Template:Did you know nominations/Christophe Coin

The following discussion 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 Allen3 ^talk 16:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Christophe Coin[edit]

(

)

... that "supremely talented" Christophe Coin was conductor and cellist in recording Bach's ten cantatas with violoncello piccolo, including the chorale cantata Jesu, nun sei gepreiset, BWV 41, for New Year's Day?

Reviewed: Infinite Love
Comment: for BWV 41, 1 January, - I expanded that and will expand further, but probably not enough for 5*

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self nom at 13:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

New enough, long enough, well-referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. Hook ref is verified. One question: Do you have a source for Coin's directorship of the Ensemble Baroque de Limoges since 1991? Yoninah (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No other than the German and French Wikipedia - not reliable ;) - the Germans don't give their source, for the French, his official website is the only source. The ensemble says "une vingtaine d’années". Does it really matter? If yes, we can cautiously say "for several decades". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "for several decades", since many people will take that as thirty to fifty, but I would think "for over two decades" should work, since the implication is "something over twenty" and the French phrase translates as "around twenty or so", and can be cited from the group website. ("Around" is not very encyclopedic language, so best to use a somewhat different wording.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I think all of this is not better than a precise 1991, which is probably true. And now if it was 1990, would it really matter? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, 1991 is obviously superior, if accurate. The question is whether this bit of information needs a reliable source, or is likely enough that no one is going to challenge it. It's obvious from the sources we have that he's been director since the early 1990s, and my experience is that online bios like the one at Limoges aren't updated very frequently. However, as to your last question, which I'm probably misunderstanding: if we knew it was 1990 and left it as 1991, it would matter. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. de and fr have 1991, why not take it? It seems likely enough to not be challenged. I would not know any reliable source because nobody seems to care. (On the website I maintain, we do say founded in 1973.) I prefer a year to talking about two decades, because then someone would have to think about it in 8 years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I finally thought of a Google search that might find something with 1991, and voila:

I like the first source best, because it is a juried competition and thus more likely to do fact-checking. The English is also better. But I'll leave it up to you; I think this is definitive, and it's great to nail down 1991. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, good idea! Will apply #1 now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)