Talk:Fortepiano

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Fortepiano was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: February 27, 2007

Contents

[edit] Good Article

This article is one of the finest, most thoroughly researched and well written I've come across on wikipedia. Many musical articles tend to be mediocre or even quite bad, and this one's exceptional. I am not really familiar with the behind-the-scenes of wikipedia, but I think this article should be nominated for a Good Article status. John Holly 15:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Works

One thing this article lacks, I think, is a brief list of notable pieces written for the fortepiano. Basically all the lieder and "piano concerts" by Mozart were written for the fortepiano, as were all piano works by Beethoven. But I'm not familiar with these works and cannot list them. John Holly 18:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name Reversal

I thought that the fortepiano was the original name for the pianoforte, and someone had accidentally reversed the name.

[edit] "Hammer piano"

I made this stub a redirect here. It mistranslated the German Wikipedia article Hammerklavier: "The hammer piano was the earliest form of what is now known as the piano, which was first produced in the 18th century. It is a keyboard instrument. The instrument gave its name to Ludwig van Beethoven's Hammer Piano Sonata. (sic)" I also linked to the German Wikipedia article, which has information that would improve this article. --Wetman 21:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "fp"

I just happened to be doing my musical theory, and was checking out of curiosity to see what was on wikipedia, and was horrified to find that the meaning as a musical term wasn't listed anywhere! Carl Turner 09:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move it!

This article would provide a valuable paragraph in the main fortepiano entry. It doesn't have enough distinctness to be an entry on its own.

Rconroy 18:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Ronán

Take it you meant to post this on the article mentioned for merging. If so, please delete both this message, and yours. :-)

Carl Turner 16:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Key colour inversion

I reverted this edit, pending a source: [1]. While I've seen some with the key colours inverted, there are others that most certainly were not. Would the editor please cite a source? For a counter example, here's a picture with the white keys clearly visible: [2]. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen harpsichords with the colours inverted, and ones without. I haven't seen many fortepianos, but those that I did see were the regular colouring. I don't think there's any grounds to support the removed statement. - Rainwarrior 16:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this information Antandrus, I see now what you are saying. I still recon i should put "most fortepianos have inverted keys", but i will wait & do some more research as to whether it was just a certain era that had this difference or whether it is just a few that have the standard colour of keys as this is the only one I've seen.

ps. Note to Rainwarrior: we are talking about fortepianos so kindly leave harpsichords out of it as they are a completely different instrument.

thanks, daffy_elmo

You know, if you do a google image search for fortepiano, there's a great deal of pictures of the instrument with both colourings. I was surprised that so many of them had inverted colours, but after looking at about 10 pages of this, I didn't really see any tendancy either way. It looked about 50/50. - Rainwarrior 14:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Fail

This article has no references, some form of inline citation is required for Good Article. Also external jumps which should be converted to references, one sentence paragraphs, don't wikilink solo years like 1777, and too many external links. M3tal H3ad 09:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The sound of the fortepiano" subhead

I was going to add a sentence to the effect that a fortepiano sounds kind of out of tune, like a piano you might hear in a church basement. But I thought better of it. 71.122.13.2 01:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:100-DEM-REV-154x74.jpg

Image:100-DEM-REV-154x74.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of articles (the,a) from titles

The Wikipedia Manual of style page on Section headings says "Avoid restating or directly referring to the topic or to wording on a higher level in the hierarchy (Early life, not His early life)." As such, I am removing the uses of the word "fortepiano" in the subtitlesNazamo 21:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Hello, this article was written primarily out of the books by Stewart Pollens and Edward Good (both cited in the bibliography), before in-line references had become common on Wikipedia. It should be possible to footnote virtually everything the article says on the basis of these two references, but this could take me a while, given other current WP projects ... Opus33 (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No huge hurry but, as you say, the standards have changed. Those citations would be much appreciated.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)