Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ram Narayan/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:13, 17 October 2009 [1].

Ram Narayan[edit]

Nominator(s): Hekerui (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate the article because I think it fulfils the criteria and the topic of Indian music is underrepresented in featured and good content - this is my first FA nomination. A note about dabs: jhala is stated to be a disambiguation, but really isn't because all the info of the seperate articles is on the very page. Hekerui (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review ~~(Temporary oppose because of criterion three)~~ - To be hosted on Commons, files in the Public Domain in India or Iran must also be in the Public Domain in the United States. Please see if {{pd-us}} applies for File:Ram Narayan, young.jpg, File:Abdul Wahid Khan.jpg, and File:Ram Narayan - Shiraz Arts Festival.ogg. If not, the images need to be deleted. PD-1996 might be applicable, but only if ALL of its requirements can be verified. The rest of the images look good, from a cursory look-over. I'll take a deeper look later after these issues are fixed. NW (Talk) 20:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ram Narayan - Shiraz Arts Festival.ogg: Iran ~~has not signed the URAA~~ edit: has no copyright relationship with the U.S. and so the video is not copyrighted in the U.S. and can be used because it's also public domain in Iran according to this guideline.
File:Abdul Wahid Khan.jpg and File:Ram Narayan, young.jpg are in the public domain in the source country and I can't strictly verify for either that they are in the URAA date. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in April 2009 struck down the constitutionality of URAA in keeping content in copyright in such cases.[2][3][4] I found a Commons discussion on the case that advises tagging with a template, which I did. Is that enough? Hekerui (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed File:Abdul Wahid Khan.jpg and replaced File:Ram Narayan, young.jpg with File:Udaipur-citypalace.jpg. I'd still like a response about whether their inclusion is okay because they illustrate the article well. Hekerui (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dcoetzee left a comment on the inclusion of the removed images here. Hekerui (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going to strike my oppose here, because there is a bit more that I want to read up on copyright law and the URAA, and I wouldn't feel comfortable doing a proper image review. Perhaps you could ask Stifle (talk · contribs) if he would be willing to continue the image review? Thanks, NW (Talk) 05:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point on the question of the constitutionality of the URAA isn't especially relevant to us. The WMF is headquartered in California (9th circuit) and the servers are in Florida (11th circuit) so the 10th circuit ruling doesn't apply to it.
Because the USA has no copyright treaty with Iran, anything published there doesn't attract a US copyright. It's WMF policy to respect Iranian copyrights regardless, but as long as something was published in 1978 or earlier it's PD in Iran and that's enough for us. File:Ram Narayan - Shiraz Arts Festival.ogg is therefore valid.
File:Abdul Wahid Khan.jpg is still copyrighted in the USA unless it was first published in India earlier than 1936.
File:Ram Narayan, young.jpg is also still copyrighted in the USA. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Federal law is not confined to circuit regions I'd say but the last two were taken out/replaced, so the images are all fine now. Hekerui (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Dabs and links fine.
~~Current refs 1, 4, 15 need their detail put in the bibliography section (since this has one) because they are used more than once. The citations can then be simply left as author and page number.~~

~~Current ref 2 can also be simply left as author and page number since the book is cited in the bibliography.~~

Regarding the first two points: Bibliography isn't meant to be part of the references but as a section about his contribution to a written work. I had looked at other FA articles, like J. R. R. Tolkien's, where the Bibliography means a list of works by the author distinct from references, and modeled this accordingly.

Oh I see, this came up just this week on Ethan Hawke. In that case, to stop confusing some readers (like me), change it to something else like "Writings". My first reaction was that it is part of the ref section (in this case it is I guess as it IS used in the citations). RB88 (T) 13:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed to "Writings" - his contribution to the book was giving Sorrell information about music theory and recording a performance of Raga Shri that was added to the book in a cassette, but this makes him a co-author.

~~Current ref 73's publisher can be simplified as only Hindustan Times.~~

The Indo-Asian News Service is something like the AP, they produced the content and Hindustan Times published it. I will add a link the Indo-Asian News Service to bring it in line with how this is handled with the AP in, say, John McCain's article.

~~I see a mixture of dating conventions. Pick one and stick to it.~~

Done. I had originally used ISO, have now made the use of the Indian standard d-m-y uniform.

Aside, it was a nice read. If only I had more time to do a proper review. :(

RB88 (T) 12:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wrote in the intro that it's not really a disambiguation because it leads to two redlinks but has the content of both terms on the page. If I were to add the redlink the explanation would be gone. Hekerui (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have enough information on the dab page to stubify those redlinks. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, dab pages are created only when there are three or more subjects that could be associated with that link. When there are two, use a hatnote such as {{about}}. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, done. Hekerui (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (expect to support)Support, ~~with mostly style comments~~:

"Narayan served him..." - a strange choice of words. What is meant here?

See below.

"Narayan had performed the ganda bandhan, a traditional ceremony of acceptance between a teacher and his pupil, with Prasad and another teacher who gave him a few lessons before he left for Lahore, but never had the ceremony performed again" This is a cumbersome sentence, and unclear. Who left for Lahore? What is the significance of the ceremony not being performed again? And who never had it performed again: Narayan, or Prasad? Needs general re-phrasing and explaining.

I clarified the ceremony part and why that includes service using the Sorrell source. The 1987 Bor source also mentions Narayan "serving [Prasad], ..."

"Mattoo made Narayan play sarangi, upon which he was employed as an accompanist for vocalists" I think this can be stated more simply - would "Mattoo instead employed Narayan to accompany vocalists on the sarangi" do?

Done, that he was hired indeed makes clear that he succesfully auditioned.

Is "repertory" the right word, rather than "repertoire" in this context?

The New Grove dictionary uses "repertory", so I began to wonder if it's more common and changed the wording, but I checked Sorrell again and he writes "repertoire". I changed it back, it's common as well (and it's also called "repertoire" in French and German).

"jhala" style is given a brief bracketed explanation, but "khyal" is not. I think it would be better it an explanation was provided.

Khyal is now explained where it first appears.

Some issues with tense in the "Style" section. It begins in present tense, then later we have "Narayan was associated..." Then there is the even more confusing "his performance style is not strongly connected to it and was described as eclectic". The last one can be improved by replacing "was" with "has been", but the section might benefit from a general review of tense.

I clarified the formulation, the Kirana gharana still exists. I think the tense is okay now, but I read that section often so perhaps I'm blind in case any issue is left over.

"Narayan received the three national Padma Awards". What is a Padma Award?

I trimmed this down, it's redundant and the awards are all mentioned.

Not sure the last three sentences (beginning "He dismissed modern Indian film music...") belong in that section, but might be better in the "contributions and recognition" section.

Agreed, I reorganized the sections.

Otherwise excellent. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All my points have been addressed, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.