Talk:Major thirds tuning/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Review by Curly Turkey
Reviewer: Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) 07:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Always had an interest in alternate guitar tunings. Looking forward to reading about this one.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 07:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Duplication: To avoid even more edit conflicts, I copied Curly's text, to which I replied below. This has resulted in some duplication, which is confusing. However, it did avoid edit conflicts! Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  14:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Is it necessary to put so many sets of string intervals (such as "") on separate lines?
 * It is not necessary, but it increases legibility and is standard in WP articles on guitar tunings.
 * My concern is the frequency, which breaks up the article in an unpleasing way. It looks a mess. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I generally prefer clarity for my reader over superficial pleasant browsing for somebody looking at the lede and moving on. I'll examine whether all of them are needed, and delete those that are not. 13:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not a superficial reader. I'm an amateur guitarist with a long-time interest in alternate tunings, and I find it a mess.  I have trouble reconciling the idea that clarity is incompatible with clean organization. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you not try to reconcile yourself to a strawman. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  17:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're trying to accomplish with a comment like this. I give up.  I refuse to continue with this review.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 21:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Re-read the statement to which I replied. A strawman is a position that nobody holds that is attacked for rhetorical purposes. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  22:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Aside from the offensive level of condescension, you've also showed an embarrasing lack of comprehension.
 * I'm telling you that I, as a concrete, corporeal, real-life, actual reader, find your writing a mess to navigate. Whipping out "strawman" at this point is a fine example of a non-sequitur.
 * This whole GA thing is a community-based process in which editors are called on voluntarily to help each other develop the best articles they can. I'm trying to help out, and all I get from you is condescension, attacking my use of "==>" (do you really think I care?  I'm not changing it), your insistence on trying to make a manual and guidebook out of an encyclopaedia article, and telling me that you know there are more sources out there to round out the comprehensiveness of the article, but you're above actually doing it yourself.  Oh, and I'm just supposed to hand the magic GA medal over to you, because...well, just because, eh?
 * I don't get paid to do this. I don't even get a pat on the back.  If my only profit is to suffer from your hubris and condescension, then I'll go waste my time elsewhere.  There are articles to edit and guitars to play.  I'm taking this page off my watchlist.  Hopefully you can find another editor sloppy generous enough to wade through this recursive mess of a GAN page, forgive the article its bizarre mannerisms and obsessive image sandwiches, and pass it for you.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 02:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Curly Turkey,
 * You are upset, and so I shall let pass most of what you said.
 * I have recorded in edit summaries many acknowledgements like "Did A, per suggestion of GAN reviewer".
 * I have acknowledged many times on this page that implemented a change, per your suggestion:
 * Sometimes I implemented what you suggested directly,
 * sometimes after a discussion (like the EL images), and
 * perhaps most often after I've rewritten a sentence or section.
 * Your "suffer from your hubris and condescension" reminds us that "when you point a finger at me, you have four fingers pointing at yourself".
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz  09:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed most of the listings. 20:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)
 * avoid self-references like "", etc.
 * Please read WP:SELF, which you misunderstood.
 * Lead
 * "": why the semicolon?
 * A matter of taste, but certainly standard written English. The semicolon emphasizes the parallelism of form and content. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  13:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "": missing a colon, as in previous example?
 * No, the previous sentence expressed a complete thought: After the colon came the example. This sentence is not a complete thought without the new-line examples, and so a colon would be improper.
 * "": drop "the singular", "the alternative plural" and "the abbreviated". Even better if you can work them into the first sentence.
 * I removed the modifiers in the lead, which do prevent a person from twice reading "major-third" and wondering why is the title repeated (because he missed the absence of the "s").
 * This would be less of a problem if, as I suggested, they were all moved to the first sentence (as in many articles), where the difference would become obvious. Curly Turkey (gobble)
 * Your suggestion was followed in the introduction. The body maintains the descriptors, partly to allow the eye to absorb the separate citations.
 * "": "so providing" ==> "which provides"
 * Yours is another way of writing the thought. "So" is more informative than "which".
 * "": contestable. An "according to" would be in order.
 * The proposition is documented in the body of the text. It's documented in reliable sources. M3 tuning has some disadvantages, which are discussed. However, nobody contests that proposition. Notice that the proposition lacks universal claims like "all improvisation by all guitarists at all times".
 * Given that the tuning is not widely know, it's not surprising that "nobody contests the proposition". That's not the same as saying it is incontestable. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is incontestable, but I'll repeat the citations in the lead. (Again, the lede ends with the intentions of Ralph Patt, addressing this point with an atribution.) Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  20:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "": "precisely the aim" ==> "which was the aim"
 * Possibly. Let me think about it. Now I prefer "precisely" which nicely modifies "aim" and besides packs a punch, which is how a good lede should end. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  13:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * An alternative to standard tuning
 * drop "an" in section title
 * "": is "the" necessary? I'm not familiar with "the standard tuning", only "standard tuning".
 * "" One-sentence paragraphs are to be avoided.  I think this info could be nicely smooshed into the opening paragraph.
 * "": stray parenthsesis
 * "": "Indeed" unnecessary
 * "": ??? Wouldn't one imagine so?
 * Properties
 * "": drop "In fact"
 * Four frets for the four fingers: Chords
 * Cut "Four frets for the four fingers: Chords" to just "Chords", or maybe "Chord fingerings"
 * "": drop "exactly"
 * "", etc: spaces after commas
 * "": why the italics?
 * Regular musical-intervals
 * "": drop the italics
 * Repetition
 * "": drop "after"
 * Shifting chords: Horizontal, vertical, and diagonal
 * "Shifting chords: Horizontal, vertical, and diagonal" ==> "Shifting chords"
 * drop italics for "diagonal", "horizontal", etc
 * "": drop "Indeed"
 * "": better==>"chords. This complexity"
 * Left-handed chords
 * "": is "music theory" the same as "the theory of music"?
 * History
 * "": "had been" ==> "was"
 * "": "later by" ==> "later from"
 * "": drop parentheses, link Pickup (music technology)
 * The history is very short. Is there really nothing more to this tuning than Ralph Patt?
 * The history is very short. Is there really nothing more to this tuning than Ralph Patt?


