Wikipedia:Peer review/Gregorian chant/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gregorian chant[edit]

I've recently overhauled the Gregorian chant page, expanding the history, giving documentation for areas of disagreement, going into more musical analysis, giving thumbnail sketches of the different chant genres, and recording appropriate samples of Gregorian chants to illustrate certain points of the text. I've asked several of the Wikipedians who edit early music to give feedback, and incorporated their suggestions. Please give feedback with an eye to helping this article reach featured article status. Thanks! Peirigill 04:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy t 15:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've responded to a couple of the issues there. One thing which an actual human could look at is the lead, which looks quite good to me. Mak (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article is really strong. Here are a few suggestions:
    • It is a problem about the image, because it is much clearer if there is something next to the neumes section. Is it legal to have a calligrapher copy something from a copyrighted source? The edition is copyrighted, not the music or the notation style, right? If this were a perfect world, you could find an image of Alma redemptoris mater to put next to the sound file.
      • I think the image problem is resolved, by using the excerpt from the Liber usualis as the sample of square notation (the same one that adorns your "Chants of the Mass" table!). Mak and I are weighing the advantages of another image he has available. Peirigill 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I think I prefer the LU excerpt to another actual MS, since it shows the chants as many modern people see them, and there is already the example of an original MS at the top of the page. Also, close-up, it's easier to see the variety of neume shapes than it is in a whole distractingly illuminated page. Rigadoun 16:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also suggest that there be a sound example of responsorial chanting, placed to make it parallel with the example of recitative and antiphonal chanting.
      • I'll see what I can come up with. My main reservation is that you can't hear centonization from just one example, and I don't want multiple samples for comparison - they're just too long. When I give a sample, I want to give the reader some inkling of what they're supposed to be listening for; otherwise, chant comes across as aimless and interminable. But I agree that it would be good to have all three types of psalmodic chant represented. I'll see what I can do. Peirigill 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Another in-Tract-able problem solved. It's not perfect, but I just don't have the sound editing skills to fine-tune it. (sigh) If someone else wants to sing it better, they're welcome to do so. Peirigill 04:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it can be done without bogging down in details, it would be nice to have a better characterization of the dispute of the authenticity of the Solesmes chants. There is a citation given, so it's not weasel-y, but it would be nice if there could be a brief explanation of the main issue.
      • Done, by pointing out some particularly controversial editorial practices in the Solesmes edition. Peirigill 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's better. Another possibility, incorporating the comments on Talk:Gregorian chant by User:Gimmetrow, would be to split off a lot of the rhythmic discussion into something like Problem of chant rhythm. It applies to many chant traditions (Eastern, too; Armenian chant, for example), so it could be a general discussion of the issues and controversies. And you clearly don't have enough other articles to work on! :) Rigadoun 16:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Finally, it's always nice to have no red links, so the more of them you could make reasonable stubs for, the better (and it's better than just de-linking them!) Rigadoun 21:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: The image -- how about this? Image:Ad te levavi.jpg it has Gregory, yes, but it's nicely illuminated, shows border, as well as grotesques, and also shows a slightly different form of notation. Sadly, it's black and white. If there's a specific chant you'd like me to get from a gradual, let me know and I'll see what I can do (it would be a similar quality image though). Mak (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Please help us all by running this on all peer review candidates. bobblewik 19:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused. I had originally wikified all dates because I had read somewhere that that allowed dates to show up properly regardless of the particular reader's preferences for date formatting. Then I read that you're not supposed to wikify dates unless they're relevant. Now you're referring to "reducing links to solitary years" - do you mean "reducing the number of dates that are formatted as links," or do you mean that I should reduce the linked dates so that only individual ("solitary") years are linked, as opposed to ranges of years like "1445-6" and decades?

I read WP:DATE and WP:WIKIFY, but I'm not seeing something that explains preferred wikipolicy for dates. Any help will be greatly appreciated! Peirigill 22:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the whole peer review page. This user basically spammed this message. I've already unlinked solitary years and spans, which I didn't think added much to the article. Full dates (i.e. December 7, 1986) are supposed to be linked so people can put in their preferences, so it will variously show up as 12/7/1986 or 7/12/1986 or 7 December 1986 or whatever. Basically it's so people don't constantly change the dates. I think the article is fine in this regard now. Mak (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tool is designed to ignore 'preference dates' and identify 'non-preference dates' only. It highlights them all at once in 'show changes' edit mode. As usual with this mode, you can save, cancel or amend the edit. An example of a solitary year is ... in 1811, the French .... Decades and centuries are also 'non-preference'. Date ranges often look broken even if they contain a preference date i.e. November 12-15 when linked will become 12 November-15 for some readers. At this time, the article has the following non-preference dates '1811', '885', '13th century', and '12th century'. Hope that helps. bobblewik 12:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. bobblewik 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the addition of a responsorial chant sound file, I think that's every suggestion, both here and on the talk page addressed. I'd like to submit it to FA; what's the protocol? Peirigill 04:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AndyZ's javascript suggestions[edit]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
    • The article was just over 30,000 characters, so WP:LEAD recommends a lede of three paragraphs. I've expanded the lede to comply. Peirigill 18:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
    • I've de-linked these. If you think any are particularly relevant, feel free to re-add those. Mak (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
    • I only found one instance of this, and changed it. Mak (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
    • Added image of Gregory I to lead. I'm not sure if it would be better to use either the image of Gregory receiving holy inspiration, or perhaps a facsimile of the actual music. Mak (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • An image of Gregory I really isn't appropriate; one of the goals of this article should be to debunk the popular misconception (repeated a number of times in other Wikipedia articles) that Gregory I wrote or codified Gregorian chant, even though he predated it by nearly two centuries. A lead picture of Gregory reinforces this misinformation. An image of the music would be better, although I'm concerned we've already tapped out all the pictures of plainchant in Wikicommons. I'm curious whether the sound file of Alma Redemptoris Mater might count as the corner "image"? Peirigill 18:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was afraid of, I just worried that I'm the only person who finds facsimiles of early music interesting. How about Image:Graduale Aboense.jpg? (I feel dumb but I can't feel 100% positive that this is Gregorian chant). Mak (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Facsimiles are great - some are quite beautiful - but despite their being over 500 years old, most available reproductions are under copyright. The chant from the Graduale Aboense is definitely Gregorian, but it's really far more effective juxtaposed with the example of earlier neumes in the "Notation" section. I hate to lose that juxtaposition just because WP regulations want something pretty up top. Peirigill 19:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bit the bullet and relocated the Graduale Aboense image to the top of the page. Peirigill 20:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I'll see what I can do. I might be able to get an image, but it won't be nearly as pretty as the Aboense one. I know a guy... Mak (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
    • Um, I doubt it. I didn't see anything that looked relevant. Mak (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
    • I have no idea where this suggestion came from. Mak (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please alphabetize the categories and/or interlanguage links.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • allege
      • The two uses of "allege" are, I think, appropriate; one is of Gregory's "alleged" writing of the chant, which the article clarifies is NOT factual, and the other is of the popular view of Gregorian chant as monotonous, which again reflects popular perception and not necessarily reality. Peirigill 18:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • apparently
      • Removed the line with "apparently." Peirigill 18:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Gregorian_chant/archive1&oldid=1138561622"