Talk:Francesco Corteccia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
Francesco Corteccia is related to the Composers WikiProject which has been provided as a place for editors of biographical articles of music Composers and Songwriters to discuss common issues, discover neglected composer articles and exchange ideas. All who are interested are invited to comment and contribute. |
[edit] References
Sorry, on-line references must be available to everybody, not just to subscribers. This way it cannot be checked if the reference is complete and to the point. Downgraded to B-class because of this concern. Errabee 13:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- The New Grove is the standard music encyclopedia for non-popular music. It's available online, as a subscription, for people who do not have the 30-volume hard copy, or easy access to a library. Just about all of our articles on non-pop music use it as a source. Antandrus (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Using this encyclopedia is a long-standing practice in the "classical" music area of Wikipedia. In referencing the hard copy, you don't need page numbers since it's an encyclopedia--Corteccia is under "C", and the volumes are labeled on the side. If you want to downgrade the article to "B" because it didn't go through the official "A" rating process, that's fine with me, but I do need to clarify that we have well over a thousand articles that use the online Grove, and many are featured. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Sorry, on-line references must be available to everybody, not just to subscribers." Would you prefer that the article not be referenced? Can we then not cite JSTOR? Actually, as far as I remember, you can reference subscription-only cites if those cites provide a unique resource - which Grove does. The reference can be checked simply by going to the library and looking up the article in the print version. Only takes 5 minutes to check the reference because the articles names are the same, print and online. Moreschi Talk 16:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Your first sentence is simply rude and completely unwarranted, Moreschi. Errabee 16:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies, it wasn't meant to be. I was just pointing out that if you take away the Grove refs, you haven't got very much left. We have to work it so that they're acceptable one way or another :) Moreschi Talk 17:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Accepted :) First of all, as you may suspect, I'm not familiar with Grove, but somewhat more with JSTOR. The difference between these two is that JSTOR is a secondary source (because it is an online archive of research journals), whereas Grove appears to be a tertiary source. And for JSTOR, you definitely need to mention the author(s), subject and page numbers. As someone who read this article, it wasn't clear to me that a paper edition also exists (for JSTOR also a paper edition exists), which meant that the information would be unavailable to non-subscribers. And that is how the majority of readers would look at it. If Wikipedia is to have an image of reliability, it needs to be clear to readers that Grove is a reliable reference, which certainly wasn't clear to me. I also don't know how Grove compares to Encyclopedia Brittanica (which is used as example in WP:NOR for use of tertiary sources). Now I'm of course not saying you need to remove the Grove refs (on the contrary), but the way in which it is presented should definitely be looked at. Errabee 17:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I see what you're saying. So we probably need to clarify - adjust the citing format slightly, add something to the end - that a paper edition definitely exists. Grove is different from Britannica - Makemi said something about this in IRC the other night. I'll paraphrase - You go to the library wanting info, they'll say "Have you read Grove"? If answer if yes, "Have you read the Grove bibliography"? If answer yes, they looks shocked and start checking manuscripts. Something like that. The same is not true of Britannica. Pretty much everything in Grove is written by people who know what they're talking about. This probably has more detail - I usually do that link while citing, which probably helps a bit. Moreschi Talk 17:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Accepted :) First of all, as you may suspect, I'm not familiar with Grove, but somewhat more with JSTOR. The difference between these two is that JSTOR is a secondary source (because it is an online archive of research journals), whereas Grove appears to be a tertiary source. And for JSTOR, you definitely need to mention the author(s), subject and page numbers. As someone who read this article, it wasn't clear to me that a paper edition also exists (for JSTOR also a paper edition exists), which meant that the information would be unavailable to non-subscribers. And that is how the majority of readers would look at it. If Wikipedia is to have an image of reliability, it needs to be clear to readers that Grove is a reliable reference, which certainly wasn't clear to me. I also don't know how Grove compares to Encyclopedia Brittanica (which is used as example in WP:NOR for use of tertiary sources). Now I'm of course not saying you need to remove the Grove refs (on the contrary), but the way in which it is presented should definitely be looked at. Errabee 17:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies, it wasn't meant to be. I was just pointing out that if you take away the Grove refs, you haven't got very much left. We have to work it so that they're acceptable one way or another :) Moreschi Talk 17:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Your first sentence is simply rude and completely unwarranted, Moreschi. Errabee 16:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Yes, that's the beauty of Grove. The works lists for composers usually give the manuscript sources down to the library and shelf; the bibliography is enormous and thorough on everything, so you can depend on it as a grand-central-station to get you back to a primary source. If we needed to, we could program a bot to add the link to the hardcopy version to every article using the online reference (I use the exact referencing language that Grove gives on their own website, but we could add to it). