While this isn't really an issue, the title "Instrumental music - incomplete works or single complete parts" results in the TOC being oddly skewed, perhaps just "Instrumental music - incomplete works" would be fine? I don't think the inclusion of 'single complete parts' would be out of place in such a section.
To help with my comment above, I'm wondering what you might thinking of having the map on the let and the larger quire image on the right. Might help some of the 'visual balance' as the large picture & text are on the same side at the moment. The map might be worth enlarging as well.
I've tweaked the images, but not followed through on alll your suggestions here. If more text appears (from the Further reading section?) I may be able to enlarge/move the map.
Amitchell125 (
talk)
07:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)reply
At FAC you will certainly be questioned about using the ~hundred year old source Grattan Flood so often. I would attempt to switch out these with other references as much as possible.
FAC will also probably question why so many sources are in further reading in article on the shorter side. You might consider incorperating more of them, or removing some that don't have additional info on Parsley.
IMO, music more should be said about his musical style and composing career in the lead, presumably in the first paragraph. Maybe mentioning he often wrote for viol.
Theoretically the lead is supposed to sum up the entire article, so a line or two addressing the 'Compositions' section might be good as well. Maybe something about how many compositions survive, the fact that many are fragmented, etc.
Anyways, impressively thorough and well written! I probably should have brought up most of my above comments at the GAN... heh – Aza24 (talk)22:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Looking better already. Would you be opposed if I added a brief section listing recordings of music by Parsley? It would probably look something like
this. Best – Aza24 (talk)19:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)reply
While this isn't really an issue, the title "Instrumental music - incomplete works or single complete parts" results in the TOC being oddly skewed, perhaps just "Instrumental music - incomplete works" would be fine? I don't think the inclusion of 'single complete parts' would be out of place in such a section.
To help with my comment above, I'm wondering what you might thinking of having the map on the let and the larger quire image on the right. Might help some of the 'visual balance' as the large picture & text are on the same side at the moment. The map might be worth enlarging as well.
I've tweaked the images, but not followed through on alll your suggestions here. If more text appears (from the Further reading section?) I may be able to enlarge/move the map.
Amitchell125 (
talk)
07:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)reply
At FAC you will certainly be questioned about using the ~hundred year old source Grattan Flood so often. I would attempt to switch out these with other references as much as possible.
FAC will also probably question why so many sources are in further reading in article on the shorter side. You might consider incorperating more of them, or removing some that don't have additional info on Parsley.
IMO, music more should be said about his musical style and composing career in the lead, presumably in the first paragraph. Maybe mentioning he often wrote for viol.
Theoretically the lead is supposed to sum up the entire article, so a line or two addressing the 'Compositions' section might be good as well. Maybe something about how many compositions survive, the fact that many are fragmented, etc.
Anyways, impressively thorough and well written! I probably should have brought up most of my above comments at the GAN... heh – Aza24 (talk)22:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Looking better already. Would you be opposed if I added a brief section listing recordings of music by Parsley? It would probably look something like
this. Best – Aza24 (talk)19:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)reply