Talk:The Wood Nymph/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 00:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few oddities should probably be addressed:

The cello piece given in the third movement, though the accidentals do push it into C# major territory, is technically written in a key signature of either E major or C# minor. This should be explained.

Not done Sibelius used that key signature in the score and its quoted thus in 2ndry sources - maybe because it's fiddly to keep writing out all the sharps of C# major all the time. I considered adding the string harmonics but the midi file would be much less clear then currently. I don't think it's sufficiently unusual or important to note in article. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NPalgan2: It throws you when you're expecting C# major, though, and that's not the key signature shown. It makes it ambiguous as to whether the whole section is notated that way, or if the theme was quoted during a temporary shift to another harmony. I'd probably add the harmonies, by the wayy, if only because the first thing I did was play it out, and the effect is not very clear from the melody alone. At the moment, though, I'm leaning pass. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done see main article. NPalgan2 (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~There are numerous Harv errors being flagged up in the references. I know they're often quite fiddly, it appears to just be that.~~ Spent a few minutes fixing this for you..

Thanks very much! NPalgan2 (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AGFing on the references covering the material, however the bit at the end of the lead about the solo piano and melodrama arrangements is sort of covered later in the article, but not exactly. Maybe add a cite to that (and make explicit in the lead that the solo piano arrangement is only of the finale.)

Done On further consideration, I decided to remove the piano arrangement from the lead, it's not sufficiently important and is as you say slightly confusing.NPalgan2 (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd revise the second paragraph of the lead a little bit for flow - it's a bit choppy at the moment, and given the high quality of the writing in the rest of the article, it stands out. It's not really a blocker for GA, but that will hit you at FAC. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all the major issues. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, Thanks for taking on the review and especially for dealing with the references. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. A couple more notes, but I'll be honest: It's basically passed in my eyes already. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the harmonies do a lot to show the third section is firmly in the C# major camp. ~~I would still suggest copyediting the second paragraph of the lead,~~ Never mind: You were actively doing that but... ✓ Pass. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam Cuerden, Thanks for your suggestions and passing the article! I'm sorry that I've been editing while you review, I've never done a GA review before and was expecting to sit in a queue for months! As you see I've recast the second paragraph of the lead. Thanks again and let me know if you have any ideas for bringing it to FA level. Thanks again, NPalgan2 (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you can easily sit in the queue for months. I have a GAR that's five months old - but I'm rather a classical music geek..

I'm not sure what more FAC would need. The piece has been fairly intermittently important, perhaps the best thing might be to add in some more detail about critical reaction to the 1936 performance, and - depending on sources covering it - things like comparing the adaptations to the main work. Unless you're going to spin them out into their own articles, at least the melodrama should probably get more discussion, particularly its performance history, and how it differs from the main work. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]