiful—the balance is the killer. The vid: if a video is to be promoted, it should be professionally produced in such controlled, prepared circumstances. This three-cam production is not all OK: the composition (the framing of the musician, particularly in relation to their head) is not ideal; there's a static quality about two of the cams, which look like they've just been stuck there without an operator; and it's rather darker than you'd want. Tony (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support for the audio only version. Video does not play for me. Sounds interesting to me and is in lots of articles. However, it is not really discussed in text of the composer article (is it a less important composition?). I lack the ability to judge music points Tony raised.
• Oppose As per Tony1. The balance is all wrong - the guitar is the accompaniment which is dominant in the mix while the violin is the melody and at times I can barely hear it. The framing is terribly awry in places and far from ideal. This I could forgive if the audio was up to scratch. I have a problem with this video illustrating the Cantabile page, but I suppose an editor with more knowledge than I will remove it if it's deemed inappropriate. It is far from clear on the Paganini page that this was a terribly notable piece, which limits the EV. A moot point given the quality of the audio. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Not promoted The lack of strong support for both files and the technical concerns raised by Tony1 have substantial ground and I feel that because of this, neither file may be promoted at this time. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:22am • 01:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Battle Hymn of the Republic (USAFB)

Reason

We have several multiple songs for which we have both a historical and a modern version at FS. This modern version presents additional content to the reader that meets all of the Wikipedia:Featured sound criteria.

Composed by

Julia Ward Howe (lyrics), William Steffe (music), arranged by Eric Richards

Creator

United States Air Force Band

Articles in which this recording appears

The Battle Hymn of the Republic, Julia Ward Howe, William Steffe

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comments: The arranger's name is missing, both from this nom page and the file name. What happens when someone wants to upload a "straight" version of this, played by the same band? The opening is a real problem: they stumble in without a good pulse for a couple of seconds, and the first chord is far from perfectly produced. The stick thing, when it enters, is too soft (a miking problem). Has this been taken from a continuous recording? If so, I think we need to be more discriminating about openings. We had the same "opening" issue with the Buxtehude cantata movement, ripped out of a continuous track, that was just about impossible to fix. Tony (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I have added the arranger name here. It was already on the file description page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sounds too much like Whitney Houston or some pop star singing the national anthem and doing a bunch of wiggling around in it. I want the song sung "straight". Hard core and martial. This was the song the Yankees sang as the marched south to fight.TCO (reviews needed) 01:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Good lord no! Why is a Jazz version notable? Why not nominate a Jazz version of Beethoven's 5th (no wait someone did a Funk version in the 70s). Non-typical versions of music should be notable in some way or this limits their EV (see criteria page). Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Not promoted per the technical concerns raised by Tony1 and the concerns raised by TCO and Ben. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:24am • 01:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Liszt - Vallee d'Obermann

Reason

One of my better outputs – a few technical flubs, but hopefully not too severe. As I have stated before, I'm not very open to the idea of post-recording editing, nor is it possible for me to do so even if I were so inclined, as, truthfully ... I only can get to record at no monetary cost during a live performance, and thus I only have one take. Volume is much better, as well. (Side note that can be tl;dr'd, I care not - the events regarding my former participation in FS involved several regrettable moves and statements on my part. I was hasty in cutting off involvement with the project altogether, and my sincere apologies to all parties involved. I will continue to participate at Featured Sounds with civility, as I have always strived to (though not always with success), and will not hesitate to respond to constructive comments in a more concise and professional manner. Yes, Tony, I'm sorry. What's passed is past.)

Composed by

Franz Liszt

Creator

La Pianista (talk · contribs)

Articles in which this recording appears

Années de pèlerinage

• Nominate and support. — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 09:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• I haven't yet listened, but why are you nominating a recording with "technical flubs"? Tony (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Simply because I feel that in the other sections I miraculously "get it right." :p It's a minor disclaimer only; I feel the musical value ever so slightly outweighs the slips. — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 09:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support this is beautiful --Guerillero | My Talk 06:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Question Is the abrupt cutoff at the end part of the file, or just the way Wikipedia's player is handling it? Otherwise I'd support, a wonderful performance outweighing reservations about too-reverberant recording. ReverendWayne (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The cutoff is due to the applause starting immediately afterward. Would you rather I keep the applause in the recording? — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 04:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd rather have the applause, faded out quickly. I know applause in a recording bugs some people, but I think it's better to leave it in when it can't be edited out cleanly. ReverendWayne (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, but with work you might get me to Support. I am OK with the musical performance. Think we need to evolve and that having someone who is reasonably adept and gets a single take is a fair balance at this point in Wiki evolution. My concern is that the song and even Annee de Pelerinage are not described in the Liszt article. If there was more textual connection (at least of AdP) and perhaps the file dropped into those list articles and Liszt (haha) article, than I would be change to support. BTW, I don't know if this is just a lacking of the writeups or if the piece is so obscure (thinking the former), but in any case, I can't support until there is stronger usage in article space.TCO (reviews needed) 01:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I like applause.TCO (reviews needed) 01:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support I thought it sounded great. I can see what TCO means, but I think it does illustrate the Années de pèlerinage page well. Although there might be a worry that this is part of a larger work (see the on-going debate on the talk-page), I think its length does indicate this is not really a worry as it is substantial in its own right. Therefore high EV, and a very high performance standard. I would love to hear the applause too; leave it in there for a few seconds and then fade it out. Welcome back La Pianista! I look forward to hearing more of your work! Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Liszt - Vallee d'Obermann.ogg. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:20am • 01:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The Melody Shop March

Reason

This was a significant composition during the teenage years (18 or 19) of a notable composer. The file adheres to all Wikipedia:Featured sound criteria.

Composed by

Karl King

Creator

United States Army Field Band

Articles in which this recording appears

"The Melody Shop", Karl King

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• The playing and recording are well done. I'm less sure about aspects of the arrangement; the second half's drum rhythm seems a bit rum and inauthentic to me. This does lessen the EV of this recording. Having said that, the sheet music here doesn't seem to show the drum part, although it isn't written as a set of separate instruments, so arguably there is room for interpretation in the music as written. I'll go with support unless others indicate this is an inauthentic arrangement (which isn't clear to me either way). Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Good stuff.TCO (reviews needed) 01:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Promoted The Melody Shop March.ogg. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:26am • 01:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Killer Whale Call

Reason

A free recording of a whale call.

Creator

National Park Service

Articles in which this recording appears

Killer Whale

• Nominate and support. Guerillero | My Talk 03:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Guarded support—Aren't there a lot of free recordings of whale songs? And don't they vary from pod to pod, and from location to location (equivalent to a cultural imprint)? So we're likely to get more of these: can't the file-name specify where and when it was recorded (if this can be brief ... like "Bering Sea, 2009"), so the file-naming system can be more functional? Can the click be removed and the noise reduced? Tony (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • There are two others on the Orca page --Guerillero | My Talk 03:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Is there anything going on in the final 10 seconds of the file? It seems empty to me, but perhaps I'm missing a more subtle form of the calls. Juliancolton (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Glad we have some sort of file, but I have seen some presentations on whale calls and there is a lot more stuff out there and higher quality. (also with some analysis of the calls, from time-domain spectrums, or from pod-based research). Just think we are not really nailing EV without that.TCO (reviews needed) 04:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per TCO. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Not promoted. In the discretionary zone, concerns raised are of some significance. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:24am • 23:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)