Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/July 2008

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.

Memphis Blues

Appears in W. C. Handy. The first important work by one of the most influential United States songwriters of the twentieth century. Credited as the inspiration for the fox trot dance and helped transform blues from a little-known regional musical style into a dominant musical idiom. Since both jazz and rock music have their roots in blues, the first popular blues composition and recording is a significant piece of music. See this summary for more information. Durova^Charge! 17:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Conominate and support. - Durova^Charge! 17:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Conominate and support - Thanks Durova. ^Mitch32^contribs 17:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. It fulfills all of the criteria for featured sound candidates; interesting sample and significant. The archive.org listing offers this .ogg alongside a number of other formats including a .flac file. Is there any precedent for preferred formats on Featured sound candidates? The .flac was also transferred directly from the disk and represents a lossless reproduction. It appears to have better sound quality, too. --Oldak Quill 00:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The only format for video and sound accepted at Wikipedia and Commons is .ogg. It's an open source issue. Wouldn't mind having other formats if it were up to me, but the system isn't configured to accept them. Durova^Charge! 04:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Seems to meet the criteria. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support—Good performance, although you'd love a bit more swing and verve to it, that's hard to get out of a military band. Reasonable technical quality for the time. Pity the percussive instrument sounds like something flapping in the wind! Info page seems OK. TONY (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support as long as you add the duration of the recording to the caption (Criterion 4). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • File time is 2:58. It's easy to miss in the sound file description. :) Durova^Charge! 06:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I may be reading the criteria wrong, but it seems to me Criterion 4 states "Caption. The file is displayed with an informative, well-written caption, including the duration of the file." When I see "caption" I think of the sentence that goes below the player in an article (i.e. the "'Memphis Blues, composed by W. C. Handy in 1912. First known recording performed by Victor Military Band, July 15, 1914." sentence), thus something to the effect of "(Duration: 2:58)" would satisfy this. Either way, its no big deal. Nice work on the FS! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Right you are. Serves me right for answering as I went to bed. Changed as requested. :) Durova^Charge! 15:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Heh, it was almost 1am where I was when I wrote that, so I kind of had a feeling that it just may have been me! Thanks for fixing it, good work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Good quality file that deserves to be featured a lot more than many FAs...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 22:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 15:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Lets add another FS. Zginder 2008-07-08T22:45Z (UTC)
• Support — E ↗^TCB 23:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Victor Military Band-The Memphis Blues.ogg --Zginder 2008-07-10T15:11Z (UTC)

When Johnny Comes Marching Home

A recording by Emile Berliner, inventor of the first lateral disc audio record, one year after he received the patent on the device. The song originally dates to the American Civil War. This recording was created during the Spanish–American War, a conflict in which the American media played a significant role.

Audio post-processing has been applied to reduce static and adjust pitch. Pitch is unsteady because the turntable did not turn at a constant speed when this very early recording was created.

• Recorded in: United States
• Date: June 1898
• Artist: John Terrell, baritone; piano accompaniment
• Recording medium: 1 sound disc : analog, between 66 and 72 rpm, mono. ; 7 in.
• Articles appearing in: Propaganda of the Spanish American War, Berliner Gramophone, When Johnny Comes Marching Home

