Talk:Magnetic Rag/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will be reviewing this article. Binksternet (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Criteria:

1. Well Written. Yes, this article is fairly well written. I will be swapping the notes and reference sections to make the layout more like what I'm used to seeing in GA and A-Class articles. I will also be lower-casing the capital letters that occur in the middle of sentences.
2. Factually accurate. Pretty much yes, but I'd like to see URLs of google books for relevant and available texts. Readers like to click on stuff... and I think they should be directed to the appropriate reference text pages. :P
3. Broad in its coverage. Yes. At first I was thinking the Form heading's Intro-A-B-C-D-Coda strain sections qualified as too much detail, but they introduce some important points.
4. Neutral. Yes.
5. Stable. Yes.
6. Illustrated. The first image is perfectly appropriate for the sheet music. The Joplin image isn't so hot--it appears to be a sketch copy of a 1907 portrait held by the Library of Congress. I just might get in and upload that LOC image... Binksternet (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the URL for each book. However, there need to be references for each and every paragraph. The "sinister tone" B section needs one and the coda section needs one. I added some wikilinks and some more detail regarding the 12-bar blues section, with reference. I will leave the review open while these two paragraphs receive references. Binksternet (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MaGee says the rag's form is AABBCCDDA, but Jasen says the last A is repeated twice and followed by a coda. Which is correct?

Acording to the score, there is indeed a repeat in the last strain, complete with 1st and 2nd endings. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, there it is, followed by the eight-bar coda. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For kicks, here's the better-looking 1907 portrait of Joplin. Binksternet (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of Commons files already had this nicer photo uploaded. One was restored and I thought it looked better. I put it into the Analysis section, taking the old image out. Binksternet (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:Melodia took the photo of Joplin out. Me, I thought it was a fine addition, and I liked it better in the Analysis section. At any rate, the presence or absence of the portrait is not going to change the result of my GA Review--it just isn't that critical. Binksternet (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point in having a photo? I'm always for pictures to make things pretty, but the composer seems irrelevant here. Many things could be used that work much better. A snippet of a notable part of the score, an alternate cover (not saying one exists, here, just in general), or whatever. Now if there was a photo of Joplin that had specifically to do with the piece (unlikely, or even just a picture from the year it was written would make more sense than one from 7 years earlier) that would make sense. But that's just me -- I'm certainly not consensus by myself. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed some verbs to past tense under the Form heading. It looks like I missed the Coda section... but now I wonder if past tense is appropriate. Comments? Binksternet (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing: the "popularity" statement from the lead is not mentioned in the body (and it will need a citation when it is). —Zeagler (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Past Tense: I think the past tense should be changed back into present tense, since the article is speaking about the piece not only as it existed, but as it currently exists, too. Magnetic Rag (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Popularity Statement: When I wrote the article, I included the "popularity" statement because I saw it as common knowledge among those who are familiar with Joplin's Rags. For instance, I've noticed that 95%+ of all Ragtime recordings feature either "Maple Leaf Rag", "The Entertainer", or both, while few (perhaps less than 15%) feature "Magnetic Rag". Also, the two more famous Rags are routinely featured in piano sheet music compendia, whereas I've never found "Magnetic Rag" featured in such a publication. Finally, if you do a search for the three titles on YouTube, you will find very many results (>1000) returned for Maple Leaf Rag, and about that many for The Entertainer; however, Magnetic Rag returns 40-something results.

Certainly, none of this is cite-able, and you may think it constitutes original research. I don't think of it as OR, but if most of you still think the statement should be sourced, let's go with that. In that case, we may have to take it out, since I don't have a source for it now. (Although, if I had more time, I could check those books out from the library again and see if there's something along those lines mentioned. If any of you have the time, you may look into this...)

Anyway, thanks to Binksternet et al. for taking the time for a review. I think it's going very well. Magnetic Rag (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back from your New Year's wikibreak. This GA Review is still open as I believe the article is just a step or two from GA status. First thing to do is find references for the B and Coda paragraphs. Second is to either remove the popularity comparison or to cite a source. I wonder if any sheet music sales records exist... Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jasen offers his opinion of the song in one paragraph in page 29 of Black Bottom Stomp. He calls the piece 'haunting' and calls the last eight bars a "smiling little coda". All he says of the B section is that it is in a minor key; thin soup, but absolutely enough for a reference here. Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The All Music Guide to Classical Music, page 667, adds more descriptive words to each of the sections of the song. You can use an adjective from this guide and place the reference immediately following the adjective. "Darkening" is the word used to describe the B section. Binksternet (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another: They All Played Ragtime (page 243) calls the G minor B section "in the pathetic vein"... not to be confused with simply saying that the section is pathetic. 'Pathetic vein' here means sad, emotional, sentimental or even tragic. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet, you rock. These are neat references. I'll put them in, if you'd like, when I get the time. Magnetic Rag (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I got the time first. ;^) I deleted the 'popularity' mention because I was unable to find a citation. I added refs for the two paragraphs missing them. I believe the article meets GA status now. Binksternet (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]