Talk:Symphony/Draft

Well, this is the first try. It wouldn't surprise me if this isn't taken down. Tee hee. Hopefully a music scholar can come onboard and pump up the volume, as it were. Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 19:12, 17 October 2007 (CDT)

Looks like an excellent start! --Larry Sanger 22:11, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

Yes, a brave start! One point, which is an issue as it involves a category heading, is that Beethoven symphonies are not normally seen as Romantic: they form a transition between classical and Romantic, and in a sense belong in a category of their own. You have more or less done that, by separating him from the 19th century symphonists, but still -- he was also 19th C :-)) --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 22:43, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

Good, great, integral point, Martin. I'm going to take a rest for a bit, then return, and I'll put Beethoven in a category of his own. I also have to inject Richard Strauss into this, and then figure out a way to characterize the twentieth century (because there is a supposed European "line", but then there are British and American symphonists). I'm picking up eight more books on the subject when the university libraries open, so my eyes'll be zipping along like twin Concordes. Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 23:05, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

W.r.t. the photo, I can't help feeling that it is a bit odd to use an orchestra and hall from Taiwan, rather than Europe or USA! I have been looking for a picture, and so far have found two of the Moscow Phil, but I don't know what the copyright position is. We could try asking and I suspect they would happily give permission.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 12:27, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

Regarding "A Fifth..."; I liked it. --Robert W King 17:14, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

Hey, don't get me wrong: I absolutely loved it at the time! I'm wondering now if I still would...maybe I'd better go buy a copy and listen to it again! Aleta Curry 17:17, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

Lists

What do you all say to removing the list of modern composers from the 20th Century section? It's fine the way it is; my fear is that people with start adding to it and we'll get one of those WP type endless lists, which I hate.

I started catalog of symphonic composers, in any case.

(and thangsalot, Justine--I can't get this music out of my head, now! Singing: This is/the sim-fon-nee/that Schubert wrote and didn't fin-nish!)

Aleta Curry 18:14, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

I am rather impressed that Jeffrey can write so authoritatively on 20th century composers, and welcome the inclusion of these composers in this article. Actually, I was thinking of suggesting a few more to add there:-)

Actually, it's the twentieth century where I feel more comfortable. (And in order to keep it short and snappy, I left out some composers which others may have put in, such as Rachmaninoff, Nielsen, Hindemith, etc. I just didn't want to give the reader an information overload. I think that list of composers of symphonies will be VERY wonderful.) (And it struck me hard as I wrote this article that the history of the symphony kind of in one way ends with Beethoven, and everything that follows him is like a footnote: it's odd, that.) Martin, for my two cents, I love the photograph that you added; it enhances the page marvellously. However, you may have a point about substituting it for another; I won't enter the discussion because, as I say, I love the photograph as it stands; I only hope a picture commensurate in beauty is available! ALSO! Regarding lists, the Appendix A and Appendix B of the Adam Carse book in my bibliography lists what looks like a couple hundred composers of symphonies in the eighteenth century, virtually all of them completely forgotten today. Although they won't warrant inclusion in a CZ list, perhaps we could/should mention that this list (these appendices) exists?Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 00:39, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

Actually, I didn't add the photo. I have two of the Moscow Phil I collected, but they are not public domain, so I didn't upload them. If you are happy with this one, let's leave it there! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:42, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

P.S. YOu can add as many as you like to catalogs, as subpages of this article. Go to Catalogs from the articlke page, and I made a link to another subpage from the Catalogs subpage, which means that we can have as many catalogs there as we like. It sounds complex, but if you look you will see easily. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:45, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

Martin, thanks for the info on lists, I'll figure it out in hours to come. (Typing up these appendices of hundreds of names sounds like FUN!) Now I need to withdraw back into this pile of books by my side, to double-check all my facts and maybe add a few. Back later . . . hopefully to "finish" this article Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 00:49, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

Related articles

Trying to figure out how to deal with subpages is way too complicated for me at the moment; I’m gathering info together for articles, so need to keep focused. So I’ll put here information for three subpages for the symphony page and let someone else judge if these are useful and so on:

See also:

