Talk:Blood on the Floor (Turnage)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Blood on the Floor uses scaffolding as an instrument? Source: Styles, Mathew John (2008). An evaluation of the concept of Third Stream music and its applicability to selected works by Gunther Schuller and Mark-Anthony Turnage (DMA thesis). University of Western Australia. OCLC 903878320. page 61
  • ALT1: ... that in Mark-Anthony Turnage's Blood on the Floor, scaffolding is used as an orchestral instrument? Source: same as above
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Linda Yaccarino

Created by Schminnte (talk). Self-nominated at 21:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Blood on the Floor (Turnage); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• @Schminnte: I am struggling to find the hooks in the article. For instance: scaffolding, instrument or orchestral do not appear in the article. Bruxton (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment. I believe I have fixed the problem. The DYK nomination was linking to "Blood on the Floor", which is currently a redirect to a completely unrelated page called Blood on the Floor (Painting, 1986). Cielquiparle (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Cielquiparle: Bruxton (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: you can review it. Mine was a comment only. Bruxton (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton and Cielquiparle: My mistake. I was dealing with a lot of things after moving the article to mainspace. It should definitely link to the Turnage piece. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 06:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Nice article on a complex and controversial musical work. New enough (submitted on the same day it was moved into mainspace); sizable length (16,359 characters); well sourced with inline citations throughout; no apparent copyvio (only major Earwig match is a direct quote from a review cited appropriately); neutral in tone; balances positive and negative reception of the composition. QPQ is done. Both hooks check out and are intriguing – the one comment is that the source appears to be a PhD dissertation, but apparently it's ok for DYK hooks to be attributed to primary sources. (A couple of comments that are tangential to the DYK review and shouldn't hold up its progress: 1) Might be worth citing Turnage himself saying that it was Bacon's Blood on Pavement that was the influence on this work (rather than Bacon's Blood on the Floor) (as he wrote in Tate Etc magazine); 2) Is it right/fair that Blood on the Floor redirects to Bacon's work rather than resolving to a disambiguation page?) Regardless this article is good to go for DYK. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you Cielquiparle! I've cited Turnage as you wanted, I'll get onto the disambiguation page later. If you have any more suggestions please drop by the peer review: I've put some time into the article and want to take it to at least GA, if not FA. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 12:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blood on the Floor (Turnage)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aza24 (talk · contribs) 11:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Happy to review this and glad to see it at GAN! Except comments in the next few days. Aza24 (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm at a course just now so I may take time with my replies. Best, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 12:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aza24, I'm back from the course now for whenever you have comments. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 01:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I am getting distracted by IRL things. I shall endeavor to do this later today. Aza24 (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aza24: apologies for being a pest. Will you be able to undertake this review soon? It's been a few weeks and I am wondering whether you are still able to review. All the best, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 23:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Not a pest at all—a completely fair question. I should be able to get to this now—IRL has cleared up. See below for comments:

General comments

• You can remove the hatnote–since people searching "Blood on the Floor" will be brought to a disambiguation page, they'll have the option to choose the Bacon painting there (notice how the Bacon painting does not have such a hatnote)

  done - S

• Skipping the lead, will come back after reading the article

Background

• I find the rather short Background section rather odd. It doesn't give much context to who Turnage is, gives no years and is frequently redundant ("whose works are frequently influenced by jazz music. His compositions fuse classical and jazz idioms," is redundant; this remark is also included in the Character section, where it makes more sense) Perhaps you'd consider moving material from this section into others. The improvisation remark (which should be altered, see below) could be in the Character section, while the Gunther Schuller and Gibbs remarks could be cut entirely (they seem needlessly trivial, but I can understand Schuller's inclusion more). Everything else seems mentioned elsewhere.
• The line "Although his works combine classical and jazz music, Blood on the Floor was the first time that Turnage had integrated improvisation into one of his compositions" is not entirely clear to a lay reader. Presumably you are implying that although improvisation is a key aspect in jazz, Turnage hadn't used it before—we shouldn't be assuming readers will draw this connection. In addition, most jazz-influenced classical composers do not use improvisation (or purposefully refer to it by a different term, i.e. aleatoric/chance-music, just do deferentiate themselves), so this is rather unique for Turnage specifically
• We could use a year(s) for context in the Background's 2nd para

  Unfortunately the source gives no date for reference - S

Composition

• "more than an hour long" could mean an infinite amount of different times :) Perhaps "slightly more"?

  Changed to "a little more than an hour long" - S

• Since Heather Betts does not have a Wikipedia article, a brief word of context would be valuable. I.e. "[Nationality] artist Heather Betts"

  I could've sworn I had done that before, apparently not. Now done - S

• I'm not entirely convinced that "Inspiration" needs to be its own section, but if you would prefer it to be I see no real issue

  I would prefer it to, as it seems to help readability, at least for me - S

Structure and music

• tonal, movement and metres should be linked

  Done - S

• Individual movements are never italicized, they're always in quotes. Each instance should be changed appropriately
• the Motifs section makes more sense before the movements I believe. It may be better suited as just a paragraph of the character section

  Moved. Since motifs form such a large part of the composition, I think a subsection is justified - S

• Quaver should be linked (for non-BrE speakers, you might put the American equivalent in parentheses)

  Both suggestions are done - S

• I'm assuming that the Hughes poem is being set wordless? I.e. music is set to the words but then the words were removed and the music remained? Corigliano did this in the 3rd movement of his first symphony. This should be clarified somehow—for an unsuspecting reader this may just cause confusion ("where is the singer?")

  Added "wordless" - S

• Surely an excerpt of the actual poetry would be more helpful to the reader than just a picture of Hughes? Would recommend using a quote box (this is done on Sappho and Ezra Pound, for instance)

  How much of the poem would you say is appropriate? The poem is 39 lines, with a rather large first stanza. - S

  Not sure. It'd be ideal to keep a stanza together, maybe the "Yes, easier to get dope..." one? It seems not too long a length and important in the context of the poem, since "easier to get dope" is said twice – Aza24 (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• "A notable feature" is a bit atypical for Wikipedia-speak. Presumably we only discuss notable features to begin with. How about just "The latter's solo is frequently interrupted by the brass section"

  Changed - S

• Do we have an exact Premeire date for the Performances section?

  Unfortunately no - S

• Reception section is solid
• This should hopefully get you started. Will check the lead and Movements section soon. Looking ahead, the lead is far to long for a somewhat short article like this—it should be three paragraphs at most. Aza24 (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you kindly: I will respond to these points in the coming week. I was considering taking this article to FA after this review, so if there is any additional tweaks or fixes you can suggest to help me get this article to that standard, it would be much appreciated. All the best, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 23:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  The smaller fixes are done, will do the rest when I get access to my laptop. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 11:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Aza24: all concerns have been addressed. Awaiting further comments. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  Schminnte, the article is looking really great. Thank you for the lead cutting—I know that kind of thing can be annoying (don't want to loose too much content!) but it is definitely essential to readability and a huge improvement. I've spotchecked a few sources and see no issues. I also see no issues with media, formatting or reliability of sources. I am happy to pass this review now!

  I should note since you asked about FA (these things are probably beyond the scope of GA, so this doesn't affect the passing): for FA purposes, you will probably have to have strong rationales for DMA theses ready, as they are often not considered particularly "high quality". (On the other hand, PhD thesis are usually considered high quality). You will also want more identifiers in the sources (Oclcs, Isbns etc. Theses should all have oclcs) and it is common practice to include locations of publishers, though this is not explicitly required. The lead could also do with a sentence about the recordings, since the lead is ideally supposed to sum up every section. Aza24 (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

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.