Talk:Blood on the Floor (Turnage)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Aza24 (talk · contribs) 11:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Happy to review this and glad to see it at GAN! Except comments in the next few days. Aza24 (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm at a course just now so I may take time with my replies. Best, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 12:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aza24, I'm back from the course now for whenever you have comments. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 01:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I am getting distracted by IRL things. I shall endeavor to do this later today. Aza24 (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aza24: apologies for being a pest. Will you be able to undertake this review soon? It's been a few weeks and I am wondering whether you are still able to review. All the best, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 23:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Not a pest at all—a completely fair question. I should be able to get to this now—IRL has cleared up. See below for comments:

General comments

• You can remove the hatnote–since people searching "Blood on the Floor" will be brought to a disambiguation page, they'll have the option to choose the Bacon painting there (notice how the Bacon painting does not have such a hatnote)

  done - S

• Skipping the lead, will come back after reading the article

Background

• I find the rather short Background section rather odd. It doesn't give much context to who Turnage is, gives no years and is frequently redundant ("whose works are frequently influenced by jazz music. His compositions fuse classical and jazz idioms," is redundant; this remark is also included in the Character section, where it makes more sense) Perhaps you'd consider moving material from this section into others. The improvisation remark (which should be altered, see below) could be in the Character section, while the Gunther Schuller and Gibbs remarks could be cut entirely (they seem needlessly trivial, but I can understand Schuller's inclusion more). Everything else seems mentioned elsewhere.
• The line "Although his works combine classical and jazz music, Blood on the Floor was the first time that Turnage had integrated improvisation into one of his compositions" is not entirely clear to a lay reader. Presumably you are implying that although improvisation is a key aspect in jazz, Turnage hadn't used it before—we shouldn't be assuming readers will draw this connection. In addition, most jazz-influenced classical composers do not use improvisation (or purposefully refer to it by a different term, i.e. aleatoric/chance-music, just do deferentiate themselves), so this is rather unique for Turnage specifically
• We could use a year(s) for context in the Background's 2nd para

  Unfortunately the source gives no date for reference - S

Composition

• "more than an hour long" could mean an infinite amount of different times :) Perhaps "slightly more"?

  Changed to "a little more than an hour long" - S

• Since Heather Betts does not have a Wikipedia article, a brief word of context would be valuable. I.e. "[Nationality] artist Heather Betts"

  I could've sworn I had done that before, apparently not. Now done - S

• I'm not entirely convinced that "Inspiration" needs to be its own section, but if you would prefer it to be I see no real issue

  I would prefer it to, as it seems to help readability, at least for me - S

Structure and music

• tonal, movement and metres should be linked

  Done - S

• Individual movements are never italicized, they're always in quotes. Each instance should be changed appropriately
• the Motifs section makes more sense before the movements I believe. It may be better suited as just a paragraph of the character section

  Moved. Since motifs form such a large part of the composition, I think a subsection is justified - S

• Quaver should be linked (for non-BrE speakers, you might put the American equivalent in parentheses)

  Both suggestions are done - S

• I'm assuming that the Hughes poem is being set wordless? I.e. music is set to the words but then the words were removed and the music remained? Corigliano did this in the 3rd movement of his first symphony. This should be clarified somehow—for an unsuspecting reader this may just cause confusion ("where is the singer?")

  Added "wordless" - S

• Surely an excerpt of the actual poetry would be more helpful to the reader than just a picture of Hughes? Would recommend using a quote box (this is done on Sappho and Ezra Pound, for instance)

  How much of the poem would you say is appropriate? The poem is 39 lines, with a rather large first stanza. - S

  Not sure. It'd be ideal to keep a stanza together, maybe the "Yes, easier to get dope..." one? It seems not too long a length and important in the context of the poem, since "easier to get dope" is said twice – Aza24 (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• "A notable feature" is a bit atypical for Wikipedia-speak. Presumably we only discuss notable features to begin with. How about just "The latter's solo is frequently interrupted by the brass section"

  Changed - S

• Do we have an exact Premeire date for the Performances section?

  Unfortunately no - S

• Reception section is solid
• This should hopefully get you started. Will check the lead and Movements section soon. Looking ahead, the lead is far to long for a somewhat short article like this—it should be three paragraphs at most. Aza24 (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you kindly: I will respond to these points in the coming week. I was considering taking this article to FA after this review, so if there is any additional tweaks or fixes you can suggest to help me get this article to that standard, it would be much appreciated. All the best, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 23:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  The smaller fixes are done, will do the rest when I get access to my laptop. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 11:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Aza24: all concerns have been addressed. Awaiting further comments. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  Schminnte, the article is looking really great. Thank you for the lead cutting—I know that kind of thing can be annoying (don't want to loose too much content!) but it is definitely essential to readability and a huge improvement. I've spotchecked a few sources and see no issues. I also see no issues with media, formatting or reliability of sources. I am happy to pass this review now!

  I should note since you asked about FA (these things are probably beyond the scope of GA, so this doesn't affect the passing): for FA purposes, you will probably have to have strong rationales for DMA theses ready, as they are often not considered particularly "high quality". (On the other hand, PhD thesis are usually considered high quality). You will also want more identifiers in the sources (Oclcs, Isbns etc. Theses should all have oclcs) and it is common practice to include locations of publishers, though this is not explicitly required. The lead could also do with a sentence about the recordings, since the lead is ideally supposed to sum up every section. Aza24 (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.