Template:Did you know nominations/Repetitive tuning

Repetitive tuning

 * ... that major-thirds guitar-tuning is a repetitive tuning in which chords are raised an octave by shifting all notes by three strings on the same frets (illustrated)?
 * Reviewed: Stewart Iron Works

Created/expanded by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk). Self nom at 18:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg None of the references use the term "repetitive tuning". The topic looks synthesized, not established. The introduction has no references at all. Binksternet (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Repetitive" is an adjective; "repetition" is an associated noun and "repeat" is the associated verb. "Repetitive tuning" better suits an enyclopedia-article title, while "tuning ... repeats" is found in the sources.
 * Specifically, Sethares and Griewank compare tunings, mentioning repetition. So does Kirkeby, whose reliability is established by the reliable sources Sethares and Griewank.
 * The introduction, which did lack references, has now been removed. This excision impaired the readability of the article, of course. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  21:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Binkensternet made comments about his perception, but failed to did review the hook or article, ignoring so considering newness, length, sourcing of the hook, formatting of the hook, etc. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  22:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC) This comment/complaint was made at the reviewer's nomination, and moved here by the reviewer. I struck through old-business.  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  23:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The benefits your introduction gave to reader comprehension ought to be applied to the lead section, or restored in place with references. I think it is indicative of the synthesis problem that no concise summary of the topic can be found in a reliable source, one that would uphold the previous intro material.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Nevertheless, I'm going to okay this DYK because various repeating or repeated tunings have been discussed in the sources. The article date, length and referencing are good. The image is free to use. The hook is suitably referenced and within length guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's reasonable and unusually gracious and quick! Thanks!
 * The introduction was a synthesis, which I added under the aegis of WP:IAR---and (what I wished would be recognized as) the utter triviality of discussing "repetitive tunings" briefly when the article gave reliable souces discussing repetition of particular tunings (in comparison to non-repetitive regular or standard tunings). I suspect that the WP:MOS on mathematical exposition (as clarified by the discussions around the Monty Hall problem ArbCom case, at least for my understanding) allow logical operations that are not recognized as research. (I am rather fond of abstraction---specifically extensive definitions and the lambda calculus!)
 * Again, thanks for your reconsideration and fulfillment of the review.
 * You or other editors should feel free to raise the issue of synthesis, if any have doubts. Such discussions should lead to an improved article. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  23:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * User Hyacinth placed a possible-neologism template on the article. I asked him whether he wanted the title changed to "tunings that repeat (open-string) notes", which would be closer to the wording of multiple reliable-sources...! The neologism template seems to be used for uses like "Fretboard logic" or "attachment parenting", often tied to new or unsuccessful entrepreneurship (by academics or commercial actors).  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  10:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The neologism template was removed by another editor. Others are welcome to discuss synthesis or neologism concerns further, of course.  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  10:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)