 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * The first paragraph of the "Properties" section has no inline citations.
 * Some uncited lines in "Shifting chords: Horizontal, vertical, and diagonal"
 * As per WP:SEEALSO, the See also section should only contain internal links, so the link to the Commons pdf should be in the External links section
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Are images necessary to illustrate an external link? Isn't that like advertising the link?
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Why is there a non-free image of Ralph Patt in the infobox? Does this help the reader in identifying the content of the article in any way?
 * It's great that there are so many Commons images that can be used for the article, but the sheer number of them is really cluttering it up. Can they not be rearranged or cut down?
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Why is there a non-free image of Ralph Patt in the infobox? Does this help the reader in identifying the content of the article in any way?
 * It's great that there are so many Commons images that can be used for the article, but the sheer number of them is really cluttering it up. Can they not be rearranged or cut down?
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Replies by Kiefer.Wolfowitz
I copied Curly Turkey's comments, to allow him to continue while my replies did not create more edit-conflicts. The intention was clear, but the result created both clarity and confusion. Kiefer .Wolfowitz  14:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Well written?

 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:


 * Is it necessary to put so many sets of string intervals (such as "") on separate lines?
 * It is not necessary, but it increases legibility and is standard in WP articles on guitar tunings. I reduced the number of such listings. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  16:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * avoid self-references like "", etc.
 * Please read WP:SELF, which you misunderstood.

Lead

 * Lead
 * "": why the semicolon?
 * A matter of taste, but certainly standard written English. The semicolon emphasizes the parallelism of form and content. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  13:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "": missing a colon, as in previous example?
 * No, the previous sentence expressed a complete thought: After the colon came the example. This sentence is not a complete thought without the new-line examples, and so a colon would be improper.
 * "": drop "the singular", "the alternative plural" and "the abbreviated". Even better if you can work them into the first sentence.
 * I removed the modifiers, which do prevent a person from twice reading "major-third" and wondering why is the title repeated (because he missed the absence of the "s").
 * "": "so providing" ==> "which provides"
 * Yours is another way of writing the thought. "So" is more informative than "which".
 * "": contestable. An "according to" would be in order.
 * The proposition is documented in the body of the text. It's documented in reliable sources. M3 tuning has some disadvantages, which are discussed. However, nobody contests that proposition. Notice that the proposition lacks universal claims like "all improvisation by all guitarists at all times".
 * As noted above, that statement now has a footnote in the lede. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  21:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "": "precisely the aim" ==> "which was the aim"
 * Possibly. Let me think about it. Now I prefer "precisely" which nicely modifies "aim" and besides packs a punch, which is how a good lede should end. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  13:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Avoiding the irregular intervals of standard tuning