• Conominate (research) and support. - Durova^Charge! 00:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Conominate (audio editing and format conversion) and Support what was a very poor, static filled, 110 year old recording. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 00:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Clearly such an old recording is important and notable. I see no reason why this should not be featured. Calebrw (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Excellent. I really like it, very historical. ....add: Quite notable, free license, although the quality isn't the best there is. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment on reviews. First of all, just a comment about the previous review: "I really like it" is not one of the criteria; nor is the fact of being historical; and "excellence" is very vague—which criterion are you referring to? Please review according to the criteria. If the nominator and co-nominator want their votes to be taken seriously, they should provide review-type information. TONY (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment on nomination text. I removed the lyrics, which took almost a whole page's worth of vertical space. Please don't paste in the text from the info page verbatim. Reviewers are supposed to peruse the info page as part of the process (Criterion 5). TONY (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose.
  • Although the benchmark for Criterion 2 (recording quality) can be loosened for historical recordings, there's a limit. The musical performance is pretty appalling: in terms of tempo, beat and rhythm, it's all over the place. The recorder sounds as though it's been grafted from a recording of a child's doodling on the instrument, at least at the opening. The voice is variously out of tune and of poorly controlled vibrato. Technically, the recorder sound is like a bad electronic sound, especially at the opening. Now, to disregard these, I'd have to be convinced that this recording has very special historical value. Is it so rare? Don't a lot of better recordings from 1898 survive?
  • Cr 5 (description page). Guess we don't know where in the US it was recorded. No link for "first lateral disc audio record", yet this seems to be central to the claim of historical notability. Is it mentioned anywhere on WP? If so, a section link would be good. The punctuation here—"Artist: John Terrell, baritone; piano accompaniment"—is unclear. Is John Terrell the pianist as well as the baritone, or did someone forget to insert the accompanist's name? If he's both, make it "baritone and pianist". When you say "between 66 and 72 rpm", this makes a lot of difference. Where does this info come from?
  • Cr 5: the info page says it's not used on any WP page.

But overwhelmingly, we need to balance the crappy performance and recording quality with historical notability. That's the potential deal-breaker here. TONY (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually:

• • Cr2 (recording quality): As noted above, this was recorded at variable 66-72 RPM. In 1898 that was the state of the art. The flat phonograph disc itself had been patented only one year earlier. The turntable was hand cranked and did not yet have a mechanism to ensure constant rotation speed; hence the variability in playback tempo, etc. The baritone uses a historic style of vibrato that was common in vaudeville and other popular performances until the 1920s-1930s, when the "crooning" singing style developed around different technical limitations in early radio. These are not performance flaws; they're the natural artifacts of a recording that was made at the very dawn of a technology by the patenter himself.

I disagree; the vocalist is pretty appalling. I could sing it better myself, from scratch, and I'm not a singer. For example, the cacophony at the start (you wonder where the speech ends and the music starts). The choas of the whistle/recorder playing (are there two of them? They're very uncoordinated. I know lots about vibrato through the musical periods, including the 20th century. Every time the guy sings "Hurraaaah", he sounds like a billy-goat or a sheep bahing. His breathing is amateurish: he chops off some of his phrases (not long ones) prematurely. Shall I go on? "Hurrah", btw, is just about the only word you can comprehend. The bad musical performance is separable from the recording technique itself. I'm commenting on them separately. TONY (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Cr5 (description page): featured sound criteria specify (iii) the date and venue of the recording, where they are recoverable. All the recoverable information has been obtained and supplied. This is a flexible standard and some flexibility is appropriate for the very earliest recordings. We do have an accurate date, and considering that Emile Berliner made recordings in at least four countries during this era, we're fortunate to know the country. Other source data comes from the source link. The name of the pianist is unknown. As explained above, 66-72 RPM is the variable recording speed per technological limitations. Emile Berliner's biography, which is linked in the nomination, identifies him as the inventor.

OK. But if the name of the pianist is unknown, can you state that on the info page—it's unclear at the moment. TONY (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Changed as requested. Durova^Charge! 17:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Tony1 is mistaken in the assertion that this is not used in any articles. It is used in three articles. Links are provided above. Also, he deleted the entire lyrics for unexplained reasons when he posted these comments. I would gladly have addressed his concerns if he had expressed them, but I was not notified when the already promoted featured sound was de-promoted and he posted his opposition afterward. It was by accident that I discovered this reinstated and altered nomination, as well as his lengthy posts here and on Talk:FSC. Really, I have never seen a featured candidacy of any sort develop this way. I hope there has been some good faith misunderstanding that can be addressed; the developments today are surprising and frustrating. Durova^Charge! 04:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong: I explained that the lyrics took up a huge amount of space. They should be either on the info page or, preferably, linked to. Where exactly are the lyrics in WP? If they're nowhere, you surely don't expect listeners from a linked article to go back to the FSC nomination page, do you? TONY (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

