Talk:Transition from Renaissance to Baroque in instrumental music
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Transition from Renaissance to Baroque in instrumental music is within the scope of WikiProject Music, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to music. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
 |
A fact from Transition from Renaissance to Baroque in instrumental music appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 9 July 2007. |
 |
 |
Transition from Renaissance to Baroque in instrumental music was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: July 24, 2007 |
[edit] 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)
- I'll take a look later this evening when I have some time. Thanks.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
