Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Image:Little Maid of Arcadee.ogg
This song is not generally available on commercial recordings, and very, very few amateur recordings exist in the first place. Hence, this provides a useful example of the lost opera that would otherwise be very difficult to find. Used in Thespis (opera) under Image:Little Maid of Arcadee (2-2).ogg - there was some confusion about the upload between the three of us who made it, so the commons version and the en-wiki are... well, someone can sort this out later
- Nominate and support. - Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for now—According to criterion 3, "The file is used in at least one article," An other file Image:Little Maid of Arcadee (2-2).ogg is used in th article Thespis (opera), but this file is not. Listen to both recordings and used the better one in the article and here. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 12:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)- Comment They're the same recording, just different conversions to ogg. Let's go with Image:Little Maid of Arcadee (2-2).ogg, as the volume's probably a bit better. I'll admit that the circumstances of this recording weren't ideal - the piano is a midi, for instance - but I think it's a good effort to bring something out that Wikipedia wouldn't have any other way. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose—The featured sound criterion 5 requires certain things to be listed in the Sound description page. I added what I could, but I could not find the following:
- Comment They're the same recording, just different conversions to ogg. Let's go with Image:Little Maid of Arcadee (2-2).ogg, as the volume's probably a bit better. I'll admit that the circumstances of this recording weren't ideal - the piano is a midi, for instance - but I think it's a good effort to bring something out that Wikipedia wouldn't have any other way. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
(iii)The venue of the recording.
(vi) For a musical performance, the name and years of the arranger, if relevant, the year of composition (and the arrangement, where relevant).
(vii) For a musical performance, links to a musical score in digital format where available.
Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 21:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- (iii) Privately recorded specifically for Wikipedia, no audience. Hence, irrelevant, and possibly an invasion of privacy. It was recorded by broadwaygal alone. Sorry, I have flu, I have to be blunt.
- (vi) Uncredited, very possibly Sullivan himself. The song's from 1871, and I believe the music came out in 1872.
- (vii) I found one at the Gilbert and Sullivan archive Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 22:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry - I wasn't very clear with vi - this is very definately by Gilbert and Sullivan, but I don't know who did the piano arrangement, and that is not credited. I clarified on the page.
- Comment: I would support this nomination, except that the singer sucks (I'm the singer). -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I somewhat agree with Ssilvers. I don't think it "sucks", but it isn't up to featured quality. To be featured, it should be a top notch performance. There are intonation problems with the singing, it is fairly un-dramatic, and the piano sounds weirdly electronic. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- The piano IS electronic, actually. MIDI, you know =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose—Yes, I agree: intonation problems in the singing (not bad, but not good enough for featured content, and it's not a historical recording, to which lower performance standards might apply). Piano is a bit stodgy. TONY (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted --ŠξÞÞøΛ talk 15:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)