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- In legal contexts where there is both a print and an online edition, we give the print citation then add on "available at [URL]". Including a citation to the print edition might be difficult here because, as far as I remember, Grove Online doesn't list corresponding page numbers (someone should check this though, I don't have access from this computer). Furthermore, this might be a special case because in today's culture, Grove Online is far and away the primary go-to point for readers -- the print editions collect dust in the reference section of the library. Thus, a citation directly to Grove Online (which is accessible through most public library systems and colleges) seems appropriate here. To alert the reader to the reliability of Grove, we can always wikilink that part of the citation to Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Fireplace 17:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- (edit conflict) I think I should note that "Grove Online" is technically a different edition from the latest print edition of Grove, some articles will be slightly different or updated, so giving a page number in the print edition would be 1) difficult for those who don't have immediate access to the print edition and 2) not entirely accurate. It is definitely a reliable. In the template citation I use for it {{GroveOnline}} it gives a link to the Wikipedia article about Grove, which would think would help with understanding that Grove is a reliable reference, despite being online. I have found that the most reliable online references do have subscription services, and are not free. Mak (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Just to clarify -- Grove is sometimes a tertiary but (more so than EB) sometimes a secondary source. There are a number of major articles which are the first time someone has interpreted in this way a collection of primary source documents or advanced a new theory. The amount to which 2ndNG and Grove Music Online differ is often exaggerated--since OUP is not paying the contributors to have most articles or bibliographies updated, the vast majority of the changes since the 2001 publication have been to articles on recent topics in ways that don't really require expert intervention (e.g. contemporary composer new works and death dates).
I find it rather disturbing that people are assessing the quality of WP biographies without comparing them to other published biographies of the same person. Shouldn't this comparison be the main judge of a biography's quality, with details such as citation style a distant second concern? In terms of comprehensiveness, accuracy, and integration of the most recent scholarship, this article is magnificent. If WikiProject:Composers ever comes up with an assessment scale, perhaps we could replace FA class with "Better than New Grove, or anything else out there for that matter" class. In that case, this article would rate as, "Better than Grove in many ways, but worse in a few (mainly analysis and bibliography), but overall wow" class -- or, in simpler terms, A class. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, to be honest, I feel uncomfortable about the online edition being different from the printed version. This seems to be a verifiability issue, because it can't be checked by people who don't have a subscription. Furthermore, if one would look up the ref in the paper edition, it might say something different, which certainly is a problem. I think those refs that rely upon altered information in the online edition should make this very clear. Errabee 06:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Just to reiterate my point above, not only is the online edition the primary edition these days, but it is also as or even more accessible than the 29-volume print edition, because most public libraries, colleges, etc., provide access to the online edition. Further, the {{GroveOnline}} citation template makes it clear that it is the online edition being cited, so I don't think any additional warnings are necessary. Fireplace 16:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Details such as citation style are extremely important for the way Wikipedia is perceived by its readers, by the media, and by professionals. Comparing biographies to other published biographies is a nice idea, but I think it is impossible to perform. It would only spark more controversy imho. Errabee 06:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Look, I hope you understand that your citation/verifiability argument here is completely spurious. Any music professional looking at this will know what Grove Online is, we have a link to Grove, most universities and colleges and many public libraries have subscriptions, it is far more available than many printed books, and it is an excellent resource. If Antandrus used the online Grove to write the article, he should cite it, and that should be good enough for anyone. Mak (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
