Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sonatas and Interludes

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:35, 30 December 2007.

Sonatas and Interludes

edit
check links

This is a self-nom and also my first time here. The article is about a major work by a very important avant-garde composer, John Cage. It had a peer review, which is now archived and has recently went to GA status. The GA reviewer suggested that the article may qualify for FA status, and since I can't really see how to improve the article further, I decided to give it a try. Jashiin (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about templates at WP:CITE#Full reference templates states that "the use of templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged by this or any other guideline." - are you sure they are mandatory? Jashiin (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence was put there in the distant past to resolve a historical dispute and does not have much practical application. Cite templates provide reference information in a way that is likely to satisfy the FAC process. It is, of course possible (but relatively difficult) to produce neat, informative and consistent references without using cite templates, but articles with naked URLs have no chance of getting through this process and I'm amazed this article got to GA with them. --Grahame (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let me get this straight: 1) Do I have to use the cite web and cite news templates for every one of the five links, or make an exception for the two that are a PDF and a streaming audio? and 2) Do I have to use the same templates for every recording reference in the Recordings section (it was originally modelled on Symphony No. 7 (Sibelius) discography, and the reason I didn't reference the links as usual was that it'd clutter up the notes section)? Jashiin (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got what you meant by "naked URLs" - I've just replaced all of those in the "Recordings" section with "cite web" templates. I hope this was what you meant. As for the rest, I'm still not sure whether I understand the requirements correctly. Do I really need to use "cite web" for the first reference, for instance? It is, after all, a dissertation, not just a web page. Jashiin (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that you do need to use cite web in ref 1, but I have modified it so that the link is tidier (in my view anyway), I've similarly modified ref 11, because it leads to a streaming audio. Refs 22, 42 and 45 are ordinary cite refs and I've changed them. Now I think the refs are OK.--Grahame (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I've learnt a valuable lesson from all this :) Jashiin (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're correct - I've changed "the former" to "the first" and "the latter" to "the last". Must've been a leftover from an earlier version of the text. Thanks for noticing this! Jashiin (talk) 08:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I won't oppose (not feeling mean at the moment), but it does need a lot of work. Have you got collaborators?

Thanks for your comments, Tony. No, I don't have any collaborators here, and it seems that very few people are interested in Cage-related articles. Jashiin (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The aim of the pieces is to express the eight permanent emotions of the Rasa Indian tradition, although Cage never specified which piece expresses which emotion, or if such a connection exists"—insert "specific" before "connection"?
I'm not sure why you think it is required there. The reader knows what connection we are talking about ("which piece.. which emotion"), and surely any such connection would be, so to say, "specific". The "specific" quality is referenced in the sentence by "such a" - ie. the one described, piece-emotion. Also, the sentence would then read as "Cage never specified if a specific connection..", which doesn't look good. Jashiin (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Jashiin (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cycle contains 16 sonatas"—"comprises"?
 Done But "comprises" is used later in the article in a similar sentence - I was aiming for variety. Jashiin (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Jashiin (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The technique of rhythmic proportions, which Cage used to compose Sonatas and Interludes, has already been developed by him in a number of works, but in this collection he elevated it to a new level of complexity." Disorganised and wrong tense ("had"): "In Sonatas and Interludes, Cage elevated his technique of rhythmic proportions to a new level of complexity." (I was toying with the naming of the previous works in which he'd developed this technique, but heck, this is only the lead. Name them further down?)
Uh, I'm not sure I understand. 1) Wrong tense where exactly? [had, not has] Tony (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Did you mean that the original sentence should have had "had already been developed"? 2) What do you see as disorganised? The technique used - has already been developed - but here it is elevated to a new level. Seems logical to me. 3) If I substitute the sentence with what you suggest, the "has already been developed" detail will be lost.[No, if it's "elevated to a new level of complexity in this work, of course it's been (partially) developed in previous works; you don't need to say so, and "a number of" is vague and unencyclopedic, so better not to try to give a sense of numbers until you specify these works later. Tony (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done

4) Mentioning some earlier works is a great idea -  Done (but not in the lead).

  • "In the resulting pieces a short sequence of natural numbers and fractions defines the structure of the work as a whole and that of its parts, including the construction of melodic lines." Bit flabby and awkward. Develop a radar for redundancy and hunt down vagueness. --> "A short sequence of natural numbers and fractions defines the structure of the work and that of its parts, informing structures as localized as individual melodic lines." But I'm still unclear about whether these natural numbers etc. are part of Cage's technique of rhythmic proportions (I guess they are—best to say so. Also, did he get the idea from Messiaen?) Hope you're going to say later how it's elevated in this piece?
