Talk:Bethena/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will undertake this review. The article appears stable, neutral, well-written and well-referenced. The images appear in order and very well prepared in order to illustrate the article - kudos to editor(s) for that work.

Specific points

"...identification is made more difficult because her race is unclear" - clarify whether this refs to Freddie, or to the image on the music.

I'll clarify this; this should be refering to the image on the front cover of the music.

Done.

The section on form is a touch technical for a lay reader. For example, near the start is the following: "...in five different keys. Each of the major sections has a different tonality..." This immediately implies a key is different from a tonality. Frankly, a visit by the lay reader to tonality would not exactly cause immediate enlightenment. If "key" is what is meant, then rephrase the intro to just use the word once.

Agreed - possibly an over-excitement when using technical language. I'll simplify it.

Removed part of the sentence referring to tonality. I think it still makes sense.

Any chance of explaining to a reader what is meant by "chromatic interludes" - "a series of chords designed to harmoniously lead into a key change" or something?

I'll try and make this clearer - the material I have really doesn't mention these bits much.

Simplified this section in line with the reference.

A similar issue as for "tonality" arises with "cakewalk" - a wikilink that doesn't immediately assist the reader. A brief explanation (splitting the sentence in two i think) might be better.

I think I was trying to avoid too many sub-clauses. As you've suggested below, I'll separate these into separate sentences and explain the concept.

I have moved the information around a bit to make it tidier and to include a short explanation of "Cakewalk"

The use of both "theme" and "motif", and the wikilinking of the latter, suggests these are two different concepts, but that wasn't how i read the paragraph overall. I actually think that, despite repetition of the word, I would use "theme" again and lose the wikilinked "motif".

I'll replace the word to avoid confusion.

I've now removed "motif" altogether.

"The combination of the waltz and the syncopation has been compared to a 4 against 3 polyrhythm with many subtle variations" First the article needs to state explicitly that combining "unaccented eighth notes with accented quarter notes in the treble with conventionally accented three-quarter notes in the bass" amounts to combining waltz and syncopation. Only then can a sentence begin "The combination of the waltz and the syncopation..." Even then, there remains the issue of the technical nature of "a 4 against 3 polyrhythm with many subtle variations". I'd try a couple of things here. First would be to expand the wikilink thus: 4 against 3 polyrhythm. I would also consider expanding thus:

"The combination of the waltz and the syncopation has an effect similar to a 4 against 3 polyrhythm, with the simultaneous sounding of two independent rhythms with many subtle variations." See what you think.

I agree with you here. I'll expand and clarify as you suggest.

I have now expanded the paragraph using your suggested phrasing and expanding the explanation.

"an inner voice". No idea what this means.

It's a phrase the source was used, and I think refers to the overal chord harmony contrasting with the melody line of that particular section. I'll try and clarify.

Essentially the source was discussing counterpoint in theme C. I've simplified that paragraph and the caption.

Why is it that the first mention of the incorporation of duple meter (itself a technical term) only appears in "critical reception" and not in "form"?

I didn't spot that; again, I was using the word used by the source. I'll take a look at whether to use Duple in "Form", or get rid of it, as it is probably unnecessary.

I have removed "Duple" altogether as it was confusing matters.

As you can see, almost all my concerns relate to technical clarity and accessability of the article, which is otherwise excellent. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments; I've annotated above and I'll amend the article accordingly. Major Bloodnok (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to do the changes you suggest. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now finished amending the article as suggested. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, that has improved everything. I'm passing it now. Look forward to your next contributions! hamiltonstone (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]