Wikipedia:Peer review/Johann Pachelbel/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Johann Pachelbel[edit]

This is a top quality classical music biography, and was sadly recently rated B by a non-musician (as far as I can tell). My relative inexperience on Wikipedia has discouraged me from changing this rating, but I think that other biography reviewers will see what I mean. A musicologist should preferably make the decision! Matt.kaner 11:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a glace at the article and the main issue to strike me is the lack of citations. For this article to move up to GA class it would have to be fully cited. Additionally, the article lacks a comprehensive critical analysis of Pachelbel's work. There is some information on his reputation by other composers in the section "Posthumous influence and the rise of popularity of the Canon in D", but how do musicologists regard him? Otherwise, the article is well written and nicely organized. Is there not an image of Pachelbel? That should be included as well. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit[edit]

I thought this was an excellent article. I have played classical piano for over 20 years now, so I come to the article with some musical knowledge. Here are my suggestions:

  • A lot of the prepositions and prepositional phrases in the article are not quite right. There are also missing articles and a few awkwardly placed clauses. You might think about having the League of Copyeditors look at this or having a trusted wikipedia editor review it for you. These problems seemed isolated to the Biography section.
  • The article cites a lot of people in the biography section as if the reader knows who they are; they should be identified with a phrase so that we understand why we care about Pachelbel's relationship to them. I noticed this problem in particular in the 1673-1690 section.
  • The Works section, while an excellent analysis of Pachelbel's music, may be a little too technical at times for the general reader. The editors might consider defining some of the terms to make it more accessible.
  • I assume the reason this article was given as "B" rating is because of its lack of citations. See WP:CITE. If you want to submit it for GA or FA, you will need to add quite a few citations. Most of the musical analysis has no citation at all.
  • Some small writing issues that FA reviewers tend to latch onto and that you will want to fix before submitting it to FAC: 1) first-person (I saw some "we" constructions); 2) redundancies ("early youth"); and 3) red-links (create the page or de-link).

Overall, a very good page. Awadewit 05:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by MarkBuckles[edit]

Wow, what a nice article!! Just needs more inline citations, especially when the reader might have a question about the source of a somewhat subjective statement. Here are two examples from the lede:

  • "However, he did not have much influence on the most important composers of the late Baroque such as Johann Sebastian Bach." Later on this is qualified with the statement "He did influence Johann Sebastian Bach (indirectly: the young Johann Sebastian was tutored by Johann Christoph Bach, who studied with Pachelbel)". This is a bit confusing.
  • "[Canon in D] is somewhat unrepresentative of the rest of his oeuvre." How so? Who says?

Best wishes, MarkBuckles (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)