Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:33, 24 June 2008

Re: Article

This is a very interesting article. However, it sounds and reads like a thesis paper. Can the author verify his or her contribution as such and publically release it to the public domain?

Furthering that, this article needs to be rewritten to conform to encyclopaedic standards. That is, this article is a little too dense and a tad scientific for the layman to understand. A lot of this can be linked to an outside site and tagged from here as "further reading". Kareeser| 06:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I've continued on your talk page :) Kareeser| 06:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Caravaggio Picture: It should be: flight TO egypt!

Yeah.. this article was really hard to read. :( I was like, woo, interesting stuff but had no idea what was going on. :/ --65.30.35.19 07:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting indeed. When reading this article, all I want to know is how sight reading music works, not how/why their research behind it failed. Stupid 85.229.104.52 (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That may be a reasonable criticism—that the article dwells excessively on the failings of some research. But the fact is that the field is characterised by poor methodology; so poor, in fact, as to render the results highly questionable in many cases. This is a great pity, and needs to be said. The advantage of dealing with those issues is that they're a good entry point to discuss what little we do know of eye movement in music reading.

I'm interested to know exactly what technical aspects/words/constructions etc you found most difficult: this might help in deciding how to address the issue. (I myself don't find it hard technically, so such advice would be valuable.) Tony (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"all I want to know is how sight reading music works, not how/why their research behind it failed." As Tony says above, the fact is that it's not really known how sight reading music works. Discussing the past research is all[REDACTED] can do, per WP:NOR. The article is dense, but also very informative. 64.132.221.211 (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

The pictures are pretty, though not entirely relevant... Ben Finn 11:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of the pics could go, I guess. But how to dumb it down ...? Tony 07:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Move

The edit to Eye movement in music reading has not undergone any major changes except for the addition of the disambiguation link, a statement to improve the prose of the article, and the a slight modernization of its syntax. Therefore User:Tony1's edit will be reverted with the exception to the statement to improve the prose.

I am proposing to rename the article from Eye movement in music reading to Eye movement in reading music as reordering the "music reading" would help conform with the disambugation page and the article Eye movement in reading. Futhur more reordering the words will help clarify that the article is about "reading the music" rather than how the "music is reading". ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Do not make that change. I'm taking steps to move all of these articles back to the way they were.

I'd like to know who you are: you're clearly a sock. What was your previous username? TONY (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks on Misplaced Pages.--Dbolton (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the behaviour of this person does not appear to be in good faith. My questions as to their previous username, to ascertain whether this user has been banned, are quite in order. They have not been answered, so I cannot be blamed for continuing to be suspicious. The threat to revert my edits is hard to understand, since it is written so poorly. TONY (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)