Talk:On Eagle's Wings

[Untitled]

Would it be appropriate to either link the lyrics to the song or post them? 72.89.163.138 (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The song is still in copyright and IIRC the publisher is aggressive about protecting it. Be bold in editing pages, but see Wikipedia:Non-free content for guidelines. Ellsworth (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cover Version

There is a cover version by Gigi D'Agostino, released on the album "L'Amour Toujours II" and on the compilation "Benessere 1". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.97.10.219 (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how to contribute to wikipedia but I found this. Maybe someone could use this link: http://catholicphilly.com/2013/12/news/national-news/response-to-on-eagles-wings-over-the-years-humbling-for-composer/ (68.97.81.177 (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Sources for inclusion in article

The following sources provide strong evidence of notability and should be incorporated into this artcle:

Ibadibam (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to add an excerpt

I am trying to find out how to insert a short snippet of the song lyrics into the article, preferably as a boxout. I am not inserting the lyrics in their entirety, as that would be violating copyright policies. Could anyone offer advice on how to do this if you can? Thanks. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 13:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source: Gibeau, Dawn (May 12, 1995). "Liturgical Music: If played in church, it may be Twin Cities sound". National Catholic Reporter. p. 10.
5x expanded by Darth Stabro (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 33 past nominations.

~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 02:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Darth Stabro: No fun comment: In general, it does not really matter how crap the previous content was, it still "counts" for 5x expansion - see WP:DYK5X. The sole exceptions are truly invalid / unusable text, like copyright violations or vandalism akin to someone pasting the script of Shrek into an unrelated article. When compared on those grounds, the article went from ~1800 / ~320 words to ~4600 bytes / ~790 words. The good news is that 5x isn't a true hard hard requirement - 4x or 4.5x can work, especially in cases where the previous content was kinda bad - but ~2.5x is too far off the wiggle room. If you think there's room for more expansion, then great, but otherwise this might be a bad fit for DYK. (Can always nom it for GA status at worst?) SnowFire (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SnowFire: Hm, for some reason I thought that uncited text could be removed and then wouldn't count towards the total, but it seems I'm mistaken; it's just copyvios. I guess I'll wait a few months for the Good Article nom to go through (I nommed a few days ago). ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 21:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Passed. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 03:33, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:On Eagle's Wings/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Darth Stabro (talk · contribs) 00:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: HistoryTheorist (talk · contribs) 19:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Darth Stabro:, I'll give this article a look. I should be able to complete the review within a week, now that summer has arrived, but I'll let you know if it takes me longer. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 19:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Darth Stabro: I am basically done with the review. Sorry in advance if my comments make no sense, feel free to ask me questions or ignore the advice if you have a good reason to. There are no major issues preventing this article from becoming GA, only nit-picks. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 22:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putting on hold because you're on a trip. It will remain on hold until you return to Wikipedia. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 19:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has been addressed HistoryTheorist! ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 02:09, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Here's another green button for you! ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 03:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

general notes

  • copyvio stats look good; Earwig shows 22.5% but that's due to attributed quotes

source check

  • checkY Source 1 looks good; I would recommend consolidating the first two references under the usage section
  • checkY Source 2 looks good, but first part of the sentence Native American Catholics have found a special connection to the song because of the eagle motif feels like borderline original research to me and could be better worded. While the source does talk about Native American motifs, it doesn't talk about how the song specifically resonates with Native American Catholics.
    • Silly me, you were right. I didn't check source 11, sorry!
  • checkY Source 3 looks good
  • checkY Source 4 looks good
  • checkY Source 5 looks good
  • checkY Source 6 looks good
  • checkY Source 7 looks good
  • checkY Source 8 looks good
  • AGF on source 9 & 10
  • checkY Source 15 looks good
  • checkY Source 16 looks good, although the example feels a bit irrelevant IMO. Feel free to keep/remove; it doesn't make a huge difference to me

prose notes

  • Remove the extra the in which helped the it gain popularity under the usage section
  • In the lede, you mention the languages the song is translated into. The way you list those languages makes it seem like the song was only translated into those languages, even though there are other translations.
  • The first sentence under the Composition makes sense, although it took me a couple tries for me to fully understand it because there are so many details. I would recommending rewording it/splitting into multiple sentences so that people don't get confused and think that Doug Hall was a student at the Archdiocese of Omaha and that Joncas was a CUA student. I hope this comment makes sense; it's probably more confusing than the sentence I found confusing!
  • Under the subsection text and music, I would reword the sentence in the following way: but Joncas adds[a] the analogy of an eagle following the mention of angels sent on high. That way, there is more clarity on where the analogy of the eagle came from, if it wasn't Psalm 91.
  1. ^ alternately, you could use the word uses
  • You might want to convert Joncas was surprised by the popularity of the hymn into active voice
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination (again)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SonOfYoutubers talk 16:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by Darth Stabro (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 45 past nominations.

~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 03:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Article promoted to GA status on 6 July 2025. No copyright violations or other issues detected. I lean towards ALT1 over ALT0, but either hook is interesting enough. Looks good to go!  Ploni💬  14:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:On_Eagle%27s_Wings