| Revision as of 19:09, 7 August 2007 editIanmacm (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,151 edits →[]: add comment.← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:10, 7 August 2007 edit undoEsprit15d (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users46,211 edits →[]: opposeNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| '''Comment''' The article is a bit brief and specialized for a FAC. However, my main concern is the lack of any audio example of the cadence. An .ogg file of the cadence on, say, piano or guitar would be helpful. --] 19:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | '''Comment''' The article is a bit brief and specialized for a FAC. However, my main concern is the lack of any audio example of the cadence. An .ogg file of the cadence on, say, piano or guitar would be helpful. --] 19:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| '''Oppose''': When you said you stumbled upon the article a few days ago and worked on it, that kind of sent up a red flag. It isn't uncommon for FAs to have been worked for six months, a year, or even more to bring them to their state. While that is certainly not necessary, or required, there is a reason why it often takes so long. Because it takes a lot of knowledge of the topic, as well as correct form and Wiki-conventions to be an elite article. Of the ], I recommend addressing the following: | |||
| :'''1. Basic criteria met?:''' | |||
| ::1a. Well written? Mmmm. It is good, but highly technical. While I acknowlege that this is a specialized article and most of its readers will likely come from a musical background, I think it could still be written with slightly more accessibility. A music sample, while not mandatory, would work ''wonders'' towards this end. | |||
| ::1b. Comprehensive? Doubtful, although I wouldn't know how to expand it. | |||
| ::1c. Factually accurate? I'm confident that it is, but it's hard to discern that since there are few inline citations or references. | |||
| ::1d. Neutral? Yes | |||
| ::1e. Stable? Yes | |||
| :'''2. Complies with ] and relevant ]?:''' | |||
| ::2a. Concise ]? More of an itroduction to the topic and not actually a summary (which is what a Wikipedian lead is supposed to do. Read ''']''' for more info. | |||
| ::2b. Hierarchical headings? Yes | |||
| ::2c. Table of contents? Yes | |||
| ::2d. Sufficient inline citations? Not a single inline citation and only one reference, which is simply (to be honest) unacceptable. | |||
| :'''3. Properly placed, tagged and/or rationalized images?:''' Yes | |||
| :'''4. Appropriate length?:''' Very short. This might be a better ]. | |||
| When these issues are addressed, note the changes here and notify me on my ''']'''. Thank you for your work so far.<!-- Template:OFAN --> | |||
| — ] 21:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:10, 7 August 2007
Andalusian cadence
A while ago, I've found this article on Misplaced Pages, stopped for a while and read it. The whole thing was awfully wrong and I decided to fix it and to show explanations for every step of the analysis procedure.
Having just read a great book about tonality, written by one of the best Romanian music teachers, which happened to have had all the related explanations inside, I've tried to present this subject in a way not much too foggy, but neither too thin. I also thought of the reader with lesser knowledge of music theory and tried to include some functional basics of tonal harmony.
I didn't feel like adding more than one image, which seems to me a very clear depiction of the whole thing. There are plenty of examples, maybe more in classical music should arrive, and I'd be glad to find a helping hand for that. I've too mentioned some examples which alter the cadence somewhat, but one may still think of it or hear the pylon-chords throughout and should like to watch a tonal explanation for a moment. There is also a slight parallel with the lydian cadence, a thing the initial author of the article had puzzled with this (so that some readers who first thought of that variant as more logical would find out why they're wrong).
O.K., that's all the material I had to boast! ;) The reason for featuring this article was, except for the fact that I've worked with it for a number of days, that the subject is not much too generous, so that the article's size at the moment seems optimal to me. And it shouldn't also be shorter, as there is a number a notion which may seem difficult to some. Thank you for your time! (Impy4ever 18:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC))
Comment The article is a bit brief and specialized for a FAC. However, my main concern is the lack of any audio example of the cadence. An .ogg file of the cadence on, say, piano or guitar would be helpful. --Ianmacm 19:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose: When you said you stumbled upon the article a few days ago and worked on it, that kind of sent up a red flag. It isn't uncommon for FAs to have been worked for six months, a year, or even more to bring them to their state. While that is certainly not necessary, or required, there is a reason why it often takes so long. Because it takes a lot of knowledge of the topic, as well as correct form and Wiki-conventions to be an elite article. Of the four featured article criteria, I recommend addressing the following:
- 1. Basic criteria met?:
- 1a. Well written? Mmmm. It is good, but highly technical. While I acknowlege that this is a specialized article and most of its readers will likely come from a musical background, I think it could still be written with slightly more accessibility. A music sample, while not mandatory, would work wonders towards this end.
- 1b. Comprehensive? Doubtful, although I wouldn't know how to expand it.
- 1c. Factually accurate? I'm confident that it is, but it's hard to discern that since there are few inline citations or references.
- 1d. Neutral? Yes
- 1e. Stable? Yes
- 2. Complies with Manual of style and relevant WikiProjects?:
- 2a. Concise lead section? More of an itroduction to the topic and not actually a summary (which is what a Wikipedian lead is supposed to do. Read here for more info.
- 2b. Hierarchical headings? Yes
- 2c. Table of contents? Yes
- 2d. Sufficient inline citations? Not a single inline citation and only one reference, which is simply (to be honest) unacceptable.
- 3. Properly placed, tagged and/or rationalized images?: Yes
- 4. Appropriate length?: Very short. This might be a better good article candidate.
When these issues are addressed, note the changes here and notify me on my talk page. Thank you for your work so far. — Esprit15d 21:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)