User talk:Jonyungk/Archive3
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Tchaikovsky
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Re your request, I'll be happy to look at the Tchaikowsky article during the next few days. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I do apologise for not following through on this. I did look at the article, and started to make notes, but then problems arose on a Mozart article that I was trying to pilot through FAC, which distracted me. Somehow Tchaikowsky slipped off my radar. It looks like quite a bit of work has been done on the article in recent months, since the rather harsh judgement that it was undeserving even of a B rating. It seems worth a good deal more than that to me, now. I do have a few issues, however:-
- The prose and punctuation need further attention. Too many copyeditors picking away at the same time can be a nuisance, so I haven't fixed anything. If I were asked to do a complete copyedit, I would agree.
- I'm still unsure about the balance between biographical information and musical comment and criticism, but I need to think more about this.
- The inclusion of the late-20th century usage "gay" to describe Tchaikowsky's sexual orientation reads oddly. It would in no way alter the sense of the sentence if the words "...Tchaikowsky was gay and that" were simply removed.
- Small point, but I noticed in the family image in the Childhood section that there are seven people in the picture, but the caption only identifies five.
- I do apologise for not following through on this. I did look at the article, and started to make notes, but then problems arose on a Mozart article that I was trying to pilot through FAC, which distracted me. Somehow Tchaikowsky slipped off my radar. It looks like quite a bit of work has been done on the article in recent months, since the rather harsh judgement that it was undeserving even of a B rating. It seems worth a good deal more than that to me, now. I do have a few issues, however:-
As I say, I am willing to copyedit and will give this some priority if asked. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
See...
... Symphony no.1 talk for some suggestions I have added. OboeCrack (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- please reply! If I can do sth, just tell me. I want to improve the article until it is finished. OboeCrack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.55.47.52 (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I didn't realise you were looking after this article , but I have to say I am still very unhappy with the 'alternative to the symphony' section. Virtually all your important references seem to be to a 1946(?) essay by Martin Cooper about Tchaikovsky and it shows......It seems to me that this section as a whole takes one, rather dated, view of the nature of classical symphony (and specifically from the point of view of one who wanted to contrast Tchaikovsky's prociedures) and implicitly asserts it as generally accepted - but it doesn't tell us much about 'symphonic poems' except insofar as they differ from this asserted template. I really think this section needs a complete rethink.
By the way, what really are the relevances of the Mozart and Chopin music extracts to this article? In what way(s) do we see a clear difference in Chopin's and Mozart's melodies, and what relevance do they have anyway to symphonic poems? If this can't be clarified, they should be deleted.
Best regards, --Smerus (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that the section in the Symphonic Poems (Liszt) article seems to be very much on the ball.--Smerus (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, cut that section out and let's think what if anythng is necessary to support thge article as a consequence. Best, --Smerus (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Shostakovich 4
Thanks for your note. I think what needs to happen is a thorough re-write of the whole thing, one that uses Schwarz as a general source but without particulars relating to this work, Volkov with a large spoonful of salt (and anyway, Testimony as I recall hardly says anything about the 4th), and barely mentions "MacDonald". (Well, really my preference would be not to use his writings at all...) It should be written by people who are native English-speakers, by people who are highly-trained musicians and scholars, and who would never even consider opening the CD booklet to get anything beyond the spelling of Shostakovich's name--and probably not even that. And it should be written by people who are intimately familiar with DSCH's body of work and of course with this symphony...and I do not mean just from owning a recording or two of it. I mean thorough, penetrating, and highly-detailed analysis of the score. The article should steer well clear of speculative digressions about what the piece "means" or what DSCH had in mind while writing it, simply because those things are virtually impossible to know. To borrow a line from current affairs, we really have to be evidence-based.