Well, I went through your redundancy excercises a long time ago and received high marks :) But I'm sorry, I still don't understand what you're talking about. The "in the resulting pieces" bit wasn't just arbitrary; [but "resulting" is unclear: from what? Not a good connector.]
I changed the sentence, could you check it again? Because I'm not sure if this is good enough. I had to rephrase it further so that the reader understand there's a different sequence of numbers for each sonata, not one sequence informing all of them. Jashiin (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it was there to connect this sentence with the previous one. A = "The technique of rhythmic proportions blah blah", B = "The use of this technique results in blah blah". I didn't start the sentence with "the use of this technique" because then the word "technique" would've been repeated twice. The idea was not derived from Messiaen, and furthermore, I don't think that discussing the origins of this technique in any detail belongs to this article (I'm working on John Cage and it'll be covered there, PLUS in the article dealing with the first piece composed using the technique).
Now, about the numbers. I don't know how you read that sentence; to me it spells that the technique results in pieces in which "a short sequence of natural numbers and fractions defines blah blah blah", and of course that means that the numbers are a part of the technique. There's no one uniform sequence, naturally, the sequences are different in different pieces. Finally, although the technique itself is rather simple, explaining it briefly is very difficult. There's a passage in the "Structure" section that explains it, all kinds of details are mentioned and I even needed to make a graph to illustrate it. Given the complexity of that explanation, surely in the lead it would suffice to say what I have said? Jashiin (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that they are important in this context: dates of composition and dates of the composer's life. You'll see that in the rest of the article single years are never linked. This was discussed during the peer review, too. Jashiin (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC) What information on those four year pages deepens the reader's understanding, as required by MOS? Tony (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - you were right about this. Jashiin (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: An interesting article, with well-chosen images and a very thorough text. A bit wordy, and with the odd clumsiness. Here are some specific points you might address (some of which are already noted above, I see):
Thank you very much for your comments, they were very helpful! I guess the odd clumsiness comes from the fact that English is my second language. Jashiin (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced that rasa should be capitalised in Rasa tradition and Rasa aesthetic. The word is never capitalised at the article Rasa itself. Would you write Sonata tradition?
 Done
  • ...has already been developed by him. Why "has"? "Had" would be normal in the context.
The whole sentence has been rephrased per Tony's suggestions above; I'm not sure whether the current version is ok. Jashiin (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...defines the structure of the work as a whole and that of its parts, including the construction of melodic lines. Fiddly. Better: "...defines the structure of the whole work and of its parts, including the melodic lines." Note that the construction does not itself have a structure. There are too many needless "interstitial" words in this article.
 Done
  • With the last point in mind, you might compress the first few sentences after the lead. Try this: "Cage underwent an artistic crisis in the early 1940s.[9] His compositions were rarely accepted by the public,[10] and he grew more and more disillusioned with the idea of art as communication. He later gave an account of the reasons:..." (The date and other details can go in the note to the quote that follows.)
 Done
  • More of the same: "...an Indian musician who came to the United States concerned about Western influence on the music of her country. The purpose of music, according to Sarabhai's teacher in India,..."
I tried to rephrase the Sarabhai-related sentences, but, um, they really seem allright to me in their present forms. Certain details about what she decided to do in the US and who taught her can't be left out, I think. Jashiin (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Cage started studying the writings.... Sometimes an unintended alliteration (or assonance, rhyme, etc.) makes for distraction. Surprising and subtle, but true! Read your work aloud, to discover these things. Better: "...Cage began studying the writings...". Note also the ease of saying Cage be..., compared to Cage sta... (!).
 Done, didn't catch that. I actually do read these things aloud and usually spend at least one hour on each paragraph! :) Jashiin (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...four white (humor, wonder,... The opening bracket is not matched with a closing bracket. The whole complicated sentence needs recasting, perhaps as two or three smaller sentences. Avoid brackets within brackets; and if you can't, have square brackets within round brackets. (Here I use British terms.)
Well, I got rid of the brackets within brackets, but I've got no idea how to make three smaller sentences, and how to avoid repeating the word "emotions" (see the current version). Jashiin (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can listen to a short excerpt.... Avoid this second-person you, in accordance with this advice at WP:MOS.
