Talk:Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album)

Fair use rationale for Image:Misterioso.jpg

Image:Misterioso.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: EddieHugh (talk · contribs) 20:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting a jazz article to GAN; I'm trying to get a few there myself. I'll take on the review: I'll go through from lead to the end, making some changes, adding comments and questions here, then polish off the six criteria. Please change / comment on any of my edits that you think could be better.

Lead: Appropriate length and content, but I question some of it...

• Consider changing to "by the American jazz pianist Thelonious Monk, featuring...", as this is common/normal in jazz, and would help accuracy in the infobox, as the next recording is not by the Quartet.

  The album is credited to the quartet, not just Monk. Changed chronology parameter in the infobox.

  Fine, but Monk being a pianist is not mentioned.

• "It was Monk's first successful live recording." "Successful" is vague (commercial/artistic/technical?) and remains so in Background. I'd remove the sentence.

  "wikt:successful": "accomplishing what was proposed".

  What was proposed? If unknown, it's unclear (criterion 1a).

• "The album was titled..." This is not fully accurate, as it was titled after the composition from a decade earlier (as stated in Composition) – change to "The album was titled after Monk's 1948 composition, which was..."? "Vividly" is also vague, but I assume it's from the source.

  Revised.

  ok. See below on "at the time" (1a).

• "Misterioso features four of his earlier compositions, which Monk rearranged live." I can't find the "live" bit in the main sections. I'll comment more in Composition.
• Doesn't "Giorgio de Chirico'" need an "s" (and in main body)? (1a)

Background: Could be clearer and more detailed...

• "After returning to the New York City club scene". Where had he been immediately before? Simpler just to say, "Pianist and composer TM began performing with his quartet, featuring JG, AAM and RH, at the FSC, NYC, in mid-1958" (thereby taking care of my next comment, too)? More info on what he'd been doing would be nice, but maybe not necessary for GA.

  I'm just sticking to the most reliable sources on this topic, none of which had mentioned where he had been before.

  "After returning" as a start to Background leads to the Q of where he was before (related to the withdrawal of his cabaret card, I assume), so is also 1a.

• Try to get the two mentions of his quartet that are in para 1 into a single sentence (they were the same, according to this discog.)

  Same response as above.

  So also unclear (1a).

• I removed "successful"; is the reason for the earlier recording being rejected known?

  If there was, I'd have found it, looking through Google, GoogleBooks, GoogleNews, etc.

  Unclear (1a).

• "and challenging at the time". Clarify which time – recording and release, I assume, but a statement about Monk's reputation up to that point could help the reader.

  What other time?

  of composition / first recording (1a). Also in lead.

• "Latin". Italian is more likely, but I lack the ready means to demonstrate that, so leave it if it's from the source.

Composition: I've edited this a lot; hopefully the result is more structured.

• Apart from editorializing beyond what the sources implied and unnecessary diction changes, I don't see how that was necessary. If there is a pertinent issue with my revision, please bring it up here. Dan56 (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Change sec title to Music, to be more accurate?

  The descriptions of the songs use music theory and composition terms.

  ok.

• Something about the third track, "Let's Cool One", is needed.

  The sources available on this album dictate that; none discussed this song significantly.

  Criterion 3a. Also 1a, as the composers & newness of songs have been raised. So any brief mention of it as a new version of a Monk tune is enough.

• Comments on, or at least mentions of, the three bonus tracks are also needed.

  Why are they needed?

  Criterion 3a. Also 1a, especially as Blakey appears. However, for GA, the mention in Reissues can be considered enough.

• It's a matter of choice, but using the present tense to describe the music could add more immediacy.

  I thought that too, before having reviewers at FAC bring up consistency as an issue. See Aaliyah (album)'s FAC.

  ok

• In the Lead, using something on the 4/6 compositions that is closer to the phrasing in this section could aid its clarity.

  What do you mean by "4/6 compositions"?

  The album's 6, or Monk's 4 "earlier compositions" (now in this section also, and 1a – earlier than what?).

• This section could be much clearer: an intro to the tracks & composers will provide structure, helping to avoid, taking the first sentence as an example, confusion about terms ("arranged" versus "reworked") and types ("earlier" than what? Did he not rework the remaining 2?); the use of some technical terms is misleading or unclear ("theme", "eight-bar", "thirty-two-bar form"); who did what and when in para 3 is unclear; repeating song titles at ends of sentences confuses.