Ripieno concerto

Symphonie concertante

Sinfonia characteristica

The ripieno concerto was a popular form of instrumental music in Italy at the outset of the eighteenth century. It was composed for an orchestra without featuring a solo instrument, and was sometimes structured in three movements of contrasting speeds (generally fast-slow-fast). It differed from the concerto grosso insofar as the orchestra for the ripieno concerto wasn’t divided into two antiphonal sections; “ripieno” can translate as “full” and referred to “full orchestra”. Italian composers who wrote ripieno concertos include Antonio Vivaldi, Giuseppe Torelli, and Tommaso Albinoni. Some music scholars relate the ripieno concerto to the development of the symphony, as many early symphonies adhered to a three-movement pattern of fast-slow-fast, but this general structural principle wasn’t exclusive to the ripieno concerto. (See, for example, the Italian sinfonia.) The genre of the ripieno concerto died out during the eighteenth century while the modern form of the concerto grew in prominence in this same period.

The symphonie concertante (or sinfonia concertante; symphony concertante) was a genre related to the symphony which grew in prominence during the 1770s – 1780s in Europe but which died out for the most part by 1800. It was a symphony-concerto hybrid, organized in two movements, and scored for up to six soloists and orchestra. Some composers of symphonie concertantes were Carl Stamitz, Giovanni Giuseppe Cambini, and Jean-Baptiste Davaux. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart composed at least one finished symphonie concertante, Sinfonia concertante in E-flat major for Violin and Viola, K. 364, in 1779.

The sinfonia characteristica (or sinfonia caractéristique, characteristic symphony) was a type of symphony composed mainly in the eighteenth century which was embellished with a printed text (either one line or many paragraphs long) which pointed the listener in a specific direction, so that the music would convey a thematic expression, i.e., “tell a story”. Music scholar Richard Will has identified over 225 such works written between 1750 – 1815, the majority of subjects being these five: pastoral, military, hunts, storms, and national or regional expressions. As a term, “characteristic symphony” is the forerunner of the “program symphony” of the nineteenth century which gained major prominence with Hector Berlioz’s Symphonie Fantastique. Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 05:28, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

DONE!! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:41, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

Nice job, Martin! Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 12:55, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

List of twentieth century composers

I think Robert Thorpe was exactly right to add Carl Nielsen to the list of twentieth century composers. Why? Because Nielsen indeed had an intrinsic role to play in the development of the symphony (esp. Symphonies No. 1 and 5). That I left him out in that list was an unfortunate oversight. Of course, more names could be added, but I don't think any of the names on the list can be left out; each name can be defended in one way or another. My criteria for this list was, first and foremost: who in the twentieth century expanded the vocabulary of the symphony (i.e., innovated) without discarding the concept of a "great tradition" of the symphony? Of course, some would argue that a couple more names could be added, such as, say, Penderecki. But why I didn't add, say, Philip Glass, is because I don't think he fits in to this "great European tradition". Others may disagree, and that's cool with me. Who made me right? In the end, I thought that it would be wrong to discuss the merits of each choice in the article itself because it would simply make the article longer and longer, and if/when each composer has his own page, it can be there where the composer's merits are best explained. Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 18:50, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

Congrats! A Few Comments and Comparisons

First of, my congrats to Jeffrey Bernstein for writing such an important and well-written article. Jeffrey asked me to take a look, and I really like what I see! For an introductory article primarily for non-scholars, it has nearly exactly the right chronological and geographical balance. The most commonly performed and recorded symphony composers are right front and center. It's tiny compared to the New Grove article, of course, but gives a much better overview than that dictionary can. We can use sub-pages and related articles to go into detail about the 18th-century symphony; Grove can't, so there one reads pages before getting to the first name most people have heard of. It's a wonderful feature that the Wiki-encyclopedias have, and not made any clearer than here. The article far surpasses the slightly longer Wikipedia article in its clear organization and firm editorial hand. (That article was far worse before the removal of every notable composer ever to write a symphony). The chronological approach really must be the best way of discussing a form that has changed so much over the centuries.

