Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/August 2007

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

  • For promoted entries, add '''Promoted Example.ogg''' --~~~~ to the bottom of the entry, replacing Example.ogg with the file that was promoted.
  • For entries not promoted, add '''Not promoted''' --~~~~ to the bottom of the entry.
  • For entries demoted, add '''Demoted Example.ogg''' --~~~~ to the bottom of the entry.

Use variants as appropriate, e.g. with a large set of files, all of which pass, '''Promoted all''' is fine, but if one of them didn't pass for some reason, make sure that's clear.

Sacred Harp Sherburne

[edit]
Sherburne 186
"Sherburne" as sung in the Sacred Harp tradition
Problems playing this file? See media help.

Created by the Alabama Sacred Harp Singers and released for anyone to use, appears in Sacred Harp. Please see Sacred_Harp#Singing_Sacred_Harp_music if it sounds a bit strange at first.

  • Comment this is not in fact included on the page Sacred Harp, and is thus currently ineligible for Featured Sound - if you need help adding it, let me know where exactly you want it and what the caption should be. Mak (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is an excellent example of the Sacred Harp tradition, under a free license, from a free source. Mak (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until the unpleasant chopped ending is faded down over a second or two (later comment: it's not as bad on the ogg file). The duration of the file appears neither in the caption nor the info page, as required (1:33). In other respects, I would remain neutral, since there are a tuning problems and strained voices at the top of the register, most noticeably among the lead male singers. I like the air of spontaneity. Tony 01:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I have a problem with the balance of the recording. Some voices are much too prominent. I suspect that the mic was not in the center of the room (usually sacred harp singers arrange themselves in a square), but instead the mic was being held by or near one of the performers. Also agree that the ending is very abrupt. I don't have a problem with the strained voices or the tuning, as this common for the genre. BTW, I remember hearing a version of this done on Prairie Home Companion about 25 years ago, using the lyrics from "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer". --☑ SamuelWantman 02:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the original version that was uploaded, as the balance is not an issue. I don't know where the other version (which includes a voice saying the number 186 at the beginning) came from but it's not as good in my opinion. Luatha 21:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoah, those are completely different files, not just sound edits. Nunciacion, were these just two different takes? I agree with Luatha that the first one you uploaded was much better than the last one, especially in terms of balance. Is there a reason you replaced it with the other one? Just curious. I agree overall with Sam. Mak (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate to be a stickler, but I'm worried about the source/license. It is labelled as public domain (the lyrics certainly are, but not necessarily the performance). What is the source of this claim? Raul654 04:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This probably doesn't mean anything copyright-wise, but this site claims the recording is from the 1940s, which (if this is the same recording - I'd need to do some more research) means the quality factor is great. It's freely available here where it sounds like they intended for people to enjoy it freely (also here, here and here) FWIW. It sounded like the person who posted it may have some connection to the group? Luatha 22:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I'll withdraw my support unless the person comes forward about the source of both recordings. After hearing the "alternate" version, I agree it's definitely not a simple edit of the same file, which leads me to agree with Raul's concern. Luatha 21:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Not promoted

Pseudacris-crucifer-003

[edit]
Spring Peepers
A pond of Spring Peepers and Wood Frogs -- Presquile Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada -- 2006 April
Problems playing this file? See media help.


Spring Peepers (2nd edit)
A pond of Spring Peepers and Wood Frogs -- Presquile Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada -- 2006 April. Edited to reduce length and introduce fadeout at the end. Now at 29 seconds.
Problems playing this file? See media help.

I believe this sound clip "illustrates article content particularly well, or is so striking to the ear that users will want to read the accompanying article." I hear Spring Peepers in my backyard every season and can say that there is no better way to experience them other by hearing them. This sound clip is a very high quality recording of them. Discuss.

