Talk:Sei pezzi per pianoforte/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 23:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soon. Tim riley talk 23:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Initial comments

This is a highly technical article which the lay reader may struggle with. I certainly struggled here and there. Some elucidation, as suggested below, would be a kindness. Some points on that and other matters, mostly mere suggestions that you may or may not wish to take on board:

• In the lead the last sentence is liable to be WP:DATED and could do with an "as at 2021" or some such.
• "Respighi did not intend in having uniformity" – seems an odd construction; one might expect something like "Respighi did not intend to have uniformity" or even " Respighi did not intend uniformity".
• "The waltz is in ABACA rondo form with an introduction and a coda; drawing influence from composers such as Auguste Durand and Frédéric Chopin" – if you are going to use a semicolon, what follows it needs a main verb.
• "which sets the structure from the rest of the waltz" – I wonder if "from" is meant to be "for" here?
• "falling eighth notes" – needs a link to make it clear to readers in Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand etc that this AmE term means quavers.
• "The entire piece stays at the octave, with the comes appearing in the tenor" – comes needs either a blue link or an explanation.
• "one octave lower and two quarters later" – two quarters? Is that short for two quarter notes? Better to make it clear.

Not really quarter notes nor rests so I just wrote "quarters". But as this is a stretto, I changed it to "beats".

Excellent. Perfectly clear now.

• "the grand climax — the Largamente C section" – the MoS specifies either spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes, rather than a spaced em-dash, as here.
• "exultant ff octaves" – "exultant" is a matter of opinion, unless you have a citation for the word.
• "dux" – as for comes, above.
• "sixteenth notes" – blue link needed. Ditto for "sixty-fourth notes", later.
• "double sixths" – it would be helpful to make it clear that this refers to intervals.

I have trouble doing it concisely with prose. Linking is difficult as there is no article for "double sixths" nor for "sixth", but only major sixth and minor sixth. Also, linking it would be illogical as "sixth" has already been mentioned before. What do you think?

Would "at double sixth intervals" work for you? It makes it clearer for me, but I don't press the point. Tim riley talk 19:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• "An eclectic work kindling signs of Impressionism and Romanticism" – I can't imagine how one kindles a sign; your meaning could be clearer.
• "a sonority similar to Claude Debussy" – you mean similar to the music of Debussy, presumably; I don't think he himself was known for being sonorous.
• "relative minor - E-flat minor" – the parenthetic hyphen should be a spaced en-dash or an unspaced em-dash.
• "Albert Faurot calls it his "best piece", and Maurice Hinson calls it his "finest work for piano"" – as the last mention of Respighi was eight sentences earlier, the first "his" here should probably be "Respighi's" or "the composer's".
• "reminiscent of a musette" – blue link for or explanation needed of "musette".
• "The third beat of the first and third measures are accented" – singular noun with plural verb
• "the countess Ida Peracca Cantelli" – one would expect "Countess" to be capitalised when part of a title, as here.
• "a muddled melodic line" – according to whom?
• "Hess states that the "Studio" is the hardest piece of the set" – hardest to play or to appreciate?
• "Alan Becker called the set "brief, tuneful, and fall in the realm of occasional pieces"" – as written here this does not make sense: you need to make "and fall" "and fall[ing]"

I phrased it incorrectly which made the quote weird. Changed it to "Alan Becker called the pieces".

But to make grammatical sense in the sentence you still need the "[ing]". Tim riley talk 19:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I noticed my error and changed it to something more faithful to the source, with "Alan Becker said that the pieces are" which now should make grammatical sense. By the way, I am not a native speaker, so I may be just embarrassing myself right now. Tell me if it's wrong and I'll change it to your suggestion.

• "None of these pieces ties outside a salon aesthetic" – looks a bit peculiar: is "ties" correct, rather than "lies"?

Should I just add a sic-template? Not entirely sure if it is an error though.

I'd be tempted to be bold and just correct what seems to me an obvious misprint, but if you have qualms and prefer the "sic" solution I shan't carp. Tim riley talk 19:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I like your solution.

• Sources

• The capitalisation of some titles looks improbable. I see, for instance, that the title page of the Faurot book has "A Manual of Solo Literature for Artists and Performers" in the normal title case, rather than in the lower case you use.
• For books freely available online – e.g. at the Internet Archive – it is a good thing to include the URL in the list of sources. Faurot's book is one such, and others are Barrow's and Hinson's.
• The date range in the Barrow book needs an en-dash rather than a hyphen. Likewise the hyphens in the two citations of Gramophone.
• Citing the American Record Guide as a journal rather than a magazine formats the citation inconsistently with all the others in the Articles section.
• Whatever the original capitalisation, we turn words in all-caps into title case. (MoS)

Over to you. – Tim riley talk 13:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tim riley: I've addressed all your points and replied where I struggled or needed clarification. If you are unsatisfied with some of my changes, please let me know. I agree about the highly technical prose, and I'll try to improve it as much as I can whenever possible. Wretchskull (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I say! We're fairly galloping towards the finishing line. A few thoughts above. As to the "highly technical prose" there is no right or wrong about how technical we get in our musical articles. My own rule of thumb is to try to write at the level of the best writers of CD liner notes or concert programme notes, but others find that insufficiently rigorous, and want something more like what you have written here. The latter approach is fine, but the more help you can give in explaining the hard words to the less informed reader the better. Tim riley talk 19:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Couldn't agree with you more! The finishing line is near, but because of my technical writing, it feels like I'm galloping with a bucking bronco... Anyways, I've addressed all of your comments. Thank you for the review! Wretchskull (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Not only a pleasure to read and review, but an education too. I had never heard of these pieces and am delighted to make their acquaintance in such a scholarly and thorough article. I don't see why the article shouldn't be considered for FAC. Tim riley talk 20:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)