From the originator of the article - no doubt the original article needed much editing. Thank you to all who have reviewed and contributed. Here are my current thoughts about it, I hope you will review / comment:
The Hear It See It Music format, though delivered via a web page, perhaps does not need an HTML code “example” cited in the article. That process (creating a ‘frames’ web page) is described well elsewhere. So, the new version I have drafted (below), which also no doubt needs considerable editing, has eliminated the HTML code example and concentrates on the entire ‘system’.
Also, tried to avoid “instructions, advice, or how-to content”. It may still be “confusing or unclear for some readers” and “need copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling”. This editor admits to limited skills, so hope you will edit or point out details to achieve a better article.
The “Single source” issue - I need some help with this. Not a requirement to have multiple sources as best I know as long as the material is not likely to be challenged. Possibly misunderstanding the guidelines now, so please tell me more particular details about it.
One of the challenges creating this article: it is a new subject without a long history. Again, as far as I know, being a “new” subject is not a particular restriction for an article. Also, as noted in this (below) version “Applications of the Hear It See It Music format are often restricted (not available the general public) in order to control distribution.” (composers, publishers etc. often grant limited access for particular musical projects). This condition also relates to the notability of this article's subject. “New” and applications “often times not available the general public” creates little interest to review by additional online sources. Also, possibly because the format is relatively simple in many respects (“relatively simple” is also not a requirement for a subject, though again, I could be missing something in the guidelines).
“Very few or no other articles link to it.” Hope to change this soon, maybe best to edit again before doing so.
Looking forward to your comments and advise TK5610L (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at your draft and made a few corrections — for instance, you don't need the [[XYZ|XYZ]] wikilink when you're linking to a page that has that title exactly: so you should write [[User Talk:Salvio giuliano]] to have
WP:NPOV
, a guideline that requires all articles to be neutrally written. This phrase "To maximize end-user viewing and listening control" looks a little non-neutral to me too, but I really wouldn't know how to make it look better...
Then, your article looks good. It's just a little too detailed, for my tastes, making it look like a how-to guide and not an article. But that can be adjusted, once you go live with it. ;)
It's not necessary to have more than one source, it's good though. I tried to find some more sources with Google, but I couldn't find any. There's a problem, however: your only source is the official site, so it counts as self-published material, and self-published material is not enough to guarantee notability.
this is our notability guideline
And as far as the orphan thing goes, it's the last of your problem ;). True, all articles should be linked to by others, but no articles has ever been deleted for failing that. ;)
Salvio:
Thank you for you advice and insight. I will edit a bit with your input in mind.
I’m not sure how “notability” would be established since most uses are not accessible to the public. There is one web site that is public at this time but may not remain so for long - this web site uses the format, but does not review it or comment about it, so, not a ‘source’ in that sense. In Spanish on the British Council web site, each title has a link to “Practicá ONLINE” using the format:
Sporting Nations Choir
Should this link be included in the article, even though it is temporary?
As far as reviews (as sources) - the format is not only new, but also so ‘transparent’ (easy to verify by a quick examination) there’s virtually no reason for any source to review it. Though many could review the format, it is so relatively simple there is no need to do so.
As I understand, word about Hear It See It Music format is spreading quickly, so maybe the “notability” and “sources” issues will be resolved soon.
TK5610L (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]