Talk:Punto music

January 2018 copy edit
Hi Reidgreg, I reverted your edits, on Punto music. You basically halfed the article, when several editors have commented it a actual reflection of the Punto music. On the morrow.. scope_creep (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, I reduced the article by about 42%. There was an awful lot of redundant material, material irrelevant to the subject which exists in other articles, and material with no inline citation to demonstrate notability.  I believe my edits were in keeping with Wikipedia's summary style.  Saying something in fewer words is generally beneficial.  I have no idea what comments you're referring to, as there's no previous discussion here on the talk page (unless maybe you're referring to discussion at the original article on the Spanish Wikipedia?).
 * For a section-by-section breakdown of my edits:
 * Lead – expanded slightly.
 * Choreography – copy edits and cleanup, no major content changes
 * Music – This section was a bit of a mess, focusing more on the instruments than the music. The construction of the instruments seemed irrelevant to the subject, and there are articles for the instruments where this information should go. So I got rid of all the sub-sections, did a lot of MOS tidying, put the instrumentation in a simple bullet list with links to their articles if the reader is interested in more information, and tried to put more on the musical composition.
 * Regional variants – A lot of redundant information. Since the dances are all similar, it was easier to describe them by their differences, and at that point the material no longer justified separate sub-sections so I put this in a bullet list.
 * The problems I noticed all exist in the original article on eswiki. I have no personal stake in the article, just taking care of copy edit maintenance as tagged. I feel my edits were an improvement. Do you have any specific complaints? Is there any specific content you feel I should have kept? – Reidgreg (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, if you think that is the way to go, and no actual factual information is being removed from the article. Please revert my revert. It's an obscure subject, and it needs to be represented correctly. scope_creep (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, reverted the revert. BTW, I appreciate your keeping a vandalism-watch on pages like this, that's unsung-hero work!  I did find the article an interesting read. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)