Talk:Transition from Renaissance to Baroque in instrumental music

Transition from Renaissance to Baroque in instrumental music was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 24, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 10, 2007.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the transition from Renaissance to Baroque in instrumental music occurred partly as a result of deliberate actions taken by the Florentine Camerata?

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

GA review

I'm glad I stumbled across this article: it's very informative and well-written; I learned some details of music history I hadn't encountered before. It shouldn't take much to bring this article to GA in the near future. My immediate concerns are its style and brief existence. It is very well-written, but reads too much like an essay, rather than an encyclopedia article. Rework it so phrases like "From there, the only question is" and "However, the shift from polyphony to monody in instrumental writing" melt into the text. It seems appropriately sourced, but could use some more: the Influence today section needs some, and direct quotes like, "impressing [the listeners] with the greatest possible effectiveness" need to be sourced. The Lead is good, but it needs to better summarize the body: words like "revolutionary" and "evolutionary" are excellent descriptions, but do not show up in the article again; link these words explicitly to the sections in which the concepts are discussed, and ensure that all key topics in the article are mentioned in the Lead.

The only other discomfort I have is its brief existence and that it is single-authored. I don't know enough about the topic to assess its breadth and NPOV. I suggest a request for a peer review be made at the project Talk page so other eyes can review this fine article. Let's see what the peer reviewer has for suggestions.

Consequently, I'm putting a 7-day Hold on this to see what happens. Otherwise, excellent piece and I'm looking forward to its further development.
Jim Dunning | talk

I've removed the reference-less "Influence today" section and reworded some other parts. Does it meet GA criteria now? --NetherlandishYankee 19:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look later this evening when I have some time. Thanks.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm failing this article as only one edit has been made since the nomination date (from July 11, to July 23), and the article has been on hold for well over 7 days with no progress made. NSR77 ^T_C 01:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]