That I have no idea how to change. Making it a full-fledged media sample like in most articles (ie. with a separate box near the text) is pointless, as it is a tiny sample illustrating the percussive side of the work. My first impulse was to make it "Listen to...", but that doesn't address the point, does it? Jashiin (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cage has also stated that.... Probably better like this: "Cage also stated that...". Especially considering that Cage is now dead.
 Done
  • The work on the project was interrupted.... The first the is unnecessary and "clogging". Again, detect such small infelicities by reading aloud: without haste, and preferably to some willing accomplice.
 Done
  • ...a ballet in one act which too was inspired by ideas from Indian philosophy. The which too was is a little unnatural. Try: "...a ballet in one act, also inspired by ideas from Indian philosophy."
 Done
  • Although critical reaction was not uniform,[22] it was mostly positive,.... "Critical reaction was uneven,[22] but mostly positive,...".
 Done
  • ...which Cage received in 1949 and which allowed him to make a six-month trip to Europe. During that time he met Olivier Messiaen,.... "...which Cage received in 1949, allowing him to make a six-month trip to Europe. There he met Olivier Messiaen,...".
 Done
  • ...on 7 June 1949, and befriended Pierre Boulez,.... "...on 7 June 1949; and he befriended Pierre Boulez,...". (Momentary but distracting uncertainty as to the subject of befriended. Note the semicolon.)
 Done
  • ...the salon of Suzanne Tézenas, Paris. "...of Suzanne Tézenas in Paris."
 Done
  • ...Cage's early period.". This is from a note. Don't duplicate such a full stop. In this case, the second should be omitted. See WP:MOS. Generally in the notes, make punctuation completely rational. (Full stop at the end of the note? Why, or why not? Some might need one because a new sentence is started within the note; some might not. Use a definite principle to settle this. Use the en dash consistently for ranges: one or two are hyphens, as things stand.)
 Done, this was a typo.
There's more where that came from, if you want it! See what you think of this instalment first, though. Also watch the abbreviation ie., which should be i.e. (two Latin words, not one). Don't let me discourage you! It's a fine article. Not yet polished to the standard that I for one would like to see. But it could be, soon.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 13:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thanks for your comments. Any other suggestions are very, very welcome! I guess that maybe I should've asked the league of copyeditors to assist me with this article. I submitted it to the FAC page because the GA reviewer suggested so and the prose was complimented during the peer review, so it never occured to me that such a through copyedit was required. I'm sorry I'm making you do all this work. Jashiin (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comments (I haven't read the above). "You can listen to a short excerpt from Sonata II, which is clearly inspired by Eastern music" - this seems a bit awkward. I thought self-references should be avoided? Wouldn't it be better to have a window on the right hand side, explaining the music? Also, I believe the notes section should be converted to a reference section. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment! Actually, this bit is currently being discussed above; the problem is that the sound sample here (like all sound samples in the article) is fully integrated with the text; its a tiny (8 seconds) example of the "percussive" sounds in the work. Putting it into a separate box would ruin this, and it seems kind of silly to me to have an 8 second sample in a big, separate window. That said, would something like "A good example of this is Sonata II, which is clearly inspired by Eastern music: [sample here]" be better? Jashiin (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Noetica again): OK, Jashiin, you have done some good work in response to comments above. I've actually gone in and edited a couple of things myself, since it would have been complicated to work more indirectly. See the links to the underdeveloped little article Navras, in particular. Note that the spelling of transcriptions from Sanskrit and other Indian languages is always slippery, but it's no big problem.
Let's move on to Analysis, now. First, here and everywhere else you should make the dashes regular. The article uses the unspaced em dash most often—which I personally don't like at all, though it is the most usual choice. Put it in place of the spaced hyphen ( - ) and the spaced en dash ( – ) that we see in the article. Usage in the notes and other "end matter" is more problematic, but at least be consistent with all dashes there, too. Particular points:
  • ...in Sonatas and Interludes the preparation of the piano is very complex...: "...in Sonatas and Interludes the preparation is very complex...". No needless repetition.
  • 4 pieces of plastic: "four pieces of plastic". Consistency: words for numbers up to ten (compare other numbers nearby), as also for numbers starting a sentence. (I don't like this practice, but it is there at WP:MOS.)
  • the detailed instruction: "the detailed instructions".
  • no strict plan to which to adhere: "[...] if you enjoy...": "no strict plan to adhere to: "if you enjoy..."." Less stilted and pedantic; far more idiomatic. And drop the square-bracketed ellipsis: nothing resembling a risk of ambiguity or misattribution here.
