# Talk:F. Andrieu

This review is transcluded from Talk:F. Andrieu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Smerus (talk · contribs) 22:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I am taking this on, and will aim to complete the review over the next few days.--Smerus (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Smerus, looking forward to it Aza24 (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


### Some initial comments
Very interesting article - I know very little about ars nova music and this is on a first read very informative and certainly at or very close to GA level. The odd thing is that, because of the information available, it is invevitably more about  Armes, amours than about its composer - you may want to add a redirect on WP of Armes, amours leading to it. Incidentally you have enabled me to hear this piece for the first time and it is fabulous.

Thank you! Andrieu's work is wonderful indeed, and I'm not sure which recording you listened to, but if it was the Sollazzo one, that one is especially remarkable. But yeah I figured rather than having two short articles about the composer & piece, it was better to combine them into a more substantial one. Aza24 (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The following, mostly copyediting, points have struck me:


#### Lead
"presumably François or Franciscus" - not that I can think offhand of other names beginning with F, but why "presumably"? "Possibly" might be better, given Magister Franciscus.
Changed, probably just me editorializing
A reader not familiar with musical terminology might understand "four-part" as meaning " in four (temporal) sections". You use "for four voices" in the next section, and I suggest it is used here.
Agreed, changed
I suggest replace "separable" with "differentiated".
Done


#### Identity and career
"the only surviving musical settings" - "the only surviving contemporary musical settings" might be safer?
oops, yes, definitely
suggest comma between "that" and "from".
Done
Music schools - I suggest lower case M, and axing the link -  the article referred to has nothing on music schools in 14th-century France.
Have lowercased, and yes that link is not very helpful...! have removed


#### Music overview
you might explain briefly (if that is possible) what differentiates ars nova from ars subtilior; otherwise the end of para 2 is somewhat opaque.
I see what you're saying, I've added "rhythmically-complex" which was the defining difference; hesitant to go any further without disrupting the flow of the sentence, though I could rephrase it if need be
space between "Saracen" and "horns"
the text where this is from has it as one word, though I'm not sure if I should still do this?
I think there is an article layout problem as regards the text of Armes, amours, whose disposition in the article seems awkward. Strophe 2 is given here, strophe 1 in a later section. One possiblity would be to give these strophes complete as a first subsection of 'Music' - you could then , e.g. say in the present section  "from the second strophe (see above)"
I agree it's not ideal, but the issue with combining be that one is sung by the Cantus 1 voice, and the other by Cantus 2, so having them one after another would be misleading as it excludes the Cantus 1's second strophe & the Cantus 2's first strophe. I am tempted to put all of the lyrics in the article, potentially hidden in a drop down menu, but WP has some guideline against doing so I believe
When I look at the complete text, to which you give a link, I see that there are in fact six verses, O flour des flours being the 4th. You should I think explain in the article which verses are set and in which order - (?I am guessing (purely) that verses 1 2 and 3 are sung sequentially and simultaneously with verses 4 5 and 6, but am probably wrong......)
No, you're right, that's how it's done—the link is a nice place to see the two poems, but presents it somewhat misleadingly. I've (tried to) clarify this in the text


#### Similarities to other works
suggest link "musical imitation" to Imitation (music).
Didn't know we had that article, done


#### Sources
Some authors' names given as deadlinks - is there a rationale for this (apart from those who have articles in other language WPs)?
Yes some of these people appear notable enough for WP articles and I plan to make them at some point. The red links are mainly for me, so when I do so I don't have to go back and link :)
--Smerus (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I've addressed the very helpful comments above, though the Music overview may potentially have some unresolved issues. Best - Aza24 (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


#### Cantus, etc.
Thanks for the above, and for the rewrite of the music overview. But this does I think introduce or extend other problems which I didn't cotton on to in my first reading, notably the issue of cantus/tenor/countertenor. There isn't a WP article for cantus in this sense, so one needs to explain what it means (the Wiktionary definition is not entirely helpful). By the way is plural of "cantus" in this sense "cantuses", "canti" or what (I have no Latin)? Then one ought to link tenor and countertenor, which articles however don't seem to me to be entirely satisfactory in dealing with these roles in early polyphony - but having introduced the terms you need I think to give some brief clarification of their roles.
But the more you address such issues for Wikipedia readers (which I think is a priority in my understanding of the WP ethos) the more the article becomes about the piece, and then there arises an issue about its title. You mentioned your disinclination to have  "two short articles about the composer & piece". But actually there is virtually nothing to be said about F. Andrieu and you have a lot to say about Armes, amours/O fluor des fluors. In fact (I suggest tentatively) you might be better to split the two subjects, and make what you have to say about Armes, amours/O fluor des fluors (to include what there is to say about the composer's identity) and make that the GA candidate; with F. Andrieu (who only rates after all five or six lines in Grove) either a brief summary of what little there is to say about the man or simply a redirect to the music article. If the article was about the piece, of course, there would then be no problem about including all the text (but of course there might be copyright problems in including a full translation).
One further minor point about the text: under the two headings Editions and Recordings you have the first line in italics. That means that under Recordings Armes, amours/O fluor des fluors is not differentiated from the rest of the sentence. It might be better for both these lines to be in normal text with the title of the pice in italics as elsewhere in the article.
It was the Solazzo I listened to, by the way.--Smerus (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know Smerus, I think having such a division would cause a lack of continuity not found it typical sources. For instance, in the sources I have used, a few of them don't even mention Armes, amours/O flour des flours but talk about Andrieu's music, with the implication on what they're discussing. Similarly, whenever they do talk about Armes, amours/O flour des flours, Andrieu is always brought up and introduced. The figure and his music seem inseparable, and while the biographical information may seem especially sparse, for the time and profession, it's still somewhat substantial, especially compared to figures where there is quite literally nothing known (not even speculation) other than their name. Aza24 (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
OK let's go ahead on the present basis, fine by me.--Smerus (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Aza24; as the article now stands, I would ask just for consideration of the following two minor detials before preparing my summary:

Music overview
can you just put in an explanation that the cantus is the voice which sings the text - as there is no link in Wikipedia or Wikitionary that explains this (by the way I checked in OED and the plural of "cantus" is indeed "cantus")
Oops, yes, I missed this part of your earlier comment. Have added a note to clarify, and found a link for Cantus—Superius—which is a less common term (and I'll probably rename it to "cantus (vocal part)" at some point).
you need to give the link to ars subtilior in para. 3 (you've repeated the link for ars nova, also in the lead, but not for this).
It's already linked in that paragraph, early in the sentence I think you're referring to. Aza24 (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Best, --Smerus (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


### Overall summary
...and thanks again for introducing me to this fascinating piece of music....
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
Well referenced.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Well illustrated.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

--Smerus (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)