Talk:Noise in music/GA1

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

Reviewer: B137 (talk · contribs) 10:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Review The scope is broad, but without going off on tangents. The references I see have been done in a different format with all inline citations leading to simple book references and the references section structured as an external links section would be. I'm not well versed in all the variations of referencing that are accepted here beyond what I am used to seeing so I may need some third party input on that. Overall I feel this article exceeds the typical good article quality and even has potential to become a featured article.

B137 (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The "different" format is described at WP:SFN. Since I am one of the editors involved in developing this article, it is not my place to judge it, but I am happy to answer any questions, and look forward to suggestions for improvement.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Since you are not one of the editors involved in developing this article, it is exactly your place to judge it; thank you for illustrating that it is okay. B137 (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you must have misread my comment. I was heavily involved in developing this article. And you are welcome for the reference.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, that was my only qualm; I have passed the article. If you guys are still feeling zealous about it, I would suggesting continuing and adding it at FAR. B137 (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Fantastic! I was expecting three weeks' hard work revising in order to correct a myriad of overlooked flaws (as my previous experience with GA reviews suggested). This could still happen, though, if it is taken to FAR. Thanks for your assistance.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I have seen some editors give overly stringent reviews, but when you look at the GAC, it really doesn't ask for that much. Honestly, what the GAC is is what every article that's not a stub should be. Broad, properly cited, on topic. It's featured articles where things usually have to go well above and beyond. And it's more a matter of luck than skilled editing. Some topics simply aren't broad enough to be taken that far. I've seen a featured article or two that I don't know how they passed. I think this is one of those articles that maybe with a little more content in each section could easily be a FA. It's one of those topics that, while somewhat obscure and even bohemian, has proven to be unique and broad. I think it's topics like these where some of the best work on the site is found. B137 (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ha-ha! "Obscure and even bohemian", yes, in the ordinary way of looking at things, I suppose that is true. I hope that the portions of this article I worked the hardest on (noise in world music and European music in the 18th century) demonstrate the ubiquity of noise in music generally, which I expect will come as a bit of a surprise to many readers who drop in out of idle curiosity. Thanks again for giving such a favorable judgment. I was not the person who nominated the article for GA status, but I may go ahead and put it up for FA, since you have been so encouraging.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)