Template:Did you know nominations/Repetitive tuning

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 ^talk 16:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Repetitive tuning

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that major-thirds guitar-tuning is a repetitive tuning in which chords are raised an octave by shifting all notes by three strings on the same frets (illustrated)?

• Reviewed: Stewart Iron Works [1]

Created/expanded by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk). Self nom at 18:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• None of the references use the term "repetitive tuning". The topic looks synthesized, not established. The introduction has no references at all. Binksternet (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  "Repetitive" is an adjective; "repetition" is an associated noun and "repeat" is the associated verb. "Repetitive tuning" better suits an enyclopedia-article title, while "tuning ... repeats" is found in the sources.

  Specifically, Sethares and Griewank compare tunings, mentioning repetition. So does Kirkeby, whose reliability is established by the reliable sources Sethares and Griewank.

  The introduction, which did lack references, has now been removed. This excision impaired the readability of the article, of course.Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Binkensternet made comments about his perception, but failed to did review the hook or article, ignoring so considering newness, length, sourcing of the hook, formatting of the hook, etc.Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC) This comment/complaint was made at the reviewer's nomination, and moved here by the reviewer. I struck through old-business. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• The benefits your introduction gave to reader comprehension ought to be applied to the lead section, or restored in place with references. I think it is indicative of the synthesis problem that no concise summary of the topic can be found in a reliable source, one that would uphold the previous intro material.
• Nevertheless, I'm going to okay this DYK because various repeating or repeated tunings have been discussed in the sources. The article date, length and referencing are good. The image is free to use. The hook is suitably referenced and within length guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  Well, that's reasonable and unusually gracious and quick! Thanks!

  The introduction was a synthesis, which I added under the aegis of WP:IAR---and (what I wished would be recognized as) the utter triviality of discussing "repetitive tunings" briefly when the article gave reliable souces discussing repetition of particular tunings (in comparison to non-repetitive regular or standard tunings). I suspect that the WP:MOS on mathematical exposition (as clarified by the discussions around the Monty Hall problem ArbCom case, at least for my understanding) allow logical operations that are not recognized as research. (I am rather fond of abstraction---specifically extensive definitions and the lambda calculus!)

  Again, thanks for your reconsideration and fulfillment of the review.

  You or other editors should feel free to raise the issue of synthesis, if any have doubts. Such discussions should lead to an improved article. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  User Hyacinth placed a possible-neologism template on the article. I asked him whether he wanted the title changed to "tunings that repeat (open-string) notes", which would be closer to the wording of multiple reliable-sources...! The neologism template seems to be used for uses like "Fretboard logic" or "attachment parenting", often tied to new or unsuccessful entrepreneurship (by academics or commercial actors). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

  The neologism template was removed by another editor. Others are welcome to discuss synthesis or neologism concerns further, of course. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)