Template:Did you know nominations/Three-hand effect


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vanamonde (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Three-hand effect

 * ... that two hands can sound like three?


 * Reviewed: Sechs Lieder, Op. 35

Created by Kazvorpal (talk). Nominated by Smerus (talk) at 16:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC).

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 23:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Some issues found.
 * &#x2713; This article is new and was created on 20:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * &#x2713; This article meets the DYK criteria at 3141 characters
 * &#x2717; Paragraphs [5] (This ... simultaneously.) in this article lack a citation. This is OK.  Intelligent  sium  23:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * &#x2713; This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
 * &#x2713; A copyright violation is unlikely (7.4% confidence; confirm)
 * Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
 * No overall issues detected
 * &#x2713; The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 32 characters
 * &#x2713; Smerus has more than 5 DYK credits. A QPQ review of Template:Did you know nominations/Sechs Lieder, Op. 35 was performed for this nomination.
 * Oppose: I think this is a truly appalling idea. No, two hands do not, and cannot "sound like three". I think the article in its current state is quite misleading or incomprehensible... so I will write an extended comment on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imaginatorium (talk • contribs) 16:25 24 July 2016
 * Because Imaginatorium does not like the article as it stands, that is no reason to oppose a DYK which (subject to human review) meets all the necessary criteria. Two hands do indeed sound like three when the technique is used - the elliptical phraseology used in thre hook is quite normal for DYK, of which Imaginatorium may not be aware.Smerus (talk) 06:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What's more, his opinion on whether two hands can sound like three is completely irrelevant. While common fans of "classical" music today are mostly ignorant of this, in the early Romantic era it was almost a "household word" among piano aficionados, as the three greatest keyboard virtuosos of the day all used it in their efforts to be the best. That this was such an important part of popular music in Europe at the time, and yet is forgotten now, makes it the perfect kind of candidate for DYK. — Kaz (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence (citations) for this "household word" claim? That "everyone knew that two hands could sound like three"?? Can you cite a general music reference work that includes it? (Just asking) Imaginatorium (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * To demolish the objections to the hook - I have now found and added to the article a citation which vindicates it entirely - viz :"Douglas Bomberger has commented "Thalberg has come to represent the excesses of the romantic period, when bigger was better and two hands could sound like three." " (Bomberger, E. Douglas (1991). "The Thalberg Effect: Playing the Violin on the Piano", in The Musical Quarterly, vol. 75 no.2, pp. 198-208. Quote is p. 198). Neither the hook not the article makes any claims about 'household word' so the argument above between Kaz and Imaginatorium is irrelevant and disruptive as regards this DYK.Smerus (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg This DYK has been languishing without a follow up review for over 10 days, so I'm jumping in.  The hook is actually very catchy, is within the scope of the article, cited, article meets all DYK criteria and is good to go.  Montanabw (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)