This is all stuff that I did lo those many years ago, and while I freely acknowledge that I have not kept up with the DSCH research and bibliography in the intervening years, I also suspect that there can't really be that much that has surfaced on this score specifically. I do not at all mean to echo Rimbaud's "I alone have the keys to this parade" but the fact is, I know this music very well. That's what makes the article so frustrating to me. It's just not up to snuff. And like everyone else here, I can't include "original research," so I can only nudge things a bit here and there. Finally, as I noted in my comment, things have gotten so politicized (thanks to Volkov and "MacDonald" and their adherents) that I would have to be ready to brave torrents of vituperation if I were to delete their precious "facts." And I am not ready for that, so I gotta stay out of the limelight. Let me know your thoughts when you get a chance! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I realized after I wrote all this, that it makes me sound like I want this to be a densely-written scholarly monograph, which I don't. Well...actually in a way I do, but I know that's not what WP is all about. I have to keep reminding myself that it's the intelligent layman who is the intended user of WP. So it's a major challenge for me to haul myself back from the precipice of incomprehensible academic-ese. So, where's the happy medium, you ask? There is one, I feel certain, and I also feel I could contribute to it very well, but as you also know one of the several limitations to the Internet is the fact that nobody involved is actually sitting in the same room together trying to hash something out. It's all too easy to let fly some impulsive firebomb simply because the other fellow is an abstraction instead of a living flesh-and-blood human being who might be a jerk but who might also have something positive and even important to contribute. That's why I'm shying away. Especially, as I mentioned earlier, in the hall-of-mirrors world of Shostakovich.
- How about this? Why don't you try writing (or re-writing) something and letting me look at it before you post it? I'd be glad to do so, and offer whatever friendly thoughts I may have. Maybe it won't work but maybe it will, too. Let me know what you think. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 21:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
RK Operas
My critical inclinations are way in excess of my knowledge in these matters!!! Nonetheless I will take a look when I have a moment - unfortunately I am now in wet-hen mode, running about in several directions simultaneously.--Smerus (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Good news!
I have found something about the movements, see discussion, please! OboeCrack (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Rimsky
I've copyedited Rimsky-Korsakov, and tagged a few places that need citation. I note that there are a few "lost" references that you need to recover. Also, the text before reference #147 (the Guardian article), had an unbalanced double-quote -- I removed it, but I don't know if that was the right thing to do.
It's a really nice article, but it also reads like a book that's just a little too long. I suspect its length might get you in trouble in a Feature Article review; you might consider how to break the material up (something typical of most of the great composer articles). Good job! Magic♪piano 19:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you mind,...
..., as I told you, to present the article of the symphony to Featured Article? Do you think it is ready, because I'm doing the same in the spanish wikipedia. My wish is that both achieve that status at the same time. Please, I need your approval. Thanks! 'OboeCrack (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have placed some comments on talk page of the symphony. What do you think? OboeCrack (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Moscow Conservatory 1867.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Moscow Conservatory 1867.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Jappalang (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Image permission problem with Image:Rimsky-korsakov.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rimsky-korsakov.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
No claim of it as public domain, or any proof that it was published (which is different from creation) before 1923 or that the photographer has died for more than 100 years. Jappalang (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Notability Input
Hey. I've been asked to make a wikipedia article for a band and I'm not sure on their notability. I wanted to get your input, as a frequent editor for the music wikiproject so that I can either make the article or have sources other than just myself that think it's not notable. As I'm new, I'm still not clear on where the line is drawn for reliable sources regarding notability. Here's the info.
Band: Needmore References: The only source I found that I would consider notable is from ourstage.com which is apparently an AOL music website that I've never heard of. You can see the awards given there. I'd link their website and their label's website but they essentially provide no information. It looks like a myspace band to me but the only thing I question in their favor is the ourstage.com reference.
I appreciate your time. Let me know what you think. OlYellerTalktome 18:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Tchaikovsky copyedit
I have left some comments and suggestions on the article's talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry :(
Sorry, for my unexperience, I should have noticed all the mistakes or errors the article had before presenting it to FAC. Well, next time it will be better, I hope. Keep working like that! I really appreciate you! OboeCrack (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Citations in a lead
You asked me about whether or not citations are needed in a lead section. The answer seems to be 'it depends'. The Wikipedia style manual section (WP:LEADCITE) says:
The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality.
Looking at the kind of facts in the lead at present, I would suggest that the reference to controversy surrounding his orchestrations might best be cited, but that other material can probably rely on citaitons in the main text. Maybe other editors would have a different view, but that's my tuppence worth. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Tchaikovsky and Artot
Hi, Jonyungk. I think I may have made those words up myself. However, it seemed a more than reasonable paraphrase of the fact that he maintained warm relations with - and strong feelings for - Désirée Artôt, as evidenced by
- spending considerable time with her after her marriage whenever they happened to meet
- describing her as "the only woman I ever loved"
- writing the 6 French Songs for her,
- and (according to one theory) coding her name into at least 4 of his works written around that time.