I'm pausing for now – will continue tomorrow.EddieHugh (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Review restarts

I'll continue in your preferred style, so won't edit the article; this is also reflected in the latest comments above.

Release and reception

• First sentence: released where? (1a)
• Down Beat: first in which category? (1a)

Reissues

• change to "remastered for CD"? (1a)
• Evans' album was not Moonbeams. (1a)
• "three previously unreleased tracks" is contradicted by Track listing section. (1a)
• Blakey replacing Haynes, or both playing? (1a)

Track listing

• Nice, except bonus tracks clash with Reissues section. (1a)

Personnel

• Tarantino also did 2012, according to Reissues section. (1a)
• (1989 personnel not needed for GA.)

Release history ok

References

• Year for 7. (2a)

Bibliography

• Years for all. (2a)
• The first one is "Fantasy" in References, so having that as first word would be clearer (1a)

External links

• ok, although, unhappily, it gives different release years (1958).

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   See comments above.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Very minor changes, as above.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   See comments above.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Images from nearer 1958 would be ideal, but not needed for GA.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold.

EddieHugh (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you're mistaking clarity of the prose with subject matter; all the sources available on this article's topic were expended, so there shouldn't be a question of comprehensiveness. Per WP:GACR, the (3a) requirement is "significantly weaker than the 'comprehensiveness' required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." I don't understand most of your references to (1a) and (3a), apart from a few citation blunders, typos, not spacing the link for Moon Beams, and mistaking what the AllAboutJazz source said about "previously unreleased tracks". You're demanding a bit too much than what is needed and what is notable to the article's topic; Per WP:Notability: "evidence from reliable independent sources ... gauge" whether something is notable to include. The information on Monk and the bonus tracks you're asking about isn't warranted. The former would likely be found in something biographical on Monk, and that would be appropriate to include at Thelonious Monk. You referred to my response as "your preferred style", but I doubt this revision would be accepted at an FA review: "featuring, in addition ..." is both unclear and a run-on, the changes to "background" were just more verbose and said the same thing, "one new original" and "one standard" are just repeating what is mentioned in subsequent paragraphs, "backed the saxophonist's" is unclear and informal, and the roles of each musician were already mentioned on first-reference in the preceding section. If it's all the same to you, I'd like to withdraw this nomination and have someone else review it after it's closed. Dan56 (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, and for making additional changes to the article in response to my previous comments. My main points... 1. My aim was to help improve the article in a collaborative way to get it to GA. I stated at the beginning that I would like you to change any of my edits that you thought could be better; my article edits were an attempt to do the review in an efficient way, instead of listing lots of problems on this page. When you asked me not to edit the article, I listed problems here instead. I didn't claim or mean to suggest that my edits were perfect/FA class/final. 2. Almost all of my edits have been reverted (that's fine), but my comments on clarity remain valid. The things highlighted as problematic re. 1a are either from the source (e.g., "It was his first successful live recording" – this is unclear in the source and, when it is put in the article, even when it has come from a strong source, it remains unclear), or from apparent mis-readings of the source (e.g., "resumed piano and played a two-minute theme" is "tweaking an all but straight A theme" in the original – the latter is a reference to part of the AABA form, not to a theme lasting 2 minutes). These sorts of things are likely to put off readers who know little about the topic and confuse those who know more: in short, "the prose is clear" (1a) is not met. This is not confusing clarity of the prose and subject matter: if the wording and grammar are fine but the meaning cannot readily be discerned, then clear prose has not been used. 3. On criterion 3a. I stated in my last comments that, for the bonus tracks, "the mention in Reissues can be considered enough". The only other 3a I requested was merely "any brief mention" of "the third track, "Let's Cool One"" – in an article about an album (that contains 6 tracks), the tracks are a core part, so having no mention of one means that "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" (3a) is not met (tracks are "main aspects", not part of "every major fact or detail"). 4. I'd prefer to work these things out in a collaborative way, as the article is close to GA, but I'll accept your wish to withdraw it, which means that I will list it as Failed. And then I'll listen to the album again; maybe we can agree that listening to some Monk is a good thing to do... EddieHugh (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow sometime in the next week. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

