Talk:The Silver Swan (madrigal)/GA1

GA Review

Passed. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Aza24 (talk · contribs) 00:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: UpTheOctave! (talk · contribs) 15:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Aza! I'll take this one. Vocal music is generally outside my wheelhouse, but I hope I can still provide some useful comments. You can expect a review by sometime next week. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 15:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Well-written: Generally MOS compliant, just a few nitpicks on prose (see below).

"a madrigal by Orlando Gibbons (1583–1625) composed during the early Baroque period": I feel we miss a comma after the brackets.
"more akin to Gibbons's esteemed elder contemporary William Byrd, than his progressive English Madrigal School contemporaries": is the comma after Byrd needed?
"including an unprepared dissonance": could the sea of blue be split?
"the madrigal's poetic text presents the legend that swans are silent in life, and sing beautifully once just before their deaths": I think the comma after life is superfluous.
"F Major" -> F major.
Cantus is linked twice in the infobox.
"The song is in common time (4/4) in F major and 24 measures": shouldn't this be "and lasts 24 measures" or similar?
"Although the original is without performance instructions": I'm not sure the link to musical notation works here.
Byrd could do with a link.
"but described it as 'somewhat slight' and with little madrigalesque imitation'" (double quotes reduced to single quotes): something has gone wrong with the quote marks here, we're at an odd number.
"erroneously 'correct'" (double quotes reduced to single quotes): not sure the quote marks for emphasis are required, we already say this is in error.
"written in a manner that easily permits the lead cantus/soprano part for solo performance, accompanied by four viols" -> "permits the lead cantus/soprano part to be used for solo performance"?
"Although Harley cautions that 'this is not proof that it was written for solo performance, for the whole song is economical in these respects.'" (double quotes reduced to single quotes): this construction makes it sound like the sentence should end in a comma, not a full stop.
Legend may be overlinking?
"According to Helen Sword": comma before introducing quote, I think.

Verifiable with no original research: Uses a proper citation style with reference list. Reliable sources are cited inline: I was unsure on Interlude, but Buja seems to be a SME; AllMusic and Peermusic are used appropriately. Earwig's picks up false positives (The Guardian and LeiderNetArchive), but a careful inspection shows no real issues. I'm AGFing Harley (1999) and Paine (2007). No original research or copyright violations found in spotchecks (25% of listed citations, see below), just one minor issue, presumably a transcription error.

Reviewed special:diff/1272052156

Cite 2: pass
Cite 3: pass
Cite 8: pass
Cite 12: pass
Cite 14: my reading is 21 measures?
Cite 18: pass
Cite 22: pass
Cite 24: pass
Cite 30: pass
Cite 34: pass

Broad in its coverage: Coverage is of an adequate depth while remaining in summary style. It discusses all I would expect an article on a song to, bar recordings/performances. As one of the most famous madrigals, I'm pretty sure a paragraph on its recording/performance history could be included?

Neutral: Evidently balanced, with expert opinions included and clearly attributed.

Stable: Edit history shows no edit wars. There's some discussions on the talk page, but these are nowhere near content disputes.

Illustrated: File:Gibbons – The Silver Swan – Cantus.jpg is correctly tagged as PD and is clearly relevant. Caption is fine; it could probably be shortened to "Cantus part from the original 1612 publication" if you're so inclined. Not a file, but the music example is obviously PD and relevant.

Thoughts: This is very close to the criteria, just a few comments in prose, broadness and spotchecks. Good work Aza. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 01:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@UpTheOctave!, many thanks for this thorough and thoughtful review! I believe I've addressed all of the writing and source comments; I believe I agreed with your suggestions essentially without exception. I'll look into adding more on recordings soon and get back to you. Aza24 (talk) 07:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked over the revisions. After a few copyedits, I've happily signed off on the prose and spotchecks. Just the broadness now. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 17:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24, it's been a week now, any updates on progress? Best, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 21:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nudge @UpTheOctave!. I'm not sure how to approach this section, I gather that it is frequently included in most albums of English madrigals, and of course, albums of Gibbons' secular music. There is little sourcing on the topic, other than directly citing the albums/web databases about them. I could make a list of recordings, but I don't know if that would be warranted. Aza24 (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of a dedicated recordings section, is there anything about the recording history (e.g., the first recording, a rough estimate of the number of records) that could be added to the end of the history section? If not, I'll sign off due to a lack of sources to work from: the article is still broad in its coverage without it. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @UpTheOctave!—had a second look around and couldn't find anything substantial. Aza24 (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to sign off on broadness. Passed for GA. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.