Do we really need a cite for these exact words? We are, after all, supposed to be paraphrasing sources in our own words, and drawing disparate threads together to make a coherent narrative etc - and not quoting passages verbatim. I'm happy for it to be deleted if it stands in the way of a GA nomination. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I've now removed the offending claim and tinkered a little with the paragraph. I hope it's ok now. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Tchaikovsky GA review
Hi Jonyungk. Just an FYI: I've done the GA review for Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. --Diderot's dreams (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please don't add final evaluations to the problems listed in the review, e.g. Done. That's for the reviewer. Thanks. Diderot's dreams (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Rachmaninov Symphony No. 1
I am afraid there is little chance of my getting to this soon. I am currently tied up with Handel's Agrippina, and with other projects, and I can't see much free time for a few weeks. If by the end of the month you think I could still help, give me a ping - things might be quieter for me then. Sorry I can't be more helpful right now. Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Pull Tchaikovsky GA nomination?
I've never focussed my Wiki-activities on GAs and FAs and things of that nature. I just like to make articles I'm interested in as comprehensive as I can make them, purely for my own satisfaction and the pleasure from knowing others will read them and get some benefit from them. That's my payback. So, from that perspective, I'm unconcerned about the GA either way. But I understand it's been a pet project of yours for a long time, and it must be frustrating to see these problems being raised at the 11th hour. I don't see any of them as insurmountable, though. The OS/NS date issue is a bit of a curly one. I've not seen any other articles use the solution that's being suggested. Maybe I focus too much on minutiae like that and maybe nobody else would ever have noticed if I hadn't raised it. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Jonyungk! Nice to hear from you. I have not been too active on WP recently. On your suggestion of pulling the nomination, I don't think it is necessary. Are you concerned that there are too many people reading and reviewing the major changes you made to the article and give unwanted criticism? I took time in reading through the article and I think it is fine. There does not seem to be critical issues. I can't be too specific because I haven't been following your work and noting changes. Again, the article looks fine to me. Don't worry if the consensus is it does not fit criteria. Continue your editing. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 22:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- I read the talk page more thoroughly. I am not very familiar with article review in general. The more specific aspects of the article, like NPOV, are more visible to GA reviewers, not me. I can see what some of them have been saying; I only think I can say, do what you think is right. Your writing style suits my reading preference, but it is general consensus on WP that matters. Sorry I can't help you too much. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 01:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Page numbers for refs
Sorry, but I don't have that information. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Rating updates for Tchaikovsky article
The reviewer can do this (it's optional). A bot does it otherwise, which it has by now. Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- My suggestion is to review the FA criteria. As I recall one GA-->FA difference is the article must follow all of the MoS, not just layout, lead, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. So there are parts of the MoS yet to check the article for. Another GA-->FA is breadth becomes comprehensiveness. Since the article was deep in its coverage, and where it needed breadth you added depth as well, I guess you are in good shape. The last that I recall is clear writing becomes really good writing. The writing has always been really good, with a few exceptions where it was unclear, but those got fixed. So I suppose you are close. But go through the FA criteria. I'm glad you appreciated the review and best of luck! Diderot's dreams (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Choral symphony reply
Hi Jonyungk, congratulations on the Tchaikovsky article GA! I'm very happy for you! I did not read everything, but I like your beginning of the Overview section of the article a lot. I like your Mahler section! I was going over the article when I noticed the article size, and you're right: less is more, but not to a big extent. I don't mind reading it all, especially since I am very interested in symphonic literature, but I'm sure you can say what you said in shorter terms. (You're right about the programmatic vs symphonic, you can shorten it, but without sacrificing what you have to say. Everything you say is fine. That's my opinion.)
You are very thorough in your discussion of the major choral symphonies, as you covered them quite well. I'm assuming they are all present in the list. Good job. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 23:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: Apologies over Tchaikovsky
There is no need for apologies; truthfully, I did not even know there was pique in your replies. I have responded to your findings at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky; sorry for not making clear the "talk page" I was referring to. I am saddened to say that it seems very likely those photos cannot be used; I had hoped Warrack's book was only published in London without copyright formalities in United States (so as to allow even just public domain in United States), but it seems unlikely now for the reasons stated on the talk page. What is the copyright notice in his book? Jappalang (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Promoted: congratulations
I am pleased to see that Tchaikovsky has been promoted; congratulations to you and the other main editors. May I assume that the request on my talkpage is less urgent now? It will help me if I don't have to attend to it for a while. Brianboulton (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Shall we...