The lede is quite good. I would cut "In the present day the symphony is the musical form performed more than any other in concert programs by orchestras in the United States and Europe" and transform it to a statement about how it is the form at the heart of orchestral concerts today, and how indeed the very name "symphony orchestra" attests to its predominance in the classical concert hall. The number of performances can still be cited as evidence for its importance, but it's really not the important thing in itself. This proposed rewording also lets us get in the equation of "symphony = orchestra" which should be mentioned somewhere. There's also a less strong usage of symphony being a stand-in for all classical music, orchestral or not ("Going to symphony hall"), that could be mentioned. (Both with a quick "See 'orchestra'" or "See 'classical music'").

The Mozart and Haydn sections are quite strong. I'd include the 104 and 41 counts, but put them in some context ("Both were prolific composers of symphonies. The traditional number written by Haydn and Mozart are 104 and 41, respectively, though recent research has attributed to each several formerly unknown or misattributed symphonies."). (The number nine for Schubert is also a traditional number -- he began 13 and finished 7.)

I like how the Beethoven section begins; it's too bad there's not something explicitly on style periods with the symphonies -- at least as long as there is no Beethoven article. The difference between the "second" and "third" style periods is less important in the symphonies, I believe -- the Eighth doesn't really show late style, and the ninth is sui generis. But the differences between 1-2 and 3-7 are worth addressing.

The early nineteenth century section is good, but focuses a bit too much on how we see the 19th century symphony today. A bit of background would help the article extremely without adding much length at all. Mentioning for instance, that Schubert was not considered a symphonic composer for much of the nineteenth century, that the Grove dictionary of 1889 wrote "it might seem almost superfluous to trace the history of Symphony further after Beethoven," because of the perceived inferior quality of later work, etc. In the second half of the century I would discuss Brahms, Bruckner (more correctly 11 symphonies), and Mahler together in a discussion of Austro-German ideas towards the end of the century. The fruitful interaction between symphony and tone poem on the program music side could be made more explicit. I do find that Strauss is given too much real estate in the article, since the two early symphonies are of minor importance and the two later are essentially tone poems and would be discussed there. The Grove article has a chapter on "Mixtures with other genres" which I find useful, since it includes not just tone-poem influence, but also concerto (e.g., Lalo's Symphonie espangnole). Then there's the whole kettle of organ symphony...

The 20th century section handles a diverse group of composers and notions of symphony really well. I think there's really three things we want to do with 20th century symphony: (1) identify the most important symphony composers--that is, those for whom the symphony occupied a (or the) central part of their compositional life (Nielsen, Sibelius, Vaughn Williams, Shostakovich, perhaps Ives). I believe they are best identified in a single sentence to discourage others from adding to the list. (2) mention briefly the most important symphonies by other composers (Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms, among others); again in one or two prose sentences. (3) Most importantly: mention what composers wanted to do by writing a symphony. I think the sentence beginning "Some twentieth century symphonies hark back..." is a good example of this type of writing, and almost the whole 20th century section could be written this way. It also allows much more for discussion of post-WWII works, where with some exceptions (several symphonies of Hovhaness, Glass, Henze), the writing of symphony tends to have a particular extra-musical purpose, either political expression (Gorecki 3), memorial (Corigliano 1), hommage (Schnittke); the creation of anti-symphonies (symphonies in name only) could be mentioned (Gubaidulina);

Names: In many cases, the nicknames of Symphonies precedes the giving of certain numbers. For instance, "New World Symphony" (formerly No. 5, now No. 9), or "Unfinished" (no number when first discovered and performed). This section is necessary, I guess, but a little more trivial than the rest of the article. There may be a way to integrate it higher?

Again, what great work -- really impressive! My comments are so long because I find the writing worth grappling with, not because it needs much or any change.

Michael Scott Cuthbert 20:46, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

One little thing: re: Debussy and Bartok not composing symphonies: It's nothing at all new in the 20th century to have major composers who didn't compose symphonies. It's that we have two major orchestral composers who didn't (though, the "Symphonic Sketches" that are La mer make it nearly a symphony). The 19th century is filled with opera composers who never did (nor did Chopin). Michael Scott Cuthbert 21:37, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

changes made

Okay. I have made virtually every change addressed by Michael Scott Cuthbert in the previous note. I made two of the changes as footnotes (which someone subsequently may want to amend, bringing the information into the body text): the Haydn/Mozart symphony reference, and the Bruckner’s eleven-not-nine-symphonies reference. I added paragraphs on the “end of the symphony” idea, the “Austro-German” bent of the history of the symphony, and the genre of the “tone poem”.