 * An
 * An alternative to standard tuning
 * drop "an" in section title
 * There are many alternatives. It also sounds very strange without the "an". Complete compliance with the MOS is needed for FA, of course.  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  13:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC) The MOS prohibits articles in titles, but not in section headings (although it notes that articles should be avoided in many cases).  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  16:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC) I reworded the heading to avoid the "an" question.  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  21:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The
 * "": is "the" necessary? I'm not familiar with "the standard tuning", only "standard tuning".
 * Apart from Russian guitars (which are tuned mainly in major thirds), the standard tuning is unique, and so the definite article is informative.
 * In nineteen years of playing guitar, I have yet to encounter "the standard tuning", and I have to admit, the logic is going straight over my head. How is "the standard tuning" more informative than "standard tuning"?  Curly Turkey (gobble)  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 13:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are four classes of major-thirds tunings, indicated by their open-string notes (pitch classes): Each of these can be shifted higher or lower, or have additional strings... (There are many variants of open C tuning, for another example.) In contrast, there exists exactly one standard tuning (for the Spanish guitar). Consequently, what I wrote is correct and more precise than your suggestion. On the other hand, if you judge "the standard tuning" to be OR or undue, or to be a bad idea for another reason, then such judgements would likely be decisive: That is, I would likely remove the "the". Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  16:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gone through and rewritten most of the "the standard tunings". More needs to be done! 22:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: Was "the standard tuning" intended to mean "the most standard major-thirds tuning"? If that's the case, it wasn't clear from the context at all.  It seemed to me that "the standard tuning" was meant to mean EADGBE.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 23:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Answer: No. Of course, the standard tuning referred to the standard tuning of the Spanish guitar. This has been clarified in the section of the body. I reworded several cases of "the" and I may do more tomorrow. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  00:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC) I believe that this problem has now been addressed by revisions....  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  14:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "" One-sentence paragraphs are to be avoided.  I think this info could be nicely smooshed into the opening paragraph.
 * Compliance with the MOS requires no new information in the lede. However, leading writers like Malleus use common sense to avoid repeating boring information. I'll delete it. (The information has been in the lede.) Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  13:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "": stray parenthesis
 * Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 21:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "": "Indeed" unnecessary
 * Done!
 * "": ??? Wouldn't one imagine so?
 * This was taken care of. (8 strings are mentioned in Patt's bio, but no longer here.) Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  14:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Properties: A big section

 * Properties
 * "": drop "In fact"
 * Done.

Four frets etc.

 * Four frets for the four fingers: Chords
 * Cut "Four frets for the four fingers: Chords" to just "Chords", or maybe "Chord fingerings"
 * A good suggestion for a template of a series of articles. However, not inviting or informative for the reader, who wants to know quickly why M3 tuning is interesting.
 * Nope. This is a proper use of the colon. Your writing an implication symbol is strange, and the suggested implication false.
 * "": drop "exactly"
 * Nope, something like "exactly" or "only" is needed for precision. A finger can be responsible for one fret while being responsible for two.... Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  22:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "", etc: spaces after commas
 * Done.
 * "": why the italics?
 * The italics emphasize why the standard tuning C7 is called "Drop 2". Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  22:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC) I think that I removed the italics, which don't seem informative for readers not interested in solving puzzles. Thanks again.  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  14:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The italics emphasize why the standard tuning C7 is called "Drop 2". Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  22:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC) I think that I removed the italics, which don't seem informative for readers not interested in solving puzzles. Thanks again.  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  14:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Regular intervals, and repetition

 * Regular musical-intervals
 * "": drop the italics
 * Done.
 * Repetition
 * "": drop "after"
 * Good!