  • ...roughly three areas: the low, the middle and the high registers, of which the first is the most heavily prepared and the last has the lightest preparation.: "...roughly three registers: low, middle, and high. The low register has the heaviest preparation, and the high register the lightest." Crisp and clean; avoids first and last, which take time and patience to process. Note the serial comma, which is standard in this article.
  • ...and much of the pianistic character of the sound,...: "... and a pianistic character;...". Note the semicolon.
  • ...drum-like sounds, detuned versions of the original notes or metallic, rattling sounds that...: "...drum-like sounds, detuned versions of the original notes, or metallic, rattling sounds that...". Study the sentence with and without that serial comma after notes. See how it makes a correct reading much more likely, and much easier?
  • ...which makes the hammers strike only two of the three strings of each note: "...which makes the hammers strike only two of the three strings of each note (or one, for notes with only two strings)".
  • but sounds fairly normal: "but it sounds fairly normal". The it improves the grammar and the clarity.
  • on particular notes, still others: "on particular notes, and still others". Otherwise you'd need semicolons.
  • [Caption:] Listen to the definitive recording by Maro Ajemian,...: "The definitive recording by Maro Ajemian,...". G4-flat: "G-flat4" (consistency). Serial comma after that "G-flat4". Spelling: discernible. Em dash, not spaced en dash.
Coming along well, Jashiin! We'll get there, I think. Fix those things, and then I'll have a few more for you.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 02:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, thanks again! I've left the spaced hyphens in the text of "Recordings" section unchanged for now - I think em dashes just wouldn't look right there. If we can't leave them like that, could we change them to commas maybe? (this doesn't apply to the hyphens in references; those are used for page titles and the actual page titles use hyphens).
Also, I've just added a short sentence to one of the references in "Piano preparation" (its a last minute addition that I've been thinking about for a long time, I wasn't sure if the article needed it) - I tried to make it as compact as possible, but I guess its still not exactly right; could you please check that as well? Its the latest edit. Jashiin (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Noetica, yet again): Nice work, Jashiin. That addition you mention looks all right, but the note as a whole might be clearer this way: "See examples of analysis in Perry, and in Nicholls, 83–84. Nicholls also points out that some of the sonatas have identical note combinations." Does this say what you mean, and in a more focused way? Note the in before Nicholls, too. Clearer that way. O, and in that caption we talked about last time, shorten to "The soft pedal is depressed..."; note that is frowned upon (except as I use it, in discussion here) as mere filling. Now let's look at the section Structure.
  • The cycle comprises 16 sonatas and 4 interludes, arranged symmetrically. Four groups of four sonatas each.... Ah, yes. This is a real difficulty with numbers. What to do? When you get "statistical" in your writing, it looks bad if you stick rigorously to the policy of words up to ten, figures above ten (which you don't do, anyway). I'll have a look back over the earlier parts again; but here I recommend what major style guides recommend: override the rule in favour of consistency. So: "The cycle comprises sixteen sonatas and four interludes, arranged symmetrically. Four groups of four sonatas each...". (In fact, such a case is what motivates me to prefer the word–figure break at a hundred.) Then continue with the same policy for the rest of the article, yes? In running text, reserve figures for identifying numbered items, and proportions, etc.
 Done, although I'm not sure if I corrected all the instances. Should "10-bar" be "ten-bar", too?
  • That said, you have been seriously inconsistent in applying numbers to sonatas and interludes. You mix Roman numerals and Arabic numerals: "Sonata III", but "sonatas 9–11". Tsk! Make these consistently Roman, for all sonatas and all interludes, including ranges. "Sonatas IX–XI", for example. Or Arabic numerals, if the original score and the existing analyses prefer those.
 Done
  • ...i.e. they are not built, like classic sonatas,...: "i.e. they are not built, like classic sonata movements,...". As I'm sure you are aware, sonata form is something for a movement of a sonata to have, not a whole multi-movement sonata.
 Done, whoops! :)
  • ...most of them adhere to the structure of the old sonata model (found, for example, in the works of Domenico Scarlatti) in that they, too, consist of two repeated sections, and their structure is AABB.: "...most of them have the structure AABB (two repeated sections) found in pre-classical sonatas, like those of Domenico Scarlatti."
 Done - I also capitalized Classical in "pre-Classical" (Boulez does it later on in a quote, so I thought I'd change it here too for consistency - or am I wrong?) and wikified it.
  • prelude, interlude and postlude.: "prelude, interlude, and postlude." Serial comma.
