Talk:Robert Spano

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
More information about this article... This article has had a peer review by the Biography WikiProject, which has now been archived.

Contents 1 (2006) 2 Unstub 3/07 3 Comments 4 Critical Praise section

[edit] (2006)

This page appears to be a copyright violation. In addition it is written in an unencyclopedic tone, making many unprovable assertions. I suggest that an interested editor start from scratch by summarizing the official biography rather than copying it. -Willmcw 18:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Got it. Melchoir 04:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I commented out the Brooklyn Philhmarmonic succession box, since there is currently no article on the Brooklyn Philharmonic. Grover cleveland 12:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unstub 3/07

Hey. I uploaded a bunch of stuff onto this article from my sandbox & removed the stub label. I hope it's up to standards. It still needs a photo and probably an infobox but I think it's getting there...

• • infobox w/ photo now added; a better (closeup) photo would be welcome though, if you can find one that's free-licence or at least fair use.--Turangalila (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of what was in the former stub I cut&pasted or paraphrased, so the info's still, there; just hopefull sourced and NPOV...There was one exception, though. The stub text characterized the "Atlanta Group" of composers this way:

Spano and the ASO have dubbed this group the "Atlanta School of Composers," characterized as mid-career composers who share an interest in tonality, melody, and popular idioms or world music.

I couldn't find a source for that characterization anywhere that didn't look like a scrape or a mirror of Wikipedia, so I just left it out. --Turangalila (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

One thing I noticed off the bat is the four quotes in the lead section. The quotes should be moved to a new section, possibly in a recognition section. See also Lead section. Your concern about over-referencing is understandable. I noticed a sentence with five references and many that are double referenced, which does seem a bit excessive. That only happens for controversial statements, but now that the citations are in, I see no reason to remove them. The Recording and Affiliation sections are lists that take up almost as much space as the other content. I'm not quite sure what to do there...

Lastly, I think it would be great if you could put up 30 sec samples of his work like in Bradley Joseph. I think this could easily be a Good Article and maybe a Featured Article in the future.

You may want to check out some of the musicians that are Good_articles and Featured articles to get an idea of what GAs and FAs look like. Mahanga^{Talk to me} 15:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[copied the above comment over to the Peer Review page.--Turangalila ]

[edit] Critical Praise section

This looks like it could be a Good Article candidate soon, great work. But this section has a kind of POV/advertising ring that would not work well for GA status. Thoughts?

I fixed the red link for Donald Runnicles, fixing the other few red links might also help its status.

As far the multiple quotes I think only the one that most corroborates the fact stated is needed, unless it's a controversial or contested point. Groove1279 19:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for writing that stub. I may just de-link / re-write a couple of the other redlinks where notability is kinda borderline anyway. I'm hoping this week to complete an overhaul of the notes / references style, along with some other things. Those long strings of footnotes annoy me every time I look at them.

On the critical quotes I'm not sure. I think it's worth demonstrating his growing prominence and critical-darling status; but I understand the need to maintain NPOV & avoid fanzine tone. I originally had those in the lead on the theory of establishing notability/prominence, & was told they should go into the article body. Maybe I'll fold them into the bio sect. & try to find a critical complaint to balance them out?

I took a bit of a break from this article after submitting it to peer review, which was probably bad timing. I'll try & get back to it now. —Turangalila ^talk 21:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want any help, I'm interested and will contribute what I can. I'll be around this week. I'd like to see this an FA candidate. :) Groove1279 10:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is definitely much too subjective and hagiographic. I've started to tone it down, but it needs a lot of work. DJRafe (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)