Shifting notes and chords

 * Shifting chords: Horizontal, vertical, and diagonal
 * "Shifting chords: Horizontal, vertical, and diagonal" ==> "Shifting chords"
 * Nope. Shifting chords by 12 frets is trivial. The horizontal and diagonal shifting of chords (and notes) is interesting. As before, your suggestion is appropriate for a template of a bunch of articles on guitar tunings, but fails to entice the reader to read this article.
 * drop italics for "diagonal", "horizontal", etc
 * Italics are used for emphasis on Wikipedia, for example, here.
 * "": drop "Indeed"
 * I think I did this, during a copy-editing session. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  21:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "": better==>"chords. This complexity"
 * Moot. The section has been rewritten. The last sentence was overkill with the message that standard tuning requires more fingerings. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  17:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Lefty tuning

 * Left-handed chords
 * "": is "music theory" the same as "the theory of music"?
 * "Music theory" is Teutonic neo-Skeltonic tub-thumping. Besides, I smash enough nouns together in Swedish.

History

 * History


 * "": "had been" ==> "was"
 * Nope. This is another misuse of the implication symbol. However, I changed this already. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  23:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "": "later by" ==> "later from"
 * However, I changed this already. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  23:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)You mis-parsed the sentence. Please stop misusing the implication symbol.
 * "": drop parentheses, link Pickup (music technology)
 * This section has been shortened and the detail about Patt's guitars removed. I'll make the change to the Patt article, though. Thanks! Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  16:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The history is very short. Is there really nothing more to this tuning than Ralph Patt?
 * Other editors are welcome to contribute more history, using reliable sources. I would suggest examining these "*

- Kiefer.Wolfowitz


 * If you know there is more history to add to the article, but you insist on leaving it to "other editors" to add, then the article will fail GA for not being "broad in its coverage", as required below.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 23:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is broad in its coverage. Please search with Google Scholar or Google books if you don't believe me. Your speculation ("if") is unhelpful. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  00:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Reading comprehension check: there is no speculation in that "if", any more than there is in "If you're here, then help me clean the kitchen". You've suggested there's more to cover, but that you can't be bothered to do the work yourself.  You've got the choice of either telling us there's nothing else significant to add, or to add whatever else is significant.  Telling other people to do the work is unhelpful.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 02:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * First, regarding "reading comprehension check": Review what Ceoil wrote to you.
 * Second, given that I've read everything and seen no reference to the Russian guitar in relevant RSes, I don't think there is anything. Any open tuning is a semitone away from a major-thirds tuning, obviously, and so any discussion of repetitive open-tunings (e.g. Russian) could possibly contain a discussion of the trade-off between having easier major-chords versus regular intervals (that can be used everywhere). The open-tuning literature is covered by Google and Google Scholar/Books, who show nothing. The very small literature on Russian guitar is not covered by these sources and is relatively inaccessible. Regardless, the Russian tradition had no documented influence on the inventors Patt and (20 years later) the French guitarist Zemb (whose blog is credible because of Patt's jazz-group acknowledgement, unreliable at WP:RS), so any search is superfluous.  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  15:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A Mel Bay book (translated apparently from Finnish) on composers for guitar and lute uses the phrase "C major third tuning" for English guitar, and has been added to Open C tuning and English guitar. This apparently specifies the CEGCEG tuning of the English guitar, which is nearly a major-thirds tuning. However, it would be OR and synthesis to extrapolate this connection, so I have not mentioned the one sentence here.  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  11:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

MOS?

 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

Verifiability

 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:


 * The first paragraph of the "Properties" section has no inline citations.
 * That paragraph is a lede for the section. I've copy-edited it to explain its lede function. The citations for all of its statements are given in the following subsections. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  21:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Of course, citations can be added, if a GAN reviewer insists.  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  16:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC) For the sake of conformity and submission, I added footnotes some days ago.  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  21:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Some uncited lines in "Shifting chords: Horizontal, vertical, and diagonal"
 * I rewrote this section, removing (boring, and also mild OR) "horizontal" (12 frets) and adding citations for the vertical and diagonal. "Diagonal" is not used by the sources, which (as the quote by Sethares indicates) do describe diagonal shifts. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  21:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC) DONE imho
 * As per WP:SEEALSO, the See also section should only contain internal links, so the link to the Commons pdf should be in the External links section
 * I moved it. Reaper Eternal thought it was hunkey dorey for Ralph Patt.