  • Nominate and support.--Russoc4 21:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Being not a sound expert, I can't use the correct terminology, but it sounds like there is some distortion/overloading of the sound at the really high frequency and high volume sections. Also, it seems a little long for what seems like a series of repetative sounds. --Tewy 02:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is not based on an existing criterion (not yet, anyway), but I do wonder why it's 120 seconds long, when all of the relevant information is contained in the first, say 10–15 seconds. Nothing else happens except a continuity.Support. I still think it's too long at 45 seconds, but I can live with it. Next time, please don't fade out over—what is it, 10 seconds, oh so gradually?—try two seconds. I suggest a fading out after 30 seconds or so. I find the loudest sounds a little jarring on my ears when the level is turn up to discern all of the details; it's as though the recording was made too close to the frog(s). The info page and caption need copy-editing. Who was the recordist? Tony 11:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I asked the nominator yesterday whether the file duration can be reduced. Tony 02:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've submitted an edited version. File length is cut in half, and fadeout is added at the end. Borisblue 03:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support- but I wouldn't mind if the file length was reduced a little Borisblue 17:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Prefer my version. Borisblue 15:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - prefer the shortened version. Adam Cuerden talk 22:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Copy-editing issue, which is why I still oppose. Here's the text of the info page:
"A pond of Spring Peeper's and Wood Frog's -- Presqu'ile Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada
Probably a few hundred or so individuals in a pond 50m x 30m near Owen Point in the park. The recording was made about one hour after sunset on 2006 April 16. The peepers are the high "peeps" and the Wood frogs are the low, chattering, tones in the background. For their size, Spring Peeper's are extremely loud; to get an idea, turn your playback up until you can't think anymore...
The recording is 1 minute long.
Source: Borisblue, orignally from Mdf
Date: April 2006

The recording is 58 seconds long on my ogg file. The "date" needs a day to be a date; this is provided in any case in the previous text, from where it should be removed to avoid repetition. "Probably" and "or so" are both uncertainty words, and you should use only one of them. MOS says to insert a space between value and unit ("m"). Use the multiplication sign (click on it beneath the edit box), not an ex. Remove the first two apostrophe's from the title line: these are plain plural's, not possessive's. "An" hour would be smoother than "one" hour. When you say "the peepers are the high peeps", no, the creatures are not the sounds they make; same for the frogs. Use "make" or "sound" as your verb here. Remove the comma after "chattering". There's another errant apostrophe in the paragraphs, and is it "Wood Frogs" or "Wood frogs"—both appear. I'd remove that last clause as a little informal, but that's not a deal-breaker. The rest of the copy-editing is. Tony 02:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've copy-edited both versions according to your suggestions. Borisblue 03:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Springpeepers.ogg MER-C 11:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infamy Speech

[edit]
Roosevelt's Infamy Speech
Roosevelt's speech after the Pearl Harbor attacks. Duration of the file is 8:38.
Problems playing this file? See media help.

One of the most famous and significant speeches ever recorded, so I posit that at least one version deserves to be featured. Appears in both Pearl Harbor attacks and Infamy Speech, and is indispensable to both. Original speech is public domain, the cleaned up versions we have here are both credited to W. Guy Finley under the CC-SA licencse.


Promoted Image:Roosevelt_Pearl_Harbor.ogg MER-C 11:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Alligator bellow

[edit]
Alligator bellow
Field recording of an alligator.
Problems playing this file? See media help.
Alligator bellow (edited)
Field recording of an alligator- edited according to Tony's suggestions
Problems playing this file? See media help.

This file courtesy of our good friends at the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. I noticed that our "field recordings" section at WP:FS is empty, and I can't think of a better file to start us off. Used in alligator. Duration of the file is 24 seconds, and size is 293kb.

added an edited version, cleaning up some technical problems.Borisblue 03:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Nominate and support. - Borisblue 05:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—Interesting; there's drop-out at about 2 secs and a click further in. The recording chokes off in the middle of a "bellow". Other than that, it's worth FS, I think. It would be so easy to (fairly quickly) fade up to avoid the drop-out at the start, and to fade down to avoid the unpleasant end. How 'bout it? Tony 01:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC) PS Or is this initial drop-out just an artifact of the Java player (I may have noticed it on other sound files)? In any case, the end could do with a fade-down. Tony 01:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not hearing the problems in the beginning of the file- can someone else verify? I'll work on the fade-down. Borisblue 22:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nvm, Tony, there's nothing wrong with your java player- I saw a 'click' in the beginnning when checking it with audacity. I've removed it, and added the fade in and fade out. Borisblue 03:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit unsigned edit by User:Adam_Cuerden
  • Further comment—The "edited" version still chops out suddenly. Are you sure you uploaded the right file—the one you faded down (I'm hoping it will fade down over ... one to two seconds? I still have what appears to be dropout shortly after the start, but I'm unsure. The click has gone. Tony 01:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS Ah, now I see the problem: when you play it as part of the browser, the fade down doesn't work. When you download it as an ogg file, it does (and I can hear that the drop-out is just the creature's taking of a quick breath). Anyone got any ideas on this problem? Tony 01:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think User:Gmaxwell is in charge of the play-in-browser feature. You should give him the details of your problem Borisblue 03:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Promoted Media:Alligatorbellowedit.ogg

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_sound_candidates/August_2007&oldid=199244675"