Talk:Trevor Pinnock

Trevor Pinnock has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 10, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
June 5, 2007	WikiProject A-class review	Not approved
February 20, 2010	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Untitled

Fantastic article. Well done.Adambiswanger1 18:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Rated at B-class for now. Anyone want to nominate it for A-class? Alan 14:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Quite a good article, very little to say; I made a few minor changes to word order and punctuation, and you may if you choose fix up some of the nonstandard reference formatting, but it's not required. I'm placing it on hold, though, because there was an image up until today, and it was deleted as a replaceable fair-use image. Is this going to be replaced with a free-use image? Contingent upon that being fixed up, it's a pass. Chubbles 07:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can get one: there should be one I can find. Clavecin 16:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted a photographer who has taken a series of photos of him recently and he has been very helpful and generously offered to provide some photos to us. (I sent one of the request letters with the explanation about the GFDL or whatever it is called). Clavecin 13:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the pictures Clavecin 13:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Trevor Pinnock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to thet reassessment.

I'm reassessing this article for GA sweeps. After reading through this article, it is pretty good, but a good deal of work does have to be added in for the article to remain a GA:

Many of the URLs are bare links, as in, there is no publisher data, no title, etc. Make sure they're all properly formatted.
- Okay, I've now worked through these and think theyre all fixed.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following references are deadlinks and need to be fixed or replaced: 4, 12, 13, 15, 22, 28, and 36.
- 4 replaced with new link to same material and details corrected; 12 is subscription service so url removed; 13 replaced with new reference to same info; 15 journal and its website are now defunct content taken on good faith and url removed; 22 replaced with alternative source of info; 28 (now 38) replaced with band's own page; 36 (now 34) updated with current address.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ps. the numbers have changed again while Ive been fixing the other items.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD needs expansion.
- done--Peter cohen (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't really mention anything post-2007, and is written as if it were up to date when it's really not.
- I thik I have dealt with the present tenses. I've shoved in a mention of a couple more orchestras he has guested with and updated his educational work but I dont see any major landmarks apart form his winning his Gramophone Award in 2008 for a recording already mentioned. I have, however tried to rationalise the arrangement of the material in sections.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give five days to fix these issues. If they're handled I'll do a full prose review to make sure everything's alright, if not then this will be delisted as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are three of us who have edited the page since you posted the above. Given that this a review and not an initil application and that the original author User:Clavecin apears not to have logged on recently, I hope that you will be flexible in this deadline. Im prepared to do the work but not to such a short deadline and I don't want to start the more boring tasks until you make it clear that you will be flexible otherwise I stand the risk of having spent time reformatting the references without having the GA status to show for it. I have already had advice not to bother. The whole BLP deletion drive means that some of us are less willing than we were to jump immediately when asked.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deadline is flexible, don't worry. I put it short to begin with mainly to make sure there's actually people wanting to bother fixing an article. How much time do you think will be needed? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the repl here and on my talk page. Having just been to a meeting (London 30) with other Wikipedians I am not in the most clear headed of states. I also have a backlog on my watchlist. I therefore do not expect to have any time to address the contents issue today. Tomorrow, hope to have a go at chasing one of the issues above - maybe the deadlinks becore the refs get too out of line. I might then start on the poorly formatted links the next day. Hopefully by the end of the coming week I should have addressed everything above. I think that the most extreme uses of the present test to describe events in 2007 have already been fixed. I have also mentioned things such as his 2008 Gramophone award. I dont intend to list details of everything that is mentioned on the agent's page as plans for the 2009-10 season as that strikes as recentism just that he has appeared or plans to appear with a number of big-name symphony orchestras. I'll also shove some of his posts with orchestras other than the EC into the lead and that he has been on tour with the like of Vengerov.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the refs took longer than I hoped. Ill hopefully be able to do the other tasks tomorrow. Otherwise by the end of the weekend.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I'll check up on this Monday. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just need one more thing addressed: is built up over an implacable rhythmic repeat-figure. Though neither is explicitly tonal, each skilfully avoids the merely percussive effect that the harpsichord's complex overtones can all too easily impart to more densely dissonant music." <-- can that quote be cited? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It turns out to have been the same source as the quote later in the paragraph.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks fixed to my satisfaction now, so a GA it remains. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Trevor Pinnock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Trevor Pinnock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]