Talk:Ottoman music/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Artem.G (talk · contribs) 18:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, I will be reviewing this article. It's big enough, so I will add comments in a few chunks, not altogether.

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Comments/questions:

  • it would be great to have some image in lead section, though it's not necessary.
    •  Unlikely, will try to find an image that merits inclusion in the lead, but I don't think there are any. Uness232 (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Got it. It's not a requirement, of course, so it's ok as it is. Artem.G (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • it would also be great if some music (audio files) were added. I don't know whether it's possible to find any in public domain, though it would be nice to have.
    •  Unlikely, really tough to find public domain works of Ottoman music. An alternative could be to add computer-generated stuff, like in heterophony; it wouldn't sound as good, but it could work. Uness232 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Got it. It's fine if nothing is available, just thought it could be nice to have. Artem.G (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • according to Owen Wright, - who he is? needs better introduction. the ref to this sentence is not to Owen Wright, but to a book: Writing the History of "Ottoman Music". Ergon. pp. 87–138.. the quote is from page 93, and attributed to (Wright 1992: 285). so maybe it could at least be the proper page, if the original source is not available.
    •  Question: I'm not sure how I would fit an introduction into prose this dense: do I simply mention that he is a professor of musicology? I'm also confused by this requirement, pages like the Great Divergence regularly cite academics without describing them, and I'm not sure which policy or guideline you are referring to. Uness232 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably my mistake. By 'introduce' I mean something like 'Historian John Doe, known for his works on Ottoman music' or as you proposed 'professor of musicology'. And it's not a requirement, it's more about an understanding. When I was reading the article, I was a bit confused about all these surnames, and I think that it helps if it's clear who is the author of a quote or a hypothesis you mention. Artem.G (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • It has therefore been claimed that - claimed by who?
    •  Will fix, it's Walter Zev Feldman. Uness232 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Numerous studies have also pointed out - this sentence have only one ref but says 'numerous', seems a bit strange
    •  Will fix, the "numerous" there refers not to the ref directly, but 18th to 20th century works by Kiltzanidis and others. It might be better to call them comparative works rather than studies, though. Uness232 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • called "mythologies" by Feldman, - he was not introduced before, please use full name at first mention and write who he is.
    •  Will fix the full name issue, same question on the other one. Uness232 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • is either Arabic and Persian - either ... or?


  • Pre-Ottoman and Early Ottoman music (until c. 1533) - why such precision in dates? why not 1550s, for example? It's hard for me to grasp, but maybe I just missing smth. Same for Classical Age (c. 1533 – c. 1650)
    •  Will fix. These are, in some way or form, mentioned in the articles in forms such as (paraphrasing): "Mecmua-ı Saz ü Söz, published in 1650, was a turning point in Ottoman music." However, I do understand how this could be considered borderline WP:OR, and therefore I will be deleting the dates. Uness232 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • by Wittek and later Tanrıkorur - both should be introduced


  • these were often simplified, with a notable absence of long and complex usuls - it's not clear what does 'usul' means
    •  Will fix by changing it to rhythmic cycles. Uness232 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Anthologies indicate that by the 16th century, - what anthologies? composed by who or when, and why should it matter?
    •  Question: This is a simple paraphrase of what the paper says. Surely this isn't contrary to WP policy? Uness232 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • that virtually no original works - why 'virtually'? seems to be a strange choice of words, but maybe it's ok, I have no opinion here.
    • Red X Nothing to fix, it's a statement of tentative nature, I guess. I think it should stay, as anthologies can not possibly include all songs that have ever been played. Uness232 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • according to Wright, - same as above


  • Shlomo Mazal Tov, compiler of the Sefer shirim u-zemirot ve tishbahot, - it would be great to translate the name into English
    •  Possible, if there is anyone around that can translate it. (I guess we would first need to figure out what language it is, Ladino or Hebrew) Uness232 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Shlomo Mazal-Tov’s book Sefer shirim u-zemirot ve-tishbahot (The book of songs, 17 hymns and songs of praise, published in Constantinople in 1545 [in Hebrew]) includes Hebrew songs sung to ‘melodies of the Sephardim and the Ishmaelitesʼ (Merkon 1950: 321–349)." from here [1], page 66. Artem.G (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, before I forget, thanks a lot for this suggestion. Uness232 (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • The "New Synthesis" (c. 1650 – c. 1839) and Decline (c. 1839 – c. 1923) - same. the dates used in headings appear nowhere in text


  • started to attend Mevlevi ceremonies - 'mevlevi' used several times in text, but without any explanation of who they were and why they are important
    •  Question: I linked them the first time they appear in text, but I'm hesitant to describe them, as their religious beliefs are tangential to the topic at hand. Uness232 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • The "new synthesis" - should it be capitalized?