When_Johnny_Comes_Marching_Home#Lyrics: the discussion is much simpler when voters reply in a cooperative spirit and read the links that are already supplied. I'm going to bed now. Will follow up later. Durova^Charge! 06:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've asked a few people to visit and review; not sure they'll be interested in doing so, though. Durova, can you give a little justification of the historical value? For example, is there a great paucity of such recordings in existence, that is from the turn of the century? TONY (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh for Heaven's sake, people! Do you really expect this recording to be of magnificent quality with its age? While I agree that some of Mr. Terrell's performance seems to be a bit unsophisticated, I am not going to judge one way or the other because of the record's inconsistent rotational speed. (It's hard to tell exactly what flaws are because of Mr. Terrell's performance, and what flaws are because of the crude and unreliable recording device.)

If you really want to hear some good Berliner discs, may I recommend this link: http://madoresobscuremusicblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/six-berliner-records-1896-1900-various.html.

Promoted Marching in.ogg- while the oppose is valid historical importance seems to be the dominating factor in consensus here --Tawker (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Étude Op. 10, No. 10 (Chopin)

Appears in: Étude Op. 10, No. 10 (Chopin)

An excellent recording of a notoriously difficult piece. In fact, all of the recordings of the Chopin études on Wikipedia are very good, but this one stands out for me.

• Nominate and support. - Centy – reply• contribs – 03:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Given that very few of the current Featured Sounds (or indeed any sound file across Wikipedia) satisfy Criterion 4 (the length of the file is in the caption), I am choosing not to put the length in the caption. Instead I suggest we change the Listen template to do it automatically and have that small requirement instantly satisfied. Centy – reply• contribs – 03:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Per criterion 5 the sound file should link to the musical score. Zginder 2008-04-16T16:43Z (UTC)
• Oppose until MOS breach fixed (unspaced en dash for year range) and date of recording/performance, and the place, too, if known. Good performance; pity the upper range of the piano is so lacking in sonority. TONY (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I fixed the MOS violation. I will try to contact original nominater and uploader for the missing criterion 5 information. Zginder 2008-05-01T13:24Z (UTC)

Not promoted, without prejudice to a renomination

Apollo 13 message to Houston

This message is possibly one of the most famous messages in the history of spaceflight with only Neil Armstrong being more well known. The full communication is available where they discuss the full details but i think that this succinct message encompasses all of it. Its a tribute to their struggle and to all those who face risk in spaceflight.

• Nominate and support. - Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 12:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. It fulfills most criteria, and is a significant recording. Just qualms with one criterion. The sound description page doesn't list (from Wikipedia:Featured sound criteria): the duration of the file, the date, details of what format it was converted from, how it was was converted and whether any editing has been done to the file, and the source of the file. --Oldak Quill 01:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support, but what was the date of the recording (on the info page too)? The transcription on the info page places the dialogue out of sequence—can that be fixed, please? Who is Eric M Jones? TONY (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Fails criterion 4 and 5(i)(iii)(iv). For such an iconic recording, there needs to be a much better caption in the article than "Swigert and Lovell reporting the explosion on 13 April 1970" and the caption also needs to include the duration of the file(4). There needs to be a much better description of the recording, including an explanation of the events surrounding what happened (5i) and where it occurred (5iii). There also needs to be a source for this file and how this file was recorded (5iv). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I about to pop out but i shall deal with those issues when i get back. There is the option of uploading the full 5 minute conversation as well if you feel that would be more informative. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 13:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Could you upload it so we can compare. I would be interested to hear the full recording. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I've uploaded the long version of the recording and it can be found above. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 15:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Ok I like the shorter version, but could you focus on some of the other issues, such as expanding the caption, adding the duration to the caption and a better description of the recording on the image page. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 00:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
          • I have improved the description somewhat. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 15:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Concerns have been addressed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • To clarify, I support the second recording. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I can not hear the "This is Houston." in the short version, but I can in the long. Something must have happened to the short version. Zginder 2008-07-07T21:57Z (UTC)

I do not believe the following is done.