 * C. No original research:

Broad?

 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * B. Focused:

NPOV?

 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:


 * Are images necessary to illustrate an external link? Isn't that like advertising the link?
 * Of course they are not "necessary". However, they are informative and free media from the Commons, donated by Oberlin before I created the M3 images in the article. Listing the link is "like advertising the link". The images are unconventional, but they do illustrate the interest in Oberlin's site, ie its clear diagrams. I added his images in the spirit of the call for external links to be annotated, and 1-2 pictures are worth a thousand words of annotation. Why don't I remove one or merge them? Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  22:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Or remove them entirely? They only repeat what is already shown in File:Chords in major-thirds tuning C, D, G, minor, major, dominant seventh.png, while cluttering up the article, and there's already a Tuning in major thirds.  Talk about overkill!  C üRly T üRkey  Talk <sub style="margin-left:-5ex;">Contribs 00:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your point about repetition was decisive. Done. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  01:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Stable?

 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:

Images?

 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Why is there a non-free image of Ralph Patt in the infobox? Does this help the reader in identifying the content of the article in any way?
 * He invented the tuning. It has been removed, to save space for M3 images.
 * It's great that there are so many Commons images that can be used for the article, but the sheer number of them is really cluttering it up. Can they not be rearranged or cut down?
 * My ratio of illustrations to text is conventional (or restrained in comparison to Denyer's handbook). Sethares has a much larger ratio of pictures to text. Griewank has a comparable ratio of pictures to text. (Illustrations are even more dense in how-to guitar-books and guitar-porn---image-laden magazines for people who don't practice their interest in reality.) Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  01:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As noted elsewhere, the sandwiches have been removed. Formerly, the left-side images were for standard tuning, and right for M3 tuning. 22:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no text discussion of chord progressions, and so I removed the image. The other illustrations cover textual points, and so should remain. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  01:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A gallery could be created, I suppose.... I removed the images of Patt and of his guitar, and I reformatted the long image of diagonal shifting. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  22:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Outstanding issues from the review by Curly Turkey
The duplicate text does make it difficult to read, and most of the individual points have been addressed (often by revision of the relevant section).

Therefore, it may be useful for me to review outstanding issues. Of course, Curly Turkey may disagree with what I write below.... Sincerely, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  13:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, the central question remaining is A second-opinion GAN reviewer should double check also Curly Turkey's concerns about
 * whether the "Properties"-section's introduction should have citations in its mini-lede. I added citations, which strike me as overkill (and annoying/insulting to the reader). 15:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * any relevance of Russian-guitar history and about the
 * formatting (especially the sandwiching of text between two images. DONE ((Hegelian synthesis) 18:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Self-criticism
Sincerely, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  19:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The article on guitar tunings (and regular tunings, I think) mentions why CAGED open-chords are easier in some all-fifths or all-fourths tunings, and of course in standard tuning, in which they are often 6-strings. (Of course, non-CAGED chords and keys are more difficult, I note.) I don't discuss issues of open-chords or 6-string strumming, which are briefly mentioned in Griewank (and have a sentence or two in Petersen), since explaining what the Griewank intends would require substantial explication using other sources, and involve OR by synthesis. Since these issues concern campfire playing (non-amplified acoustic), I didn't bother... I wrote a section on duplicating notes in M3 tuning, noting that cowboy chords have been listed by Griewank and Sethares.... Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  20:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) The urls linked in footnotes are convenient for checking pages for facts, but they are unconventional.
 * 3) The images were consistently sized for FireFox on GNU Linux; the size of the double-image does not match the others (all thumbnails) on a MacIntosh. After the GAN review is over, I'll redraw the parallel fretboards to be consistent; the inconsistent sizes now seem tolerable for a GA. I'll also re-label the tuning to have A-flat following Patt (not G-sharp following Sethares); also, I'll redraw the segmented fretboard to have Patt's segmentation (0,1-4,5-8,9-12) rather than 0-3, 4-7, 8-11. 22:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) The academic sources Sethares and Griewank are reliable, especially Sethares as a professor notable for contributions to music theory. Their assessments establish the reliability of the websites by Kirkeby and Patt, which are used for color, mainly. (Kirkeby is the most explicit on the repetitive property being a good thing for improvisation.) Perhaps they are not sufficient to meet the high-quality RS standard for featured articles? 00:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) There is overlinking, especially duplicate linking among adjacent sections, which should be removed. 00:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion

