Wikipedia:Peer review/Bethena/archive1

Bethena

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've worked on this article and managed (with others) to get it to GA status; I was wondering whether there were any areas which the community thought could be improved, and ultimately whether it was possible (or worthwhile given the relative brevity of the article) to try for FA nomination.

Are there any parts of the article which need further development and explanation? I'm thinking primarily in terms of general improvements, but also in terms of FAN.

Are there any gaps (obvious or otherwise) in the article's coverage of the subject? I went about as far as I could with the sources I had, but maybe I missed important areas.

Are there any formatting issues / spacing / labelling and citations which could be improved?

Any feedback (further to the GA-review) would be appreciated.

Thanks, Major Bloodnok (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: My general reaction is that this article is at present too slight, and needs to be expanded if it is to be a comprehensive account of this musical work. There are also issues of accessibility, particularly in the "Form" section. Otherwise this is interesting stuff, but it needs to be developed if it is to meet the FA criteria.

• Lead:
  • The brief lead does not conform to WP:PR, which requires a concise summary of the entire article rather than a brief introduction. Anything mentioned in the lead should be developed in the main text.
  • The number of citations in the lead is distracting. The citations would be better placed in the body of the text where these matters are raised.
  • "It was the first Joplin copyrighted work since his wife Freddie's death..." What is the significance here of "copyrighted"? Was this Joplin's first composition after his wife's death?
  • When you say this was played "throughout" the Benjamin Button film, does this mean it was literally played non-stop? Or that it was "used" throughout the film as the basis of its story?
• Background
  • "Fall does not require capitalisation
  • "unidentified" rather than "unknown" associate
  • What is the distinction between "seeking commissions" and "writing for hire"?
  • "On 6 March, Joplin registered the copyright of Bethena, A Concert Waltz, and dedicated the work to the otherwise little-known "Mr. and Mrs. Dan E. Davenport of St. Louis Mo"." Needs a citation
  • "...and the identity of the woman featured on the cover of the work is unknown." Clarify that this refers specifically to the original publication of the music
  • I'm a bit confused by the last paragraph of this section. What is the significance of: " but had frequently advertised in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper"? The rest of the information in the paragraph doesn't seem to have a lot of relevance to the article's subject.
  • Also, this section covers rather more than "Background". Since it also covers the writing, dedication and publication of the work, perhaps a broader title should be used.
• Form; It seems to me that this section is almost impossible to understand by anyone without a significant knowledge of music theory, and has to be rewritten in a form much more friendly to the general reader. Here are some examples of "difficult" sentences:-
  • "The alternate unaccented eighth notes and accented quarter notes is the rhythm of the Cakewalk minus the final note."
  • "The combination of the waltz and the syncopation, with the simultaneous sounding of two independent rhythms, has an effect similar to a 4 against 3 polyrhythm with many subtle variations occurring throughout the work."
  • "The B theme presents its counterpoint with the contrary motion of the bass and treble in bars 29-30 being exchanged in bars 31-32. This pattern repeats itself during the theme. In the opening phrase of the C theme, bars 77-81, counterpoint is evident with the melody line in the treble complementing the bass line."
• Critical reception: I am not sure that the opinions of two Joplin biographers and two unnamed critics can be fairly said to represent the critical reception of the work. However, should there not be some information in the article on its public reception? Was it popular, did it sell well, etc? For it to be used in a film 100 years later is an indication that the work endured, but what was its general history over this long period?

I hope these comments help. Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. It is most appreciated! I'll take a look at improving the article in line with your comments. Major Bloodnok (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the article in line with the above comments, hopefully addressing all of the issues. Any comments further to the above would be appreciated.Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look, and made a couple of alterations in the lead. Please note that if direct quotations occur in the lead, they must be cited. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A further point occurs to me: there is no mention of the work having been recorded, though I assume it must have been. What about adding a very brief recording history, mentioning when it was first recorded and perhaps a few of the more recent issues? Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)