(iii) the venue of the recording, where they are recoverable;

(iv) the name(s) of the recordist/producer, and a brief description of the recording equipment, where known;

(v) any editing that has been applied to the excerpt by the uploader, such as noise reduction by the uploader (aside from obvious fade ups and fade downs at the start and end), and by others, where that information is recoverable;

Cheers. Zginder 2008-07-08T15:46Z (UTC)

Just want to clarify some things, not sure what you mean by "where they are recoverable". When you say the location of the recording do you mean where the physical recorder was located or where the persons doing the recording are. The latter I have provided. The name of the recorder/producer would also be a little difficult to pin to one person due to the many people involved in the communication and is simply attributed to NASA. I have given the names of those involved in the recording. I will attempt to contact NASA to see if they are able to release the details regarding their recording equipment but that may be information they cannot release. I have listed what editing I have done to the sound. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 17:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think that the method of recording would be known. Also the version that we use must be used in an article. Zginder 2008-07-08T20:41Z (UTC)

Following the result of the FSC, the best recording would replace the one currently in the Apollo 13 article. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 21:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Apollo13-wehaveaproblem edit 1.ogg Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Etherea

This is a high-quality example of new age/contemporary instrumental music by a professional musician, featuring many of the characteristics noted in the article (ambient sounds of birds and percussion; traditional instrumentation combined with modern audio effects; a generally relaxing composition that demonstrates world music influences). I've added it to New Age music and recorder.

• Nominate and support. - ragesoss (talk) 05:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• oppose. This recording is by a performer/composer who does not appear to be notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. As such, its inclusion in New Age music and recorder do not relate to any discussion in the articles and makes this nomination look like a bit of self-promotion by the artist. I would consider changing my opinion to "support" with some notable third party citations that back the claims that this particular composition/recording is illustrative of the characteristics noted in the articles, and well cited text put the recording into a larger context in the articles. --☑ SamuelWantman 07:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The performer is not notable (well, it actually might be possible to scrape together enough sources to avoid deletion, but it'd be tough). However, it's not likely that a better free example of new age music will be available from a notable musician. I just included it in recorder because there were no sounds in that article, but I think it's relevance to new age music is self-evident. There won't be any sources explicitly stating how it exemplifies typical characteristics of new age, since as far as I know there is nothing published about this song.--ragesoss (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The problem is that if nothing can be said about it that can be backed up with citations, its relevance to the topic is not self-evident. The inclusion of the sample implies that it is a good example of New Age music. Since that assertion cannot be backed up with citations, it is original research to make the claim or the implication of the claim. I believe this recording should just continue to be available in commons but be removed from the two articles where it now resides. I'm willing to hear other opinions about this first. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think a piece of original music present as an example of a certain genre is any more original research than a photograph of a flower or insect used as an example of a taxon is original research. We don't demand citations explicitly identifying the subject of a photograph as the claimed species, but instead rely on user knowledge and matching the image to distinguishing characteristics of what it is claimed to depict. The same, it seems to me, should apply to sounds. But I'm interested to hear what others have to say as well. (Obviously the new age music article itself could use more citations, but the basic descriptions pass the smell test.) --ragesoss (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support—The composition, performance and recording all have merit. I don't see a problem with respect to OR. TONY (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sure. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support I don't know much about featured sounds, but I don't see why this should not be a featured sound.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Colin Ross - Etherea.ogg --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

JFK inaugural address

This is a recording of the iconic speech made by the United States President John. F Kennedy. This speech is widely quoted in American history (see Inaugural address of John F. Kennedy#Notable passages), including one of the most well known quotes "And so my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." I feel that it meets all of criteria. Thank you for your time. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 01:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 01:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Support—good one! But ...

