Talk:Drexel 4257

Drexel 4257 has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 25, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 15, 2012.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Drexel 4257, a manuscript in the New York Public Library, is the largest collection of English song from the first half of the 17th century?

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Size

Do we know the size of the book or its pages? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Drexel 4257/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 13:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I'm sorry for the delay. I'm now reviewing the article at this very moment, comments will follow. Pyrotec (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a very quick read of the article and it appears to be at or about GA-level, but I've not checked any references or copyright statuses, so I'm going to carry out a full review. This means I'm going to work my way the article starting at the Historical context section and finishing with the WP:Lead and note any "problems" that I find here.

Historical context -

General and physical description -

This section appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.

Dating -

This section appears to be compliant.

Provenance -

This section appears to be compliant.

Organization -

There were several links in this section to disambiguation pages. I changed Robert Herrick to Robert Herrick (poet) (four times since he's also in the table, in three places) and John Suckling to John Suckling (poet). I think these are the correct destinations.

...stopping at this point. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this section was OK.

Handwriting -

I added a copy of wikilinks, incipit & secretary hand, but this section is OK.

Politics -

...stopping at this point. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section appears to be compliant.

Topical or literary content -

This section appears to be compliant.

Musical content and style -

Note: I wikilinked the technical terms: naturals, sharps and flats; I also moved the link from Dissonance, a disambiguation page, to Dissonance.
However, this section appears to be compliant.

Significance -

This section appears to be compliant.

List of songs & List of songs -

OK.

WP:Lead -

....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a good summary/introduction, so compliant with WP:WIAGA.

Scope.

The General and physical description contains a lot of detail and its all verifiable via citations, so I've marked its fully compliant. However, there is a picture of the book in the infobox and its bound with what appears to be leather and/or buckram bindings. There is no comment on this, for instance is it known when and by whom this was done; nor on the size of the folios, instance 10 by 8 (inches) (yes, this is unlikely since the images show a folio that is roughly 2:1 on height:width), foolscap, etc? Pyrotec (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately left this out because it would be original research. But I had an idea: If I get a picture of the binding date/binder's statement and upload it to Commons, then I can comment on it, right? -- kosboot (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be wrong of me to ask for information that would be OR. You can comment on information that is in the public domain. Pyrotec (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've now added it. - kosboot (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An informative and well researched article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Yes, and all taken by the nominator
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I have no hesitation in awarding this article GA-status. I think that it has the makings of a WP:FAC, but I would draw attention to my comments above, i.e. "there is a picture of the book in the infobox and its bound with what appears to be leather and/or buckram bindings. There is no comment on this, for instance is it known when and by whom this was done; nor on the size of the folios, instance 10 by 8 (inches) (yes, this is unlikely since the images show a folio that is roughly 2:1 on height:width), foolscap, etc?". At GA, this is at best a minor uncertainty, and I've discounted it but I strongly suspect that it would be needed at FA. Congratulations on a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]