Talk:Dorico

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 September 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 28 May 2016 by reviewer LaMona (talk · contribs).

Computing: Software / RISC OS Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is within the scope of the RISC OS task force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Music theory Mid‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical music: Compositions

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Media Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Release date

This was announced in a press release ([1]). Should we include that in the article? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pianist Magazine review

Some third party voices would be helpful here. I've invited User:Justin Tokke to join this discussion regarding their reversion of my addition of information from Pianist Magazine's review with the following comment:

"Removed Pianist Magazine review under WP:QUESTIONABLE. It is extremely biased and is littered with misinformation."

As with WP:REVERT, Justin, could you give more information regarding your statement about the source being extremely biased and containing misinformation? What do other editors think? To me it appears to be a reliable source.

I have since added a reduced version of my content due to WP:BABY. The Dorico article is still short at the moment and would benefit from more content and more reliable sources. Drum guy (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Pianist article reads as promotional to me. Phrases like "much more efficient notation experience", " something that other notation software just isn’t clever enough to do" and "this feature to be perfect for ..." make it seem promotional. That the article finishes with "Simply visit ... to purchase your copy" makes it appear more so.

If it's so good, there must be other, less biased, reviews.

As a side note, the version history is way too detailed. Microsoft_Word#Release_history is less detailed. peterl (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What peterl said. It's a very biased review, and something that presents the status of the development of competing softwares as fact, except it's an opinion. There's lots of Dorico reviews out there, find a better one it you want quotes for the article. Justin Tokke (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made another attempt. @Justin Tokke, I've tried to use different sources. I'm not sure I've quite got it right overall but I'm trying. @peterl, I agree that the "Simply visit ... to purchase your copy" does make the Pianist Magazine source less reliable. Good point, and thank you for taking the time to be specific. Drum guy (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a consensus that the value judgements in the Pianist Magazine article are not necessarily reliable. Following that, I'd like to invite a discussion including @peterl regarding my proposal to delete the sentence:

However, Pianist Magazine has warned of Dorico's learning curve; for example it may take patience to learn the keyboard shortcuts.

It was pointed out to me that Dorico's learning curve is not particularly different to other programs, or notable. Rather, reliable sources such as Deller, Tony (2019) and Nowakowski, Mark (2020) both describe the program as intuitive. Given the doubt, I propose deleting the sentence to fit in with a "just-the-facts" focus as suggested by Help:Editing. I would be grateful to hear your views. Thank you. ShyCormorant (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Music Teacher Magazine review

I've also added a reference to Music Teacher Magazine's review. What do other editors think of this? It would be good to have more people join the discussion. Drum guy (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@peterl, thanks for improving the version history. Regarding Music Teacher Magazine's review, I wonder if it's possible to discuss the quote in question. It's disputed whether this is an opinion or fact, and whether it's worth including. The review says:

There are now three ‘professional-level’ notation programmes available: Sibelius Ultimate, Finale and Dorico. However, the only one of the three under significant development is Dorico

My first draft of that for the article became:

According to Music Teacher Magazine, the three leading professional-level progams are Finale, Sibelius and Dorico, of which only Dorico is currently under significant development.

There are regular new versions of Sibelius and Finale but they are minor as opposed to 'significant'. Perhaps the wording of the quote could be improved.

I would be very grateful if more people could offer an opinion. Drum guy (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Drum guy. Yes, more ideas would be useful. My view on the Music Teacher quote is that it's probably useful to include, as there's not a lot of reviews, so at least that is something. Again I am concerned about the bias in it - we have predictions like "I think it is important to realise that Dorico is the notation programme racing ahead of the pack, with huge plans for the future." which is terribly WP:CRYSTAL, and again we have possible advertising bias with "To find out more and purchase the software visit...".

I have an issue with the word "significant". It seems to be being used to imply that the other programs are abandonware, which is clearly not the case, and is being used to imply that only Dorico is in "proper" development, which is difficult to prove, especially from a third-party source. That's why I removed it. peterl (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole tone of this entry is promotional. "Professional Level" is really a marketing term, lots of professional musicians use programs outside the three listed. I'd take a look at other notation software entries, I looked through some of the others and they largely stick to facts around the product origins and features. This is a crowded product field (see List of music software#Music notation software) and the Music Teacher Magazine reference just seems problematic ("significant development" quote is odd given the constant product release in this area), etc.

I would avoid anything that tries to compare products. I don't think there is an authoritative source qualified to track development schedules, and the market has segments (classical composers, media scoring, education, different music genres, desktop v tablet, etc.) each with their own needs. Lyle (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User feedback

@Peterl, did you want me to clarify my use of references? I am grateful for your edit as I think the tone is now more encylopaedic.

I saw that your edit summary was:

Strongly is a bit strong; one of the refs doesn't mention it.

I hadn't clarifed particular quotes from the two sources -

The quote from Scoring Notes is:

The degree to which Dorico’s sophisticated user base influences development is also evident. The Dorico team is listening, and messages on the official forum go directly to the developers.

The quote from Ask.Audio is:

With an extremely active online community and a very responsive development team

In case you wanted me to clarify, there it is. I'm not sure if I should add the reference quotes into the 'quote' field of the citation as a general rule. I don't see it often elsewhere so I haven't done so. Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Drum guy. No, I didn't specifically need clarification of refs. I had changed the sentence:

"The development team is strongly influenced by user feedback, "

to

The development team is influenced by user feedback, "

as the refs didn't mention the word "strongly" (nor imply it), and there was no indication that this assertion would be supported. Of the two refs, only one of them even mentioned user feedback. peterl (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Good point. Regarding user feedback, I understand both quotes above to be relevant. Drum guy (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]