• Can we have a link to the section that contains the "notable bits" transcribed. Pity there's no full transcription, but I guess it is pretty long. Is there an external link with the full transcription?
• Autoformatting correctly keyed in at info page? It's no longer encouraged, anyway, so consider removing and showing the US format: no one minds it, I can assure you. TONY (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • What autoformatting are you talking about in particular, I am not sure I understand? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
    • See MOSNUM, which no longer encourages date autoformatting and which now prescribes rules for the raw formatting.
    • Sorry, my stupidity—I didn't see the cap for the transcription. TONY (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I have unlinked the dates. Thank you for your review Tony. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 08:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Providing a transcript is (at the moment) a requirement - but featured sounds are such a very "new" project - in terms of throughput, anyway. Should we change the criteria to explicitly allow an exception for very long FSes not needing a full transcription? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I am confused by both of your comments, the full transcript is provided under the "transcript" section its a {{hidden}} box, so just click the "show" link on the template and you will see the full transcript. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The hidden box says "Transcript of John F. Fitzgerald's Inaugural Address" Surely that should be "Transcript of John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address"? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I very literally smacked myself in the forehead... « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 08:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The recording is claimed to be in the PD, but it does not state who recorded it. If anyone other than the goverment than not PD. Zginder 2008-07-09T19:48Z (UTC)
  • Um no offense but the statement "If anyone other than the goverment [sic] than not PD" is wrong, as anyone can place something in the public domain, but that is neither here nor now. This is most definitely a government work and PD, here lists the recording as PD, here shows an audio collection about JFK where the address is included and claims PD (search for "inaugural" and then "public domain), here claims PD (search for "Inaugural Address 1961"). This is a work by a government official (he was made the president before his speech) thus there is no way that the US gov could copyright this. Do you need any other proof that this file is PD? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 22:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Support could we get all inaugural address that have been recorded and make them FS's? Zginder 2008-07-19T13:06Z (UTC)

Promoted JFK_inaugural_address.ogg - Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Edison phonograph recording of Arthur Sullivan

As the only recorded example of Arthur Sullivan's voice, and as one of the earliest phonograph recordings that can still be listened to (these wax cylinders wore out fast), I think this is an excellent example of what a featured sound could be. The sound quality is not fantastic, but it's one of the earliest surviving recordings: What do you expect? I tried to electronically improve the sound, but, in the end, decided that it was better to have it warts and all. It appears in Arthur Sullivan, and Phonograph cylinder, where it illustrates pre-existing text particularly well. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Queries—Pity there's so much distortion in the first part. Is it possible to reduce it (even with the ogg. application)? Is it the nominator's transcription, or is that already published somewhere? This should be specified. If it's the nominator's, I have a few suggestions. Certainly this is of historical significance. Description on the info page needs a copy-edit and MOS check. Tony (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph I took from the National Parks site, the rest is my own transcription. Also, it's possible to clean up some of the noise, but I actually found it more distracting when I did, because I ended up left with these annoying high-pitched metallic sounds. Maybe someone more experienced with editing could manage better, but, in the end, I decided that... well, you know, it's a very early recording, the problems are characteristic of the early recordings on that medium, and thus, you know, historically significant. We're using this to illustrate Phonograph cylinder too, after all. Indeed, even if it was cleaned up, I'd suggest the original would still be necessary on Phonograph cylinder. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, Support. Tony (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support I think everything this is green to go. Zginder 2008-07-18T19:13Z (UTC)

Promoted Arthur Sullivan - wax cylinder recording.ogg OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)