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 Sven Manguard Wha? 00:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• ... that the set of three bagatelles by György Ligeti (pictured) consists of only one note, but it should not be performed by heart?

• ALT1:... that Ligeti's (pictured) set of Three Bagatelles consists of only one note?
• ALT2:... that the set of Bagatelles by György Ligeti (pictured) consists of only one note?

• ALT3:... that the set of Three Bagatelles by György Ligeti (pictured) consists of only one note?

Created by Wildbill hitchcock (talk). Self nominated at 12:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC).

• The following was reviewed by EagerToddler39 based on the DYK criteria:

• Newness & length - Article new enough and long enough (2093 characters) at time of nomination.
• Neutrality - Could do with some general copyedit so that it sounds more neutral. The last section on Reception does not appear to be completely neutral as this section depends solely on one source's assessment. I'm not suggesting that positive reviews must be located for the source of inclusion but that more than one source is used to substantiate that the composition was poorly received.
• Paraphrasing/copyvio - Ran duplication detector and found no close paraphrasing nor copyvio issues.
• Inline citations - Inline citations used throughout. Most paragraphs have at least one footnote.
• Hook format & verifiability - Original hook is very interesting. However a few problems with verifiability. The article indicates that the bagatelles "should not" be played by heart, not that it's only impossible to do so. Hook fact is not cited inline. Please locate a footnote at the end of the line which contains the hook.
• QPQ - Does not appear to be necessary as nominator has less than 5 DYK credits.
• Some copyediting needed - This statement is long and unclear "The audience of a public performance of the piece by Karl-Erin Welin in Stockholm was very disappointed, as they were expecting something different, to which Ligeti, who had not been present, stated that he was very satisfied with the reaction." Also this statement "The audience of this performance, which was expecting to hear the non-tempered tuning, also received the piece with great shock, disappointment and, sometimes, even demonstrative fury." The last one is also lengthy. In fact, most of the sentences needed to be simplified throughout the article. Fix this phrase "an fourth bagatelle". Incorrect tense here "has been published in 1965 ". Use simple past. Please fix what needs fixing.
• Other - The article doesn't clearly indicate how and why this particular composition is noteworthy. EagerToddler39 (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Just toned down the first sentence of Reception a bit. I can take it down if you still think it is not neutral, but I haven't found any other reliable sources to support it. I also split long sentences and tried to do general fixes. Please let me know if anything still needs improving. Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• I observe the copy editing done to the reception section. It does read better. The suggested ALT 1 addresses the verifiability issue. Hook fact is cited inline to a non-free online source (Footnote 4). I'll AGF on that source. Almost everything else is ok. I'm not comfortable okaying the DYK when one of the sources used is to a commercial site for downloading sheet music. I notice you've also used it here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. EagerToddler39 (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• I would definitely refer to a free, non-commercial website. However, as this composition is not in the public domain, I have to oblige. I heard that Sheet Music Plus also offers some of its scores on preview, among them the ones you cited, but it is also a commercial website. As to footnote 4, I also tried to find that article in a free, reliable website, but these valuable sources are usually available upon subscription. Is there something I can do to fix that? Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggesting ALT2, only rephrasing ALT1, because Main page readers will understand Mozart, but possibly not Ligeti, "Three" looks strange in the pipe link, and to avoid "pictured" after a genitive:

ALT3:... that the set of Three Bagatelles by György Ligeti (pictured) consists of only one note?

I am not happy with "consists" because there is more, but have no solution ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. I deleted "pictured" in ALT1 to avoid the genitive issue, but it got reinstated. We can just omit "Three" in ALT2. Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Made my suggestion ALT3, it's different enough, I like the "Three", makes it more quirky ;) - italics for title, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

ALT2 is not valid. Ligeti also arranged his Musica ricercata as Six Bagatelles for Wind Quintet. That could lead to confusion. Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• New reviewer needed to finish this now that potential hooks seem to be set. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

  for ALT3. Provided source is behind a paywall, but I was able to verify the fact elsewhere anyway. Fact certainly is interesting and I see no policy problems with the article. Using commercial sources is not an issue. (Length & date perviously verified). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)