This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers articles
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
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 within the scope of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DanceWikipedia:WikiProject DanceTemplate:WikiProject DanceDance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
An editor keeps adding this image, which I do not think belongs in a Featured Article because the copyright details on the Commons page do not comply with WP requirements. Proof that it was published before 1926 would help a lot, but "Creative Commons" is clearly inapplicable, it seems to me. Advice from an editor more expert on image copyright and WP application thereof would be most welcome. Tim riley talk 08:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The same goes for this image, which I have also removed, pending confirmation that it meets WP's requirements. Tim riley talk 12:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have now sought an expert opinion from an editor who frequently does the image reviews at FAC (and indeed did the image review for this article). Tim riley talk 13:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, who reviewed the images at FAC has kindly given us a steer:
At the moment there isn't enough info in either case to be assured that the images are in the public domain - the uploader has claimed CC0 but without evidence of their right to do so, and in both cases the source states the images are reproduced by permission of the trust. Is there any reason that you're aware of to believe the uploader is associated with the trust? Failing that, do we have any further details on publication history of these images?
Unless these points can be satisfactorily addressed I fear these pictures are inadmissible. Tim riley talk 18:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone prepared to contact rvwtrust.org.uk? Is that something that would have to be done via Wikimedia Commons? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there are several books in addition to Saylor's, then why don't you add them to "Further readings" instead of getting rid of Saylor's? We editors should be assisting Wikipedia users, not worrying so much about enforcing our rules. But, as I said, I am through with this. It's not important enough to me. Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: we have tried to explain to this editor that Further reading sections are admirable for books that have "additional and more detailed coverage of the subject", and asked him/her to explain what new or specialist material the suggested title contains, but it seems s/he doesn't know and so far there is no reason to suppose that it needs mention any more than the other numerous books about RVW not cited in the article. We are not a library catalogue. I see the book is published by the OUP, which is always a good sign, but even so, there is no evidence that it would be helpful to the reader to single it out for a Further reading section here. Tim riley talk 19:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to the OUP site which quotes one review "Eric Saylor's new biography of Vaughan Williams...is the first to take full account of research published in the last twenty years, of the hitherto unfamiliar early works of the composer published for the first time in the last 25 years, and of the online corpus of some 5000 letters written by him only recently made accessible." https://global.oup.com/academic/product/vaughan-williams-9780190918569?cc=us&lang=en&# I would say one needs a review not on the publisher's (even if the OUP) web page. I don't currently have access to the Wall Street Journal or the Literary Review which both have reviews of the work. It does seem a substantial work. --Erp (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it contains anything new and important we should add that to the article where appropriate, and not merely relegate the book to "Further reading". I'll order the book at the British Library and see what, if anything, we ought to draw from it for our WP article. Tim riley talk 11:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
