Talk:National Repertory Orchestra

Incorrect information about orchestra around 1978-80s

@Voceditenore: You wrote, "The orchestra hired its first business manager and placed an emphasis on stipends and scholarships which allowed the students twelve-hour days devoted to practicing, rehearsing and performing in concerts. They also began giving concerts which depended heavily on pops programming in open meadows, city streets, shopping centers and parks." What is your source for that information? It is incorrect. In 1978, 1979 and all the years since (I don't know about before that), the orchestra has been a totally paid for orchestra, i.e. full-scholarship plus room and board, and in some cases stipends. Indeed several of the players already had professional and when they were off in the summer they came to play in Colorado Phil. Your prose implies that orchestra members paid to be there. That is not the case. We were paid to be there. Furthermore, the concerts did not include any significant amount of pops concerts. Maybe one during the whole summer? We played concerts of major orchestral repertoire approximately every three to four days. So over the course of the eight weeks, there were probably 15 or 16 different programs of major orch repertoire. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 04:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't imply anything of the sort. In my view it quite clearly states that before 1978, it was part of Charles's philosophy that all the students should work for their room and board, regardless of their ability to fund it themselves. After the restructuring in 1978 it was no longer the case and that all students received stipends and scholarships which allowed them to rehearse and play full time. Note that the pop programming referred to the extra concerts they started giving in parks, shopping centers, etc. I have made that clearer now. All of this is sourced from the Bakemeier article which is in turn sourced from the archives of the NRO, contemporary press articles etc. Voceditenore (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

On a separate note, Cohler ("TheClarinetGuy"), please do not add "notable alumni" without a reference. It degrades the article. WP is not based on "personal knowledge". The fact that Elizabeth Pitcairn and Yolanda Kondonassis attended the CPO/NRO is mentioned nowhere in their WP articles. I eventually managed to find references for both. In future, I will remove all unreferenced additions. Voceditenore (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok. But (1) in other lists of notable people associated with a page, I have not seen citations for each person used and while I understand your point that the linked pages don't mention NRO, I have seen that quite frequently on highly rated pages, and (2) I thought those individuals are mentioned in the same source paper you mentioned above? I know I found them in a thesis type paper on pre-professional training orchestra. I will be sure going forward to always either verify that the referenced page includes a mention, or to add an independent source. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 13:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding notable alumni without WP articles

@Voceditenore: Why do you say not to add alumni without a WP article? The section is for notable alumni. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding as to the WP definition of notability much like your previous adamant misunderstanding of the usage of the {{Infobox musical artist}} template. If you read WP:GNG it says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Furthermore, WP:ARTN "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Furthermore, WP:NEXIST "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." There are copious secondary sources all over the internet about the famous trumpeter Michael Sachs. So if you would like to add more secondary source citations for his name, be my guest, but please revert your edit immediately as it decreases the quality of the article. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 16:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It is standard practice in such sections to list only people who currently have articles on Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: According to whom? That is not what WP:LISTBIO says, which agrees exactly with what I have stated above. Over and over again we seem to be running into this problem that you believe that your opinion trumps what the clearly written WP written policies state. I will get the opinion of editors at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music once again to try to resolve this. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 23:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

According to my ten years of experience on Wikipedia writing and editing articles. You've already added two more names without articles. Since you seem determined to add every name you can find even if they don't have an article, so be it. It's a minor point and doesn't improve the article, but at this point I couldn't care less. Voceditenore (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"According to my experience" is not a useful argument. That is not conducive to cooperative editing. I am improving the articles I have been working on, and I have noted many improvements that you have made on multiple articles. Every time somebody disagrees with you, however, you seem to just issue a command and tell them that you know more than them, rather than making actual substantive arguments as to why you may or may not be correct. Here, for example, you first issued me a command, then when I pointed out very clearly that you are mistaken, you said it is "standard practice" with no reference to anything, and now you say you "couldn't care less". I wonder why you are editing something you couldn't care less about? --TheClarinetGuy _talk 06:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I have not edited the article since I removed the first redlinked name you added. You queried. I've given my opinion. You then went ahead and added two more redlinked names and seem determined to plow ahead with yet more. As I said, so be it. Please do not ping me any further to this discussion. I will not respond. Voceditenore (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Once again you totally mischaracterize my actions here. I never added any red links to the article. I did add some highly notable alumni of the orchestra who do not yet have WP articles, and I added them with secondary sources appropriately cited. Why is it that whenever I point out you are incorrect about something, instead of engaging in productive discussion you insult, mischaracterize, claim that your "experience" trumps all written policies, and then take your ball and go home. That is neither productive nor professional. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 20:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

While "having an article" is a good indication that the subject is notable, it is sometimes not the case. Not having an article on the other had is not proof of absence of notability either, but it should be possible to easily establish notability for the reader. That could be a google search showing obvious results, that could be the number of redlinks leading to the same subject or maybe even a html comment establishing why the entry is notable. Sometimes there is an article in another language wiki which could be linked with {{Ill}} Agathoclea (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Agathoclea: Agreed. Thank you. That's precisely what I said. Indeed I added good secondary sources to all the highly notable individuals I added to the list. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 20:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Agathoclea: Could you let me know if you have a problem with any of the citations that I provided for the 4 renowned musicians without a WP article in the list? I may have provided too many references, but I believe that I gave at least one cite showing connection to National Repertory Orchestra and at least one cite showing notability in each case. Let me know if you think I have missed the mark here. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 22:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cohler: WP:RED is something to consider, as if they are "notable" they should be linked. References that do not establish notability are references in the "about us" section. I have not had the time to analyse the other references in full, but the question to consider is, if those references where used in an article would the article stand a chance at AFD, or do they give enough evidence that there is multiple independent coverage. Agathoclea (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Agathoclea: All of the references I have given certainly prove notability and all are subjects worthy of an article on WP as principal players in major symphony orchestras for decades, or well-known soloists, for example. Furthermore, there are many other sources for all of the entries I have made far beyond the ones I have supplied, and any editor who would like to replace my citations with better ones could certainly do so. And no, if articles were written about those subjects they would not stand a chance of being deleted. The question about WP:RED seems to be controversial though. Some factions on WP say to always add red links and that it helps improve the quality and content of WP, and others, like User:Voceditenore seem to think that red links lower the quality of WP. Also, since all of the individuals cited are living and therefore subject to WP:BLP, I know that some people prefer not to have articles on WP. So what do you think? Is it better to add the red links or not? I didn't add them as yet, in deference to Voceditenore's prejudice against red links. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 14:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:National Repertory Orchestra/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iadmc (talk · contribs) 20:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Minor quibble: "In 1988, the NRO was the only American orchestra invited to perform at the Seoul Olympics and then extended its tour to Taiwan and Japan" better as "In 1988, the NRO was the only American orchestra invited to perform at the Seoul Olympics; it then extended its tour to Taiwan and Japan". Also, I "cheated" and made a couple of minor changes for copy editing and to move one reference to a more helpful place (A sentence or two later). I think this is allowed? Fine otherwise.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	All looks fine.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Fine.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I think a lot more could be drawn from the sources, especially numbers 6 an 11 (used only for the alumni). These two could also be used inline in the body, too. Otherwise all good.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No issues.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Some content disputes re notable alumni but these seem to have been resolved by citing sources for each one.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	One is a fair use low-res logo; the other is from US Library of Congress Prints and Photographs division with "No known restrictions on publication".
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All good, though a photo of them performing would be even better...
	7. Overall assessment.	Could use the citations more (##6 and 11, particularly) and I think more can be drawn from the references but as it stands, this passes.