 * I'm happy to do a second opinion / re-review on this, though I won't be in a substantial position to do anything for a few days.-- Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   09:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I notice work on the GA review is still ongoing - do you still need the second opinion? I'd rather wait until the dust has settled and look at remaining issues after that. -- Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   12:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried to address the question, "are there limitations of the tuning?", to satisfy the NPOV requirement. Several sources have a short assertion that folk music players around campfires (if any exist now) may be happiest with staying with standard tuning, but only Griewank has any elaboration of this obvious point. The section is short, but I think it is sufficient for the article and our NPOV and RS requirements.
 * Otherwise, I shifted a technical discussion of C7 chords to the end of the properties section, since our articles lack appendices. The discussion, to be accurate and sourced, would be too large (and difficult to footnote) in a footnote.
 * I don't see any other changes needing to be made. Please do or finish a GAN review! Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  12:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Despite our shared commitment to the 5 pillars and our agreement about most of his concerns, Curly and I disagreed on matters of English, so that I appreciated his just offering suggestions. In the past, GA reviewers have often found it easiest to implement copy edits directly, and almost all of the suggestions have been cheered by me. So don't be shy about changing something, particularly if it saves you time. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  16:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, real life has intervened with this. I need a good evening to sit down and go through the article, and I don't think that's going to happen before the end of this week. Sorry. -- Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   10:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The universe has survived 15 billion years so far, without this article having been awarded GA status, and it shall survive this delay. :) Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  14:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Give them an inch, and they'll ask for a mile department: If you are familiar with the A-class criteria, you are welcome to consider whether the article satisfies those criteria. (As mentioned before, the diagrams should be redone for consistency (most are now in SVG), and to correct the A#'s use for the conventional Bb. I shall redo almost all in lilypond, which allows direct export to SVG, which should improve the clarity further.) Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  11:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not sure what value I can actually add to the review. From a cursory glance, it reads well and looks well referenced, but I'm loathe to just do a vague handwaving pass without doing the job properly (and not just because Malleus might call my work "undoubtedly the shittest GA second opinion in the history of the universe" or similar) . One of the problems is the only book source I have is Deyner - are the other sources online? That's really what I want to look at. One thing I did notice is the ISBN link for Smith appears to be messed up because there's only one ISBN parameter in cite book so the parameter has both the 9 and 13 digit versions. I'm not sure about the layout of SVGs aside from I believe it's not an area of WP:MOS that is required to adhere to when passing a good article. -- Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   14:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Richie333,
 * I appreciate your work, and there is no need to rush.
 * Reliability does not require books.
 * Denyer is a serious non-academic book, but it is used for only trivialities. The two academics are internationally famous: Sethares is a leading musical theorist and Griewank is one of the world's leaders in automatic differentiation, so one can trust his ability to count to twelve (which is all that is needed in this article...); their web-publications establish the reliability of Patt and Kirkeby, who are used sparingly. (Griewank's report was refereed by at least one named person, listed at the website.) The on-line sources are linked. (The links to Griewank and the American Lutherie function intermittently.)
 * About ISBN: WP seems to have a preference for 13 digit isbns, especially when only 9 digit isbns were printed (and are used in the book trade for that book). Ridiculous. I implemented the method for listing both, some time ago. It requires the reader to use one or the other when they go to the isbn site.
 * The svgs will be improved after the review. I've switched to Linux and don't have the clipping facility in the acrobat reader now (which uses non-free software), so this will have to wait. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  17:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I read the GA review over and took a look through the article, and it appears that everything is addressed. A third opinion is probably unlikely, and since nothing else seems to be noted I'm going to pass the article. Wizardman 05:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Wizardman.
 * My only question is whether the article meets A-class criteria, or nearly....
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz  13:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)