 Done
  • ...given a separate title Gemini—after the work of Richard Lippold: "...given the joint title Gemini—after the work of Richard Lippold". Otherwise the scope of the title is indeterminate. And put the link after the italicised title: "...referring to a sculpture by [[Richard Lippold|Lippold]]." And no link for sculpture, I suggest.
 Done
  • on both macro- and microscopic level: "on both the macroscopic and the microscopic level". Easier this way. Though the floating hyphen was technically correct, you need the intervening, and microscopic is too "fused" already to work with that hyphen.
 Done
  • The structure of the piece is AABB, units are separated by a double bar.: "The structure of this sonata is AABB, and the units are separated by a double barline." The piece is the whole composition. Bar, measure, and barline are notoriously jumbled in English. Be careful: consistency, so that beginners are not led into confusion.
 Done; I removed the second part of the sentence (, and the units are separated by a double barline.) because this is already covered in the previous sentence. I guess I didn't notice that before.
  • The first section, A, consists of a single unit, the music in which is composed according to the given proportion (corellation on the microscopic level).: "Section A consists of a single unit, composed according to the given proportion: correlation on the microscopic level." Grammar with which was non-standard; redundancy in calling a section both A and the first section; spelling of correlation.
 Done
  • This section is repeated twice, and, as it consists of a single unit, AA forms first part of the proportion on the macroscopic level: 1, 1 (units).: "A is repeated, and AA forms the first part of the proportion on the macroscopic level: 1, 1." If this is not what you mean, then I cannot grasp your meaning, and you need to rethink how to communicate it. (By the way, repeated twice would yield AAA!)
 Done
  • The second section, B, consists of...: "B consists of...". You set up this shorthand with A and B, so use it!
 Done
  • Since this section is also repeated, this results in the second half of the proportion: BB equals to 3¼, 3¼ (units).: "B is also repeated, and BB gives the second half of the proportion: 3¼, 3¼."
 Done
  • Therefore AABB = 1, 1, 3¼, 3¼ (corellation on the macroscopic level): "Therefore AABB has proportions 1, 1, 3¼, 3¼: correlation on the macroscopic level." Your meaning? (Watch spelling, once more.)
 Done
  • the musical phrases in each unit: "the musical phrases within each unit". The emphatic form within is needed here for contrast.
 Done
  • This kind of effect is achieved by using asymmetric musical phrases.... Which kind of effect? Your meaning is obscure. So is a lot of the rest of the paragraph, I fear. Let's return to that later.
The point is that the proportions here are so complex that Cage had to use asymmetric musical phrases, constantly changing time signatures, etc., to make them work. Then I give an example of how complicated some of Cage's solutions can be. Two other things had to be mentioned: the adherence of the last four sonatas to the 10-bar unit, and the fact that the microstructure of a sonata may deviate from its designated proportion.
  • Cage has frequently used...: "Cage had frequently used...".
 Done
  • ...the technique and its variations before. After all that, it is not obvious which technique exactly you are referring to here! Try to find a phrase that neatly identifies it.
Well, there's no standard name for the technique; the explanation of it in the previous paragraph actually begins with a name: The main technique Cage used for composition is that of nested proportions:.. We can't start this paragraph with a sentence like "This technique is called.." or "Cage had frequently used this technique of nested proportions..", because this information is already given in the previous paragraph. Hmm?
  • which was the first piece to use it: awkward repetition of use in a slightly altered sense. Then also: partly because fractions are used, and one of the last to use this technique, and would switch to using. But let's leave all of that too, until we've clarified what precedes this paragraph.
  • between the tradition and the innovation: "between tradition and innovation". Do I detect a trace of Slavic uncertainty concerning the definite article the? :) Actually, the is possible in this case, but unnecessary and a bit unnatural.
 Done Ouch, you got me there! :) In school they had taught us some very strict rules about the articles; later I studied on my own, but I guess that some of that school training remains and I tend to be either very strict about articles or very uncertain about whether I need to use "the" in a particular case.
Keep at it, Jashiin! This was the hardest section, and still needs a little work. Make changes as I suggest; rethink as I suggest. Then I'll have another couple of things to add about this section, and also about the remainder. I think it will all be fine, after that.
One last thing. Go back to an early caption: John Cage and Maro Ajemian, the pianist Cage dedicated Sonatas and Interludes to. That to is really awkward at the end, especially since you have no full stop. In fact, do put full stops at the end of all captions. And change this caption: "John Cage with the pianist Maro Ajemian, to whom he dedicated Sonatas and Interludes."
