Talk:Songs from the Silver Screen

Source?

Can we get a source for the name? As far as I can tell, all the sources in the article refer to her Music of the Movies PBS Special. Why are we assuming that will also be the name of the album? 67.4.39.80 (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evancho's CD last year had the same name as the PBS special ("Dream With Me" vs. "Dream With Me In Concert"). The problem is that the person who initiated this article jumped the gun by a few days. But if you wait a week, there will be a good source for the exact name. If the exact name is slightly different, I promise that I will rename this article and/or make appropriate changes. I also anticipate that the CD will have some additional numbers to those that are scheduled to be performed in the PBS special, so as soon as a final track listing is issued, I'll add them to this list and call it a track listing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technical issue

The quotes around the songs should not also be around the film source. Does anyone know how to fix that? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Reh man 16:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's super! Here's another thought - can you get the "Writer" column to move left a little bit? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, I'm not really sure how to do that, sorry. I think the template can't handle such a request, but I am not sure... Reh man 05:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. What do you think of making all the text in the Writers column small. Would that look nicer or less nice? On a wide monitor it probably wouldn't help, but on smaller monitors it might .... Just a thought. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I would oppose that is because it would not be consistent with all other album articles. And also, making it smaller would also increase the 'emptyness' feeling as there is already too much of, well, emptyness/space in the table ;) Reh man 07:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked an alternative version of the Track listing template to narrow down the columns to be just long enough for the current text. I hope that looks better. If the text is made any longer however the template may have to be tweaked again. For An Angel (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation format question

There are remarks/notes mixed in with the citations. In my four years as an editor I can't recall seeing this in an article before.--1archie99 (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to footnotes 2 and 6? I have seen this format before. However, an alternative would be to make them notes to the table itself. Either way is fine with me, and both are simpler than the complex extra notes section one sometimes sees above footnotes. The goal is to inform the reader. If you prefer them to be notes under the table, by all means move them there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could not see why simple statement should be a note. Info that belongs in the article itself is now there.--1archie99 (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Critic?

Should try to keep it real with these, citing notable critics\journalists otherwise it just open the door to every fan or non-fan putting in their own commentaries.--Gillwill2000 (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we don't have to call him a critic. But a regularly published newspaper published this piece. After the album comes out, there will be more prestigious reviews to cite, and this will come out of the WP:LEAD section and be less prominent. Also, when you comment on a talk page in Wikipedia, please add your comment to the bottom of the page, rather than at the top. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ssilvers for the reversion. Patch.com appears to me to be a professionally run organization and there was no reason to leave the article messed up as Gillwill2000 had done.1archie99 (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citing review of concert instead of review of album

Furthermore, the review cited is of the PBS Great Performances concert, not the album, which had not yet been released, and the recordings of which are completely independent of each other, so a review of the songs performed at the concert would be better suited to an article pertaining to that concert, rather than to songs on the album which the reviewer made no mention of having heard. So not only is the reviewer non-notable, the review itself is irrelevant to this particular "Songs from the Silver Screen" article and therefore should be removed. --Gillwill2000 (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers both the CD and the PBS special. I have added a clarification to the WP:LEAD section. Again, as I said above, once the reviews come out for the CD, this review will be moved below, to the section about the PBS special. Please be patient. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable reviewer

This is still a review by a non-notable person whose reviewer status comes from an online news service that accepts member\subscriber contributions to serve as opinion articles. In this same vein, for balance, should we incorporate opinions of member\subscriber contributors at this site: Slipped Disc and give each of them the status of notable critic or reviewer as you do to this Mr. Benson person. Gillwill2000 (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The review was published as a regular article to a regularly-published, professional newspaper, and this article has been cited several times with approval by the paper's editor-in-chief. It is undoubtedly a WP:Reliable source. You are just wrong about comments to blogs. We could indeed cite Norman Lebrecht's blog, which is a WP:RS, but we cannot cite the "comments" to his blog. I really would ask you to read WP:RS. Why are you so aggressive and impatient? As I have stated above, after the CD comes out, there will be lots of professional reviews, and this one will be far less prominent in the article. In any case, I have removed the quote from the review as non-essential, even though I think it does give the reader a better idea of the character of the songs on the album and DVD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect sentence?

The article states: In 2012, PBS produced and began to air a Great Performances special called Jackie Evancho: Music of the Movies. Then the artice states that the special's executive producer and director is David Horn, co-producer is Humberto Gatica. I believe very little, if any of the programming that the PBS network provides is actually produced by it. It would be more correct to say the special was made available to individual stations to air as a fundraising event. The PBS stations aired the program on different days and some did so multiple times.1archie99 (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a change. Looks ok? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]