This looks like a very solid article and is just about ready for promotion; I've raised only a few quibbles here, which you can find below. Please feel free to revert any of the tweaks I've made to the article as well. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Monk played piano more vividly than on his studio recordings" -- this seems like an opinion that needs intext atribution
• "It was his first successful live recording after he had tried to record there a month earlier" -- so was it his first successful live recording in the month sense that date? Or was it his first successful live recording ever? The phrasing's a bit ambiguous.
• "Monk played piano more vividly and less introspectively " -- again, I'd suggest citing whose opinion this is intext ("According to Keepnews,") -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Attributed opinion to Keepnews (which has also helps mention him in the lead); the other point was that it was Monk's first successful live recording (in general). Hope the phrasing clears it up. Dan56 (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See minor clarity point above. Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I see that this aspect was controversial in prior review, but FWIW, I agree with the argument of the nominator that "main aspects" are covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	See minor point about intext attribution for one claim.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	pass as GA

Track listing and personnel

I made edits that were reverted earlier today. I am restoring them for the following reasons. For track listing, all long-playing records were numbered individually per side; if there were five tracks on side one, the first track on side two was not labeled as #6. Side two tracks start at #1 again. This was true for the entire history of long-playing records, from the time of their introduction in 1948 forward. Track listing should be consistent with original release, and since this is a 1958 LP, that was how the tracks were numbered: 1,2,3 on side one; and 1,2,3 on side two. Exceptions to this were made rarely - usually as a joke or to make some kind of statement. For personnel, if you check every jazz album ever released from the 1950s to the present day, the musicians are always listed first, with the production personnel listed after or even somewhere else in the liner notes. They are never all jumbled in together alphabetically; this is also true on virtually every wiki page for any album of any kind - please check other pages to confirm. For jazz records, musicians are generally listed in order of horn players first and rhythm section second, unless the bandleader is listed first, in this case Monk. The production personnel are listed producer first, then engineers, then those responsible for packaging and artwork. That's the way it's been done for decades, and generally that is followed on wiki pages as well. Thank you. PJtP (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

PJtP, per Template:Track listing, the track numbers are continuous regardless of side one, two, etc. And per MOS:ALBUM#Personnel (as well as this most recent discussion at WP:ALBUMS), personnel are listed alphabetically; Wikipedia does not follow subjective trends/conventions/whatever. I don't believe every other article follows this convention you're describing, but even if they did, its other stuff. this configuration does not follow the guideline at MOS:ALBUM#Personnel → participants should be listed alphabetically, the participant and their role should be separated by an en dash, role on a specific track is noted parenthetically and with a reference to the track number. Also, a production personnel subheading is not conducive to this album's information, since there are two different releases with two subheadings already. It's simpler and more efficient at displaying the information as it is now, without being overly ornate for the sake of following some dubious convention, which, as brought up at the WP:ALBUMS discussion I linked, isn't universal. Dan56 (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You want to know one of the things that is wrong with Wikipedia? The idea that a few editors having a discussion on a talk page regarding a subject that they have been encountering for probably not more than a few months is somehow more important than what thousands (if not millions) of people in previous decades agreed upon as a way to present information. The convention I'm describing is not dubious, and it is irrelevant whether or not you personally believe every other article follows it. LOOK AT THE ALBUMS THEMSELVES AND SEE HOW THIS INFORMATION IS PRESENTED. That is what Wikipedia should be following. Personnel credits on jazz albums have been presented the way I describe above since the advent of the LP. I didn't invent this system; it existed from before when I was born. I discovered it from reading the liner notes on the back of albums purchased, as does everyone else. I am reverting the edit back to the correct presentation. PJtP (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You haven't addressed any point I made in my last comment, and have shown an arrogant attitude in all of this, so I have little faith this discussion will get us anywhere. I'm opening an RfC for you, because the correct configuration was the one that passed in the FA review and you should get a consensus for your bold edit (also a consensus at the Project talk page if you insist on pushing this style at other album articles). Dan56 (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Btw, "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." (WP:MOS) Dan56 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Which track listing and personnel configuration is appropriate for the article?

Considering the appearance of each, the guidelines cited, and the arguments made above, which configuration is most appropriate for this article? The one I originally used in the article, or this one recently used by PJtP? Dan56 (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.allaboutjazz.com/news.php?id=96236
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6FUXhqSeK?url=http://www2.concordmusicgroup.com/albums/Misterioso-OJCCD-206-2/ to http://www2.concordmusicgroup.com/albums/Misterioso-OJCCD-206-2/
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6FUXXxQV8?url=http://www2.concordmusicgroup.com/albums/Misterioso-Original-Jazz-Classics-Remasters/ to http://www2.concordmusicgroup.com/albums/Misterioso-Original-Jazz-Classics-Remasters/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)