Template:Did you know nominations/O clap your hands (Rutter)

The following 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

O clap your hands (Rutter)

(

)

~~... that a reviewer came to like John Rutter's anthem O clap your hands better decades after he first found the jollity of its beginning "a bit relentless"?~~ Source: [1]

Reviewed: ~~to come~~ Renee Rabinowitz

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 16:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC).

Article is new enough and long enough. The hook is fine but I would suggest a slight rewording of the hook by putting "better" before "like" than before "decades". QPQ was fulfilled as well. Other than my suggestion for the hook I think this is good to go. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 05:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

You mean this?

ALT1: * ... that a reviewer came to better like John Rutter's anthem O clap your hands decades after he first found the jollity of its beginning "a bit relentless"?

Precisely. :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Reviewer needed to check ALT1, and also to check for neutrality and close paraphrasing/copyvio, which doesn't seem to have been done as part of the initial review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I suggest this rewording:
ALT1a: ~~... that a reviewer came to like John Rutter's anthem O clap your hands better 40 years after he first found the jollity of its beginning "a bit relentless"?~~ Yoninah (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you think "decades" is much weaker than 40 years? - The years also would have to be in the article, which at present just says "many years", - and perhaps we should use that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not that it's "weaker", but "better decades" doesn't flow well in English. Adding another word before "years" helps the cadence of the sentence. A comma also helps to improve comprehension. I like your idea of "many":
ALT1b: ... that a reviewer came to like John Rutter's anthem O clap your hands better, many years after he first found the jollity of its beginning "a bit relentless"? Yoninah (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Lovely! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. More complete review of nomination and of ALT1b needed. Yoninah (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Needs work for some issues with sources: (1) Much of the material cited to OUP I'm simply not finding at the linked page. If referring to this pdf of the 3-page music score sample at the Oxford site, you should make a separate citation for it. (2) Analysis of the score sample (ie: "grouping the eighth notes in a measure 3 + 3 + 2") may be considered original research since such analysis is not obvious to the average person with non-specialized knowledge. You really need a reference which gives the analysis. That goes for the OUP citations in the second paragraph of History and music. (3) I didn't find a source for the Hebrew original (ie: the translation of shofar) or the Psalm's association with the Feast of the Ascension. There appear to be sources for these in the article on Psalm 47, if you could check and add them. (4) Need a citation for the album Gloria. (5) The source uses the spelling Heikki Liimola instead of Hekki Limola. (Not sure if that's a typo.) I hope I'm not being too picky. Please let me know when the citations are in order, or if you have any questions. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for looking. Sorry for being too tired, just short reply: I will add the pdf extra if you think that's needed. - Saying 3+3+2 is like saying a dress is blue on a painting, - it takes no research, just observation. - The psalm translation is on wikisourece, and in the Vaughan Willams piece, will copy. - Will look for Gloria, remeber seeing it, but perhaps failed to add. - Probably typo. - Will ping you when done, no rush. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Reidgreg, (1) I now split the OUP pdf, and (2) used the Dickey ref a bit more. I avoided to use his description, because I always have trouble to say these same things in other words, therefore I stayed more with the score which everybody looking can verify. I didn't say anything such as "This means ...", only things one can see. (3) I added a Hebrew - English ref. (4) Gloria is the first of the listed recordings, saying so on the pictured cover. Do you want that to be split as well? (5) my typo.

You made a nice disambiguation page. There are 150 psalms, all have an incipit in Hebrew, Latin, English, German ... - ,many more chances for such things ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; I may investigate DAB needs there the next time I clear my plate. FYI, the last DYK I reviewed was pulled from the queue for problems, so I'm trying to be thorough here.

In the 2nd paragraph of History and music, I styled the marked terms from the sheet music in italics. MOS:WORDSASWORDS allows for double quotes but leans toward italics. Italics helps differentiate from the lyrics and other short quotes in the paragraph, and italics is also consistent with style guidelines for loanwords like tranquillo and fortissimo (MOS:FOREIGNITALIC). I formatted the wikisource reference in {{cite wikisource}}, did a little paraphrasing around Magnificat (which also receives italics as a major work), and used a template for the ³
₈ time signature. Feel free to revert.
I was unaware the information for Gloria was in an image. Thanks for putting the sheet music in a separate reference, that can help if there's future link rot. If you want to fill out another citation directly to the muziekweb album page for Gloria that'd be great, but I won't disapprove this over it.
The psalm is often associated with the Feast of the Ascension, because it mentions God going up with a shout. The citation covers the second half of this but not the first. Often associated by whom? Is it the same as the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles mentioned by Dickey? There is a specific reference at Psalm 47#Christianity, but I can't currently access Google books from my location, and can't add it to the article myself without verifying.
Rutter set the text in one movement in D major. It's been a long time since I read sheet music, but it looks a lot like G major to me. Am I wrong? I've asked at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Sheet music about how much information we can draw from sheet music.
Since jollity is used by the source, would you consider changing that word in the hook to something like liveliness or cheerfulness?

That's it for now. Holding my full review for opinions on the scORe, but otherwise this is pretty much ready. – Reidgreg (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence, and the italics. - I split the Gloria ref, and added a bit. - Ascension is not the Jewish feast. I added the Dürr ref. Better than just see that "ascend" and "go up" was seen as related, by many ;) - Key: we can drop it if you prefer. The notation is for G, but it begins on D, and he added the C-sharp as an accidental every time, no idea why. Will remove it. - I'd prefer to use "jollity" as a very specific word. I tried to have it in quotation marks, but it looks strange. I don't think one word would be a copyright violation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

After reviewing the essay Wikipedia:Using sheet music sources I am approving the reading of the sheet music. FYI, I've added in-text attribution to the sheet music (per the essay) and changed the year for that reference to 2015 per the bottom of the first page of the sheet music sample. I also tweaked the last paragraph a little to break up a very long sentence. The quote is long enough that it could be put in a block quote but I don't really like the look of that at the end of the article.

Approved: Article is new enough, long enough, neutral, very well sourced (with formatted citations), and free of close paraphrasing, copyvio and plagiarism. Hook is well formatted, interesting, neutral, and cited in article. QPQ verified. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)