Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Andalusian cadence/archive1

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 not promoted 04:56, 3 September 2007.

---

Andalusian cadence

A while ago, I've found this article on Wikipedia, stopped for a while and read it. The whole thing was awfully wrong and I decided to fix it and to show explanations for every step of the analysis procedure.

Having just read a great book about tonality, written by one of the best Romanian music teachers, which happened to have had all the related explanations inside, I've tried to present this subject in a way not much too foggy, but neither too thin. I also thought of the reader with lesser knowledge of music theory and tried to include some functional basics of tonal harmony.

I didn't feel like adding more than one image, which seems to me a very clear depiction of the whole thing. There are plenty of examples, maybe more in classical music should arrive, and I'd be glad to find a helping hand for that. I've too mentioned some examples which alter the cadence somewhat, but one may still think of it or hear the pylon-chords throughout and should like to watch a tonal explanation for a moment. There is also a slight parallel with the lydian cadence, a thing the initial author of the article had puzzled with this (so that some readers who first thought of that variant as more logical would find out why they're wrong).

O.K., that's all the material I had to boast! ;) The reason for featuring this article was, except for the fact that I've worked with it for a number of days, that the subject is not much too generous, so that the article's size at the moment seems optimal to me. And it shouldn't also be shorter, as there is a number a notion which may seem difficult to some. Thank you for your time! (Impy4ever 18:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

Comment The article is a bit brief and specialized for a FAC. However, my main concern is the lack of any audio example of the cadence. An .ogg file of the cadence on, say, piano or guitar would be helpful. --Ianmacm 19:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: When you said you stumbled upon the article a few days ago and worked on it, that kind of sent up a red flag. It isn't uncommon for FAs to have been worked for six months, a year, or even more to bring them to their state. While that is certainly not necessary, or required, there is a reason why it often takes so long. Because it takes a lot of knowledge of the topic, as well as correct form and Wiki-conventions to be an elite article. Of the four featured article criteria, I recommend addressing the following:

1. Basic criteria met?:

1a. Well written? Mmmm. It is good, but highly technical. While I acknowledge that this is a specialized article and most of its readers will likely come from a musical background, I think it could still be written with slightly more accessibility. A music sample, while not mandatory, would work wonders towards this end.

• "chord progression comprising four" - "chord progression comprised of four"
• " it is as old as the" - " it dates back to the " (the Renaissance is over, so that statement had a teeny logic issue)
• "the centuries made it one of" - "the centuries has made it one of "
• "may now most" - "may then most"
• " in Ancient Greece existed a very " - " in Ancient Greece there existed a very "
• "derived the Dorian mode" - "the Dorian mode was derived"
• "One must not forget" - not really encyclopedic to address the reader or give admonishments
• "out of a melodic pattern didn't take place" - "out of a melodic pattern likely didn't take place" - it's unlikely, but unproven and not impossible (the author will rethink it out)
• "Therefore, one can consider it as a trademark" - needs to be rephrased. Again "one" is bad. Also "can consider" - sounds like "you can believe this if you want to, or you can go and eat jellbeans" (i'm kidding, really :) ) Either state that this is a fact, or reference an authoritative source that believes this to be true. Also, the paragraph that begins "However, the mentioned structure..." should be merged with teh previous paragraph.
• "the chords' structure" - "the chord's structure"
• "proves more advanced knowledge in music theory" - "arose as a result of advancement in music theory."
• The bullet that begins "the Andalusian cadence closely" has no references
• "With this said, the Phrygian" - "This said, the Phrygian"

1b. Comprehensive? Doubtful, although I wouldn't know how to expand it.

1c. Factually accurate? I'm confident that it is, but it's hard to discern that since there are few inline citations or references.

1d. Neutral? Yes

1e. Stable? Yes

2. Complies with Manual of style and relevant WikiProjects?:

2a. Concise lead section? More of an itroduction to the topic and not actually a summary (which is what a Wikipedian lead is supposed to do. Read here for more info.

2b. Hierarchical headings? Yes

2c. Table of contents? Yes

2d. Sufficient inline citations?

• Not a single inline citation and only one reference, which is simply (to be honest) unacceptable.
• All inline citations should appear after terminal punctuation (eg - periods, commas, etc...)

3. Properly placed, tagged and/or rationalized images?: Yes

4. Appropriate length?: Very short. This might be a better good article candidate.

When these issues are addressed, note the changes here and notify me on my talk page. Thank you for your work so far. — Esprit15d 21:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually Esprit15d, "comprised of" might not be the best there, as strict grammarians gnash their teeth at that particular phrase. The general rule of thumb is: the whole comprises parts while the parts compose the whole. They'd say that either "progression comprising four" (as before) or "progression is composed of four..." is correct. "Comprised of" is certainly gaining more acceptance, but "chord progression comprising four" would be more universally accepted than "chord progression comprised of four" at this point. 69.202.63.165 02:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Again, the article's main author. I've been working for five days now, almost without a pause, and fixed and added whatever was to be fixed and added. It's really difficult to extend the article more than it is now, without gracefully quiting the topic! And it is style that I've worked on, citations, attractivity (methinks), audio samples. Wikipedians, please vote for this article or at least leave comments and suggestions. Thank you again! (Impy4ever 21:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

• Oppose, prose and MOS. The second sentence says "see below", indicating organizational attention needed to the lead, and e.g. and i.e. are in use in the lead no less (see WP:MOS). The lead has various parentheticals like this which don't convey a brilliance of prose. WP:MOSBOLD problems throughout, and we find the same parentheticals and go here-go there-see below prose in the body; the text needs better organization. Section headings could be revisited per WP:MSH. WP:DASH and WP:ITALICS problems (on foreign phrases). Attention needed on citation formatting, see WP:CITE/ES. All sources need a publisher, websources need last accessdate, author and publication date should be given when available, and a consistente format should be used. Suggest a peer review to get this article in shape for FAC candidacy. The prose is going to need sustained attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Someone else struck my comments. Please read the instructions at WP:FAC; I've unstruck them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—Poorly written, plus conceptual issues. By "descending chords", do you mean any set of descending chords, or a specific set? What are descending chords, anyway? Bass descending by step? Needs a proper definition at the top. Don't say "Note that". "Tie sign" = "Tie"? Surely en dashes to indicate chord progressions? Tony 05:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone struck parts of Tony's comments; pls read the instructions at WP:FAC and unstrike. Other editors' comments should never be struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. As far as I know, British English prefers the "tie sign" phrase to just "tie". (Impy4ever 09:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Comment. Why don't you try it, boss?, read a line in a certain video game. No really, it was obvious that my article couldn't make it to the FAs but it would really help if some of you opposers had me a couple of messages sent or added topics on the article's very talk page. You see, I'm quite a rigorous person, but at this point it is quite difficult to discern things when only my little Wikipedist experience is available. While you cope better than me with some issues (e.g. style), why not help after all? It'd take you a shorter amount of time to do it than it would to me. All in all, it's not my article, and it's not my "cause"; I guess all Wikipedians should show a little interest, since some are not off-topic. And please don't feel like biting! I think I've already done some work with this article, and I'm about to improve it, just do more than criticize. Please! (Impy4ever 05:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

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.