| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Didn't foresee much for this one past GA, but the reviewer indicated that FA status wouldn't be beyond it, so I figured I may as well go for a peer review to see about that viability. This is an article about a recording of a pretty avant garde piece of music (while it doesn't deal with the composition as its primary subject, it does cover it to a good extent), which seems to have tentatively poked the mainstream without actually following through. I'm wondering about both the scope of the article (is it broad enough to cover FA standards? should it focus more or less on the original composition rather than this particular recording?) and about its quality. Looking forward to anything that can be picked apart or offered. GRAPPLE X 01:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Comments
- I would just double-check WP:LEAD, this isn't a huge article so I wonder if just two paras is sufficient.
- Could easily be dropped to two, but I'd probably end up keeping the same information and just rearranging it as two paragraphs if that were the case.
- " by Mike Patton and Ictus Ensemble. It is a recording of Luciano Berio's 1965.." who are these people? You could introduce them e.g. American singer, Italian composer... whatever. To a complete outsider, it's a little hard to understand the significance of these people.
- Jiggered about a bit to add this kind of context. GRAPPLE X 23:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- "has been described as" attribution please.
- Caught it. GRAPPLE X 23:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- "débuted" debut is an English word now, we don't need that accent.
- Fair enough; I figured it was really an ENGVAR thing on whether the accent was retained but I could well be wrong. In either case I've cut it out. GRAPPLE X 23:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- " this recital included car tyres and a blow-up doll on stage" not sure how much that added musically, was it a case of the performance was more stage art, so it had some bizarre stuff going on at the same time as the music? It's a little unclear to me (sorry)....
- Yeah, that's just non-musical stage dressing. If it's not adding anything I could lose it, I had just thought it might be useful to add what I could find of the original performance. GRAPPLE X 23:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Does the track listing template meet WP:ACCESS for tables, per MOS:DTT?
- Going to have to look into this one. It's a pretty high-use template so I'd assume that it would be, but I'll make sure and get back to you on that. GRAPPLE X 23:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#Template:Track listing. Between myself and Dodoïste, it seems that the template meets any requirements, for accessibility. GRAPPLE X 23:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Going to have to look into this one. It's a pretty high-use template so I'd assume that it would be, but I'll make sure and get back to you on that. GRAPPLE X 23:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note 1 is unreferenced.
- Added a ref; it was meant to be covered by the ref beside it in the text but I've re-used this in the note just to cover it. GRAPPLE X 23:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Allrovi -> AllRovi.
- Replaced. GRAPPLE X 23:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ref 11 has pages 1 to 22, but refs 7 and 8 are a subset of that. Any point in doing that?
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ref 11 is meant to cover the entirety of the packaging (so as to show an absence through an exhaustive listing), while 7 and 8 refer to specific quotes on individual pages. I'm not keen on using longer page ranges just to keep a reflist shorter, as it makes things a bit easier to verify when precise pages are listed.
- Thanks for taking the time to have a look at this one, I appreciate it. GRAPPLE X 23:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)