User talk:Deep-fried twinkie/Sandbox

Hi,

It's a very interesting and well-written article! It's hard to tell from its draft state what the referencing will look like. But that's something that really needs to be worked on, including inline citations (in addition to a bibliography). Without them, the article will look like original research or a personal essay. Be sure to read this Wikipedia policy article... No original research, and especially the section on synthesis. See also number 3. in this section of the policy article 'What Wikipedia is not'.

Below is just one example of an assertion in the article that would need to be referenced to a reliable published source stating something similar, to avoid the label 'original research'...
 * "This brought about a new type of classical music that had very little mass appeal, but was defended by scholars as being too advanced for the common folk to comprehend. This attitude severely divorced the public from classical music in such a way that its effects are still being felt today."

It seems like a bit of a pain, but that's how Wikipedia works. It's rather different from the requirements for writing an academic essay or thesis where the goal is pretty much the opposite - to use original thought and synthesize new conclusions from existing published work.

I also have a question about the length. This article could stand alone as something like Patronage in classical music. Is your class intending to write one long article on the future of classical music with this as just one section? If all the sections are this long and detailed, the article itself might end up too long. Normally this is handled by summarizing the contents of related articles in the main article and then directing the reader to the longer article on the subject. Here is an example where this is used: Nero. And here are some further guidelines on this issue. It could be something for Futureclass to discuss as your project progresses.

Anyhow, great start! Voceditenore (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WHOOPS. I just re-read your note on my talk page, and I see that you do mean this as a stand-alone article. Good! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)