Talk:String Quartets, Op. 50 (Haydn)/GA1

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

Reviewer: RHM22 (talk · contribs) 00:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I'm RHM22, and I'll be reviewing this GAN. Music is not my specialty, but it's an interesting topic, about which I enjoy reading when the situation presents. This article was no exception. My review follows:


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * In the lede, it says "Haydn's autograph manuscripts..." Is this meant to be "autographed"? I think that's a term used by musicologists, but I'm not one so I'm asking to make sure.
 * Also in the lede section (and elsewhere below), you have "...fast-slow-minuet-fast..." You've used hyphens here, but it should probably en dashes instead, since you're illustrating a progression rather than modifying words. That's all covered under MOS:ENDASH.
 * In the 'Overview' section, maybe you could link monothematicism (the closest I can find is Theme (music)), just because it's a somewhat obscure term. This is just a suggestion and won't hold back the nomination if you decide not to link it.
 * In 'Opus 50, No. 1' this sentence strikes me as a bit too purple: "The cello's eight throbbing notes are no mere introduction." Maybe reword to "The cello's eight throbbing notes act as more than an introduction."
 * Another minor point, but could you present some indication of who Sutcliffe is (upon the first use of his name in the prose)? For example, "the musicologist W. Dean Sutcliffe," "the composer W. Dean Sutcliffe," or whatever his credentials are. Could you also do the same with Donald Tovey?
 * Another thing to look out for is overlinking. I noticed a few terms wikilinked multiple times throughout the article. While not a big deal, it's a good idea to make sure to link the same thing only twice (with a few possible exceptions): once in the lede and again in the body of the article, and that is also preferred by the MOS. You can use this tool to find the duplicate links in any article.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article is thoroughly referenced (although some of the sections could use a few extra refs, there are enough to meet GA standards). I prefer a separate bibliography section for works cited several times, but the reference style used is perfectly acceptable.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article covers the topic thoroughly, and is focused in said coverage.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * It is neutrally written without POV.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * The article is stable with no apparent edit wars or conflicts.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The article is nicely illustrated with appropriately licensed images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * While this interesting article is overall well-written, and all of the formatting is perfectly acceptable, I have a few issues and suggestions, which are outlined above. As such, the GAN is currently on hold.
 * While this interesting article is overall well-written, and all of the formatting is perfectly acceptable, I have a few issues and suggestions, which are outlined above. As such, the GAN is currently on hold.

Hello. I am very grateful for the time you have taken to read and review the article. It has been very useful to correct the linking. I had trouble, writing the article, deciding when to link, and now I know. I have now unlinked all keys (eg "C major") except where they refer to the key of a quartet as a whole in the first line of its section. I have effected all of the other changes, except the first: I believe "autograph manuscript" is the more common term, and I checked some academic publications to confirm this. Also, with "monothematicism", I added a parenthetical definition after the first use of the word. Thank you, again. Syek88 (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Syek88 I took a look at all of your fixes, and all they look perfect. The MOS is usually a good place to look if you aren't sure about something, but reasonable exceptions can always be made, so don't take it as gospel (by that, I mean don't write any librettos about it!). I thought that "autograph manuscript" was correct, by the way, but I wanted to make sure before approving. Anyway, I see no reason why this article isn't suitable for GA status, so the GAN is now approved. A bot will come by soon to add the GA icon to the top of the article. Nicely done!-RHM22 (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You have made my day. Syek88 (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)