What I didn’t do is anything involving the twentieth century. Why? Since this is a collaborative effort, I’ll let someone else deal with it. Tee hee. Good luck. (Conceivably I COULD do it, but I'll leave it a week or two, in case someone else wants to slip in.)

My last two cents: I truly believe that only one space between paragraphs makes the text very hard to read, if not virtually unreadable. But maybe that’s just me. And who made me right? Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 07:17, 27 October 2007 (CDT)

The readability of the text when there is only one line space between paras is determined by font type and font size. I changed mine because it was driving me crazy :-) --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 07:21, 27 October 2007 (CDT)

Martin! Changed yours where? You mean to two spaces? In all of the articles I write here, I use two spaces between paragraphs. Perhaps it is in violation of CZ convention, but, as I say, two spaces seem to make the text so much more readable. Sure, the use of two spaces breaks with the convention of how paragraphs are laid out on a printed page, but, very obviously, a computer monitor is No Printed Page. And since kids nowadays seem to read less and less, Anything We Can Do To Make Reading Easier is a good thing, right? But I'll leave it to others to make the final decision. I'm no troublemaker, haha.Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 07:38, 27 October 2007 (CDT)

No, I mean I changed my browser settings: this is the main issue. Also, it matters what browser you are using :-) --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 08:05, 27 October 2007 (CDT)

There should be a way to change your user css file to make the spaces between lines more to your liking. I've done this on WP to remove spoiler warnings, etc. Michael Scott Cuthbert 19:41, 28 October 2007 (CDT)

Approval

I am nominating Symphony for Approval under the Citzendium approval process. Jeffrey Bernstein's research and knowledge has produced an article that gives a far better introduction to the symphony than anything freely available at this point. Compared to the main English language music dictionaries (New Grove and the New Harvard 2nd edition; I don't own the later editions), it is easier to read and highlights the main information far better, though it is less comprehensive in its scope (trade-offs). The Encyclopedia Brittanica has a lede which is a model of clarity that all other dictionaries could learn from; after this point EB is also quite good, but is enough longer than this article and may lose readers before they ever get to the symphonies of Beethoven and Brahms. By contrast, this article is definitely designed to be read in a single sitting as an introduction to the topic. It is hard to imagine a much better article of its length. The writing is a joy to read and the relative emphasis on each period seems perfect to me. There will be later approved versions of this article to be sure--I would think that the 20th century section would be better improved by a complete rewrite than just patching it. But I imagine the core of Bernstein's article to be here for years to come. As an introduction to the topic, it succeeds marvelously, and as the first Approved article in the music work group, it sets a high standard for articles to come. Michael Scott Cuthbert 19:41, 28 October 2007 (CDT)

Wow, that was fast! To go from a blank page to an approved article in two weeks is amazing. I hope we see many more articles follow suit in the months and years to come. --Joe Quick 01:30, 29 October 2007 (CDT)

I concur with both comments, and offer my congratulations to Jeffrey. It was clear, watching the article evolve, that it was a personal labour of love, and one undertaken with an unusually high degree of modesty and openness to critical opinion or suggestions. It constitutes a specific model of article construction for us on CZ, and one which is distinct from the conventional wiki model of multiple contributors. Again, I offer my warmest congratulations! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 13:05, 30 October 2007 (CDT)

Images, audio clips

(PD) Image: Univ of North Texas Music Library
Jean-Baptiste Lully, Armide 1st edition, 1686, page I.