 Done
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 07:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, and sorry about the delay. Jashiin (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Noetica, nearly the last time, I think): It's looking good, Jashiin. I have just now edited a few things myself, along the lines discussed above. See what you think. Have I worked out your meaning accurately? I had to guess at one or two points. I'm still not sure about this: This kind of effect is achieved by.... It occurs at the start of a paragraph, which makes the intention even less sure. You explain above: but now put something in the text that sums up your intention crisply and briefly.
When you're satisfied that all of your meanings are properly reflected in the text, I think you should address the "end matter", by which I mean the references and everything else that follows the main text. Some small matters of punctuation need regularising. Apply an eagle eye to this. (Don't make me exert the full force of my own pedantry!) An example: here and there you have things like "p. 35–66". For a start, this should be "pp. 35–66", and you should regularly have a hard space (see WP:MOS) to avoid bad line breaks. You do it like this, every time: "pp.&nbsp;35–66". HOWEVER: in fact you should not use the form "p. xx" at all, because the style you have established for page numbers and the like is simply "xx", and "xx–yy", yes?
Fix all that, and raise any further questions with me. Then very soon I'll be happy to give the article my commendation.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 00:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the paragraph. Now it starts with some general information on proportions and the detail about the last four sonatas' proportions (before, that detail was kind of detached from the rest of the paragraph; I provided some context). Then I give the explanation we were talking about, slightly reworded. "In many" is there to avoid using the words "frequently" and "frequent" too much; I think it is a little bit vague but I can't think of anything else just now. Anyway, is this better? As for your edits, I agree with every one of them.
I also changed the formatting of references; now the "p. xx" scheme is used throughout (I thought that simply "xx" would look confusing in magazine article titles and such, because of the amount of numbers involved. I also added full stops everywhere for consistency. Jashiin (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Noetica): I like those changes, Jashiin. I have done a little more housekeeping myself, just now. I also made a redirect article Makrokosmos, since that seems independently useful and also avoids a redlink in this article. You might want to check my changes, and perhaps make small amendments.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your help; I checked the changes and they seemed good to me. Jashiin (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. This article came to us already in pretty good shape. Since then, Jashiin has responded extremely well to suggestions for its improvement, conscientiously polishing the details. Sonatas and Interludes is now well and truly worthy of acceptance as a featured article, and as an example of what can be achieved at Wikipedia. It should inspire other editors of music articles to strive for a similar standard of excellence. I commend it to editors here, and I urge that it now be accepted without delay.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 22:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes; References are incomplete and incorrectly formatted (see WP:CITE/ES). All sources need a publisher, author and publication date should be given when provided, and all websources need last access date. Also, there is WP:OVERLINKing and WP:MOS#Captions puncutation of sentence fragments needs to be corrected. OF concern; since your websources don't have identified publishers, did previous reviewers check for reliability of sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks Sandy. I agree that some things need addressing with referencing. I had thought that most of this would have been fixed in the earlier review, but apparently they were not.
Please note this, from Wikipedia:Mos#Exceptions:

Within a context or a list, style should be consistent (either There were 5 cats and 32 dogs or There were five cats and thirty-two dogs, not There were five cats and 32 dogs).

On the basis of that ruling, which clearly applies in the present case, I am a reinstating words for numbers at a couple of points.
I had forgotten the ruling about captions. Thanks for reminding me!
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 01:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. The issues with captions and overlinking have already been fixed either by other contributors or me. But I'm not sure exactly which references you're naming incomplete and/or unreliable. There's publisher/author/publication date for every single book, dissertation and article referenced. The web links: I've added a "date accessed" to the Grove Online reference, the Ishii dissertation and the Cott interview. Not counting the Grove dictionary, which is obviously reliable, there are three kinds of web references in the article: newspaper articles (again, obviously reliable; dates of publication etc. all given), record label websites (yet again, obviously reliable) and "additional" URLs: ie. the Ishii dissertation was used as such, the URL is provided for convenience, not as a web source. Naturally the dissertation is a reliable source. The situation is the same with the Cott interview: Other Minds, Inc. does not have any details on the exact date of the recording, but otherwise it is a completely reliable source. If you think otherwise because of the date uncertainty, I can remove it from the article, because most of the things Cage said there were referenced in Pritchett, Nicholls, et al - I can simply add some more citations from those - its just that the article already relies on those books a little bit too much, and I thought adding some more sources, especially an interview with the composer himself, would be a good idea. Jashiin (talk) 09:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sonatas_and_Interludes&oldid=1138471761"