Wikipedia:Peer review/Henry Cowell/archive1

Henry Cowell

The seminal figure in the flowering of modernist classical music in America is deserving of a featured article...whether or not that has been developed is the question. The article is supported by three daughter articles—string piano, tone cluster, and The Tides of Manaunaun—and one...er...brother article—Leo Ornstein. Any and all suggestions, dissensions, improvements solicited.—DCGeist 07:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's unusual that the lead almost entirely comprise a large slab of quoted text. Why not paraphrase the quote—or most of it—and in the body of the paragraph, perhaps quote just a sentence or two ('No other composer ...'?), with a reference citation at the end of the paragraph ([1]). Not sure I like 'Bible' in this global forum; 'fecund and right' is odd; so is 'radical and normal' without further explanation. It's a little hyped—more authority to be gained from being restrained at the top. So, you can do better than VT's raw words. I'd also like to know just a little about his style at the top, in not-too-technical terms. Just so I can place him in the history of 20th-century music.

• • I'm a little unclear on some of these comments—please elaborate: (1) Granted that the lead containing a large slab of quoted text is unusual—is unusual structure a problem per se? Might not unusual be unusually provocative and intriguing? (2) Thomson clearly uses "Bible" in a colloquial sense that has been common among English speakers for centuries—this is really a problem? (3) "Fecund and right" is unusual, to be sure—as it's an example of clear, strong, pungent writing and not the sort of meek, safe blandness that makes the average reader feel comfortable and sleepy—"odd," if you must, but really a problem? On the other hand, your implied point about "radical and normal" being unclear without explication is unquestionably well taken. Could you please sign when you reply? (Something I often forget to do first time 'round myself) —DCGeist 07:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Are there one or more 30-second sound grabs that you could position at strategic points in the text to illustrate what you say about his style. The article would then come to life. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#Guidelines for using sound excerpts. Tony 01:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Great idea. I'll get on it. Do you have a suggestion for a Wikipedia music article that presents such sound clips in a particularly effective way? —DCGeist 07:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing about the lead - I'm not sure if WP:LEAD covers quoted stuff or not. Expect resistance if you keep it this way at FAC time. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

DCGeist— WP's superb potential for illustrating text with musical excerpts has only just starting to be expoored (see initial my attempt at the top of Johann Sebastian Bach, an article I'm gradually rewriting before FA nomination. (I intend to add several more further down to illustrate claims made in the text.) Here, the excerpt is a whole track because I have rare permission to use it from a recording company. Otherwise, 'fair use' restrictions apply, and it's all the better if your text refers specifically to aspects of the music in the excerpt, or to the excerpt as a whole (i.e., educational function). Thus, using commercial recordings without permission is the way to go, but 30 s each is about the limit (starts of movements, I guess). The main features of Cowell's style might be illustrated in several short excerpts, and either referred to in the text ('Excerpt 1, 2, 3', etc) or the icon provided close by.

With respect to the long quote in your lead, WP should have enough authority to say this without directly quoting another source, at least, not a large slab. It's just not as engaging for the reader, and is certainly not 'provokative and intriguing'. By paraphrasing, you can deal with all of the other points. Tony 08:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)