It might be a good idea to judiciously add some images and audio clips. If you think so, I'll hound materials but I'd really like some guidance--there is a lot out there--before I go any further. Stephen Ewen 02:14, 29 October 2007 (CDT)

Meanwhile, I am contacting the photographer of this fantastic photo to see if she will release it under a CC license. Stephen Ewen 02:35, 29 October 2007 (CDT)

It is hard for me to think of many images or audio clips that would improve the article except to be eye/ear candy. The article is primarily about an abstract musical form. Any images or sound clips are going to present a specific instance of that form. In particular, I think a 30-second sound clip would illustrate "orchestra" or perhaps "minuet" or "exposition" or anything except symphony. I think there will be plenty of music articles which could be improved by the addition of images and sound (though I think one piece of eye candy, such as the concert hall currently there or the Charlotte Symphony picture (esp. if most of the organ is cropped out) is fine), but we shouldn't add any others unless we can clearly document how the image or clip adds to our understanding of what a symphony is.

Some images that might do this: a comparison of the first page of a Haydn vs. a Mahler symphony, to show the increase in size of the orchestra. Possibly links to audio files of (at least half-way decent) recordings of complete symphonies that are already mentioned in the article (not midi!), if added at the point in the article where the are discussed. etc. Best, Michael Scott Cuthbert 12:58, 30 October 2007 (CDT)

Yes, I did not want to just add eye candy. But I do think your suggestions that might add substance are very good. Stephen Ewen 02:22, 1 November 2007 (CDT)

Assistance

After Beethoven we could place a box outlining the different, and number of musical instruments that became standardised after Beethoven, where placed there by Beethoven and lost there place in the orchestra before Beethoven. To give an overview of the development of acoustic instruments from baroque to early romantic.

We could also use that box and another second box after romantic, post-romantic and modernist music to describe how the different instruments are being used in an classical and early romantic musical piece and then in a late romantic and modernist symphony. We could name the different instrumental groups, woodwinds, etc. What place they took in the orchestra and how they where used to express idea's and emotions.

Also there are several things missing. There is too little mention of the musical innovations by Hector Berlioz, the symphonic poems written by Franz Liszt and there should be a mentioned that the symphony became less popular in the 20th century because the composers in that period of time considered symphonic music to be old-fashioned ...said Micha van den Berg (talk) (Please sign your talk page posts by simply adding four tildes, ~~~~.)

APPROVED Version 1.0

Discussion for Version 1.0 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.

I used this article today to evaluate a remediating college student (who hopes to be a music major) for reading miscues/fluency. It worked very well. Just thought the writers here might like to know that. Stephen Ewen 16:09, 13 November 2007 (CST)

Wow, Stephen, thanks for letting me know. I am so pleased that I wrote something worthwhile. I recently posted an article on Shostakovich so maybe that can be of some use as well. Since that latter article is so long, it may work well as a test for ADD, tee hee.Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 16:14, 13 November 2007 (CST)

add some stuffs about korea

I'm sure that orchestras & symphony pieces existed in China, Korea, and elsewhere before the 1700s - so, while I myself am occupied with another article, I'd like to suggest that the editors of this article move to that direction sometime in the future. Thank you. Like see this link http://www.koreanculture.org/06about_korea/symbols/12traditional_musical_instruments.htm (Chunbum Park 23:53, 3 May 2008 (CDT))

For example, according to the PDF 50 Wonders of Korea

It is thanks to the musical notation devised by King Sejong that it is possible to recreate the Royal Palace Music today. The notation used was called Chongganbo. It consists of blocks of cells, each representing a unit of time, with the symbols of the notes written in each cell. If the name of a note appeared in two consecutive cells, the note would be played for twice as long; if two characters were written in one cell, they would be played twice as fast. A method of mensural notation, describing both the pitch and the length of a note, was unprecedented in the history of music. With the help of this new technique, it became possible to compose pieces for orchestra, before orchestral performances were known in the West. During the same period in Europe, the neume system was being developed as a system of musical notation. It was created to represent the movement of melody, with notes moving up and down the page according to their pitch. The system was originally used as a mnemonic for reciting holy chants, and is still used today in the traditional music of the Eastern Orthodox Church. In its early stages, the neume system had no common standard and could not accurately represent the pitch and length of a note. By the 15th century, it had undergone various improvements, and was able to represent melodies with greater clarity. Passing through the hands of countless musicians, and after many alterations, it became established in the 17th century as the familiar five-line staff notation used today. It is therefore remarkable that a method of notation capable of recording both the pitch and length was developed in such a short span of time in Korea. Thanks to the Chongganbo, many musical pieces of the early Choson period have survived, and have been enjoyed by Koreans over many centuries. The method of the Chongganbo, as it was originally conceived by King Sejong, has been passed down to us in the pages of the Sejong Sillok, and is still widely used in Korean music.