  • One of the most notable composers of "New Synthesis" Ottoman classical music is Kasımpaşalı Osman Effendi - name should not be italised
  • Hafız Post ; Meanwhile, other students of Osman Effendi, such as Mustafa Itri; etc - same


  • "The art of musick almost forgot, not only re-viv’d, but was rendered more perfect by Osman Effendi, a noble Constantinopolitan.” - it would be great to source it to Cantemir's writings, if possible
    • Not sure. Aren't secondary sources better than primary ones in this case, per WP:PRIMARY? Uness232 (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will check, but I do think that quotes can/should come from primary sources. Though it's ok, let it be like it is. Artem.G (talk)


  • Despite the acknowledgement of a break in musical tradition that is hard to find in earlier Ottoman sources, however, Cantemir asserts the supremacy of many aspects of Ottoman music; both the nearly forgotten form, and the newer one, over that of Western music at numerous points during his Edvar, and his works on the history of the Ottoman Empire - very long, maybe can be splitted into two?
    •  Will fix, by changing it to: "Despite the acknowledgement of a break in the Ottomans' musical tradition, Cantemir asserts the supremacy of many aspects of Ottoman music over that of Western music at numerous points during his Edvar." Uness232 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • according to Leezenberg, - same, who he is?


  • "While this may or may not have been representative of the consensus among Ottoman composers at the time, it was not necessarily surprising, according to Leezenberg, as Western ideas of cultural supremacy were not widespread in Europe until the end of the 18th century, although critiques of the "confused" (microtonal) intervals of Ottoman music were." - to be honest I do not understand what is intended here - how "ideas of cultural supremacy" are connected to "the "confused" (microtonal) intervals"?
    • Red X Won't fix, it is a necessary contrast; the 20th century section talks about how the West and the Westernized saw Ottoman music as Western music's primitive counterpart, rather than a distinct way of looking at music. This explains how, even though Western musicians did critique aspects of Ottoman music in the 18th century, they did not see themselves as the "civilized" musicians compared to the "primitive" Ottoman ones. Uness232 (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Two dervishes in particular, Çengi Yusuf Dede and Köçek Mustafa Dede - no need for italics, but dervishes should be briefly explained
    •  Will fix the italics, and will briefly explain the word dervish, in no more than a few words if possible. Uness232 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]



  • According to O'Connell, - same


Please expect more in the next couple of days. Artem.G (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, will fix all the problems I have tagged with  Will fix over the next 24 hours. Uness232 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for quick response! Article is nice and interesting to review, I hope you'll find my comments useful. Will proceed with my review tomorrow. Artem.G (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all the problems I've tagged with  Will fix, up until this point of course. Uness232 (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Some more comments:

  • According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, 'however' is one of such words, and is used in the article 17 times.
    •  Will fix, although not if there is nothing I can replace it with, as "however" is not banned, only discouraged. Uness232 (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • — Ralf Martin Jäger, Concepts of Western and Ottoman Music History - book title should be in italics, or, if it is an article, journal name would be nice to have


  • it's not a requirement, but I think it can be interesting and valubale addition - are there any modern bands/orchestras/performers exist? I know that there are a lot of collectives who play Western classical/baroque/etc music on a historic instruments, maybe there are similar ones in Turkey? And are people in general interested in the Ottoman music, maybe it's seen now as a cultural heritage? or is it still prohibited and nobody allow to play it?
    •  Unlikely, it's definitely still played, although more so in entertainment contexts (I don't think I need another section to clarify this, the "revival" part of the 20th century section clarifies it I think). I could reference some ensembles, but I think that would be WP:UNDUE. Uness232 (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • and it would be nice to have either a section or just a few links in External links to some actual music. Maybe some recording were made in 1920s, or maybe some modern orchestra performed it and issued some discs? (it's also not a requirement, of course).
    •  Possible, I would need to read WP:ELNO to see what is allowed, but I do have some in mind. Uness232 (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Besides these comments, everything seems to be good. Sources are good, all quotes are attributed, images seem to be with appropriate licences, no copyvio, no OR (besides the strange dates, but I think it would be addressed). It's broad and focused, though I'd like to see some section about current status of ottoman music - is it played, enjoyed, preserved by someone? Artem.G (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the article according to your suggestions, but I do have one question on the nature of my external links. Right now, the section I'm preparing looks a bit like this:
Now, I could include more recordings (it would be nice, as neither of these are particularly high quality), as you stated, but while WP:ELNO does not completely ban Youtube from external links, it does make some very cautious points about their inclusion. Now, apparently, videos by official accounts are okay, but are videos by "X Artist - Topic" (like this) considered an official account as those videos are only included with the permission of the label? Uness232 (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All links above are fine, Smithsonian is good, data collection seems to be ok, and the last one contains sheets and seems to be ok. About Youtube - yes, I think that the main concern is copyright violation, but if it is an official account of an artist or a label it should be ok. "Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows, or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify additional software necessary for readers to view the content." So, if you think some youtube link is important and valubale for the article, it can be added. Artem.G (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added the external links, if any of them do not conform to WP:EL, please do not hesitate to delete the link. Uness232 (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion all these links are fine, youtube links are to ensemble's channels, so there are no copyright violation there. And as everything else seems to be addressed, I will pass this article as GA. Congrats, and thanks for nice reading! Artem.G (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ottoman_music/GA1&oldid=1049532695"