Talk:Charles Frederick Horn

GAN
I'm not so sure this can be considered comprehensive. The Charles Edward Horn book, for example, goes into more detail on some interesting and useful information (e.g. the description of the adapted quartettos on pg. 84). This book also contains info that might be helpful. Why include only "selected works" in such a short article? Might as well be comprehensive. I'm not sure if it might still meet the WP:WIAGA criteria, which only requires that it "addresses the major aspects of the topic". I'll let someone who knows the standard interpretation of that make the call, assuming someone doesn't expand the article so I have more confidence that all major aspects are addressed. Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's certainly not comprehensive. However, I'm not that familiar with how the GA criteria are applied, so I thought it may meet the "broad" criteria. I guess we'll see. Budding Journalist 15:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

GAN on hold
Yeah, that's all I could find. Leave me a note when done. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "he was the third of their four children." - this just sounds slightly odd when he hasn't been named this section...
 * "Horn, however, would often furtively practice music instead" - really wordy, a few redunancies
 * "John Wolfgang destroyed his" - "he destroyed..." would be better? (I dunno, maybe not, your thoughts?)
 * "who sympathized with Horn's plight" - again, would "with his plight" sound better?
 * Thanks for your comments. I believe I have addressed all of them. When originally writing the "John Wolfgang destroyed..." sentence I went back and forth on that one, but I ultimately chose to go with the clarity of "John Wolfgang". I think I've come up with a better solution though, so that the clause doesn't use all "he"s and "him"s. Again, thanks so much for the comments! Budding Journalist 11:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good, so passed. It reads a fair bit clearer now. Nice work. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC) (Cue automessage...)

This GAN has passed, and this is now a good article! If you found this review helpful, please consider helping out a fellow editor by reviewing another good article nomination. Help and advice on how to do so is available at Reviewing good articles, and you can ask for the help of a GAN mentor, if you wish.

Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)