(Chunbum Park 10:07, 4 May 2008 (CDT))

Unlikely to fit the Western concept of symphony. Should go somewhere else. Peter Jackson 17:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Mozart

Article says he wrote 41. I don't think that's right. Someone did a caalogue of 41 & that numbering is still followed, but the catalogue is out of date. In particular, no. 37 isn't now thought to be by Mozart, except some modifications. Contrariwise, others have been discovered or reattributed. Last I looked through Grove, he seemed to have written 62, some lost. Peter Jackson 17:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ref.10 almost says this: It tells that there are more, but it does not mention no.37. However, no.37 is explained in the "Catalog of famous symphonies" (Why "famous"? - it gives complete lists!)
A trivial reformulation of the reference would assure that the information is correct, a (probably) better solution would be to move this information to the text.
"by the traditional numbering, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart wrote 41 symphonies (the first was written when he was eight years old), a number which has been corrected by recent research."

Since one does not need to be an expert to check this statement it should not be a problem to make such a change.

Not related to Mozart: I noticed that link [3] in ref.13 does no longer work.

Peter Schmitt 18:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is a summary of a complex story. We need either a proper article on Mozart, with some discussion of the symphonies, or possibly a subpage here with some discussion of the symphonies attributed to (and missing from) Mozart. The number 41 is just the conventional historical number, as Kochel numbered them. Oh, and we should have a page on Kochel! Martin Baldwin-Edwards 20:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

We should have a lot more proper articles - on Haydn, Schubert, etc., and not only in music :-)
The subpage discussing the numbers of Mozart's symphonies belongs to the Mozart page, at least eventually.
Peter Schmitt 22:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions

Just finished reading (and making some mostly minor stylistic and editorial improvements to) this great article as part of my first day on Citizendium. I wanted to bring up a couple of things that I think perhaps could be improved:

• The statement in the introduction that "composers [regard] the symphony as 'the central form of orchestral composition'" seems a bit too strong to me. There have been many orchestral composers who have never composed a single symphony; in fact, the article itself seems to contradict this statement later when it says that "for the most part the genre of the symphony was an Austro-German phenomenon for most of its history".
• It seems to me that to a person unfamiliar with music and/or Italian, the mention of Allesandro Stradella’s sinfonie a più istrumenti might seem to lack contextual relevance—perhaps a translation of the title would help to make it more understandable.
• The second paragraph of the section on the Twentieth Century seems to contradict itself—it first states that the primary composers of symphonies in the Twentieth Century were Russians; then, in the next sentence it states that "in the Twentieth Century, the symphony, for the first time, became a major worldwide phenomenon."
• The section about the naming of symphonies seems disconnected from the article; it also seems to contradict the earlier statement that Beethoven wrote nine symphonies by naming a tenth.

Douglass A. Glidden 05:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I forgot to mention that I made one substantive change last night (or rather, very early this morning), which was to remove a parenthetical sentence giving the performance time of a particular Philip Glass Symphony. It seemed to disrupt the flow to me, but if it was considered important to the article I will see if I can work it back in.

Finally, I sincerely apologize if I inadvertently changed the spelling and usage from British to American English—I'm not a student of the differences between American and British English, so occasionally it is difficult for me to determine whether, for example, a particular usage of punctuation is British rather than American usage or simply incorrect. (I tend to be a bit fanatical about correcting even very minor grammatical and punctuation errors.) Thanks.

Douglass A. Glidden 14:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I took a quick look (the "diffs" weren't working for me, so couldn't see everything) and the changes I saw definitely improve an already good article. I'm not sure of the method for promoting the draft to approved, but I would think that it could happen. It'd be nice if we could get some of the substantive changes in the article as well. Best, Michael Scott Cuthbert 00:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)