... continue on we left it? Brianboulton is copyediting, as may probably know. If you need any help, source, wathever, please tell me! OboeCrack (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have withdrawn from this. I am unhappy about the article for reasons made clear on the talkpage, and think it best to end my involvement. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, Jonyungk, maybe was my fault because I didn't now well English wikipedia policies. But that piece of text was well-referenced, and more or less translated. You are the author, and your high-quality work will do the rest. I won't edit more there, however, I will translate it when it gets GA status (or FA, who knows?). It has been a pleasure to work with you, or at least, try to help you. If it was my fault that Brianboulton feel uncofortable working please forgive me. OboeCrack (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I did see your note, but hadn't got round to answering it – sorry, but I have numerous distractions at the moment. Your genre article looks a very ambitious undertaking, but I can make no promises at present as to if or when I could copyedit it. Things may simplify for me in a couple of weeks, but I intend taking a wikibreak soon so I'm not taking on any long-term commitments at present. I will bear the request in mind, though. Brianboulton (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry not to have answered your latest ping. Why don't you put Choral symphony on peer review? This has two advantages: first, I check the page out two or three times a day so will never lose sight of the article, secondly, others also prowl the halls of PR, so you may get some extra feedback. I will try to start copyediting soon; by the way I noticed a typo in the lead, "reording". Not sure if this should be "recording" or "reordering" so I left it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have finished my ce/peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Choral symphony
I'll do what I can, but have to admit I haven't been sleeping well of late, so I'm not sure how much I can do at the moment. I'll try, though. What's the goal? FA? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hello, Jonyungk, I got your note, as well; while I'm honored that someone would suggest me as a capable copy-editor, I'm rather musically un-inclined! I'll take a look at the article in a few days, but I can't promise I'll understand it enough to be useful. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi!
It has been a long since we talked! I've seen all your progress in all the articles you have nominated. I'm just being curious: How many FA, GA do you have? This summer I will translate Tchaikovsky! Well done! OboeCrack (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't like to leave things on hiatus, so I hope this summer we could collaborate together in Rach's 1 Symph. Well, I think all the sections are fine except the description section, but I'm sure I can find an English book and try to rewrite it. Please reply me soon. OboeCrack (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The article has passed its GA review, congratulations! View the talkpage for details. Thanks, and great work! CarpetCrawlermessage me 21:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Choral symphony etc
Hi, just saying thanks for the messages, i haven't ignored them, but I have a backlog of things I've promised to do on WP (esp. concluding some GA reviews), and have been ill, so while I do want to repond to your requests, it might be a week or two before i get to them. cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hi again. I had hoped to come to your talk page and leave a message before you saw that I'd been meddling with Choral symphony. I see you are already responding to some points. I had to interrupt some work I was doing mid-edit, but will be back into it shortly.
- Anyway, just came by to let you know I am belatedly delivering on my vague promise to have a look at the article for copyediting etc. I am trying to improve anything i feel able to change, and the stuff i am flagging on the talk page represents only those cases where I can identify an issue, but would prefer someone with more expertise (ie. you!) to respond to it. I should finish my run through the article in the next few hours. Thanks for all your work on this and I hope it will be ready to head in the general direction of FAR soon (though as I think I told you once before, I've no experience with FA status, so...). Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for...
.. not replying! ¬¬ I know you are busy with your GA music articles, but I would like to know what do you think of what I asked a long ago above. Thanks! OboeCrack (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Choral symphony and Liszt
Hi, Jonyungk - I've finished my reviews for the moment, but feel free to ask me any questions. They both look nearly FA level to me (I know you're still working on them) - let me know when you do nominate them. Thank you very much also for reviewing the Hardy Boys - it was great to hear that, despite flaws, the article was enjoyable to someone who hasn't read the books. Ricardiana (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Choral symphony review
I got your message. I'm just back from a short break, and my first priority is to knock Bedrich Smetana into shape. I'm getting it ready for peer review next week, and won't have much time available before then (I have a few other review commitments as well). I will get to Choral symphony when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- PS - I should have added, since the Choral symphony article has changed substantially since its last peer review, I would advocate waiting the 14 days and then resubmitting for a second review. Brianboulton (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Symphonic poems (Liszt) - peer review
I have left a few comments for attention, on the PR page. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I have just posted Smetana to peer review. Any comments on the article will be gratefully received. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
You mentioned this point in FAC but I was unclear about it: I'd been told in the past that the lead did not have to be cited unless a direct quote was used, as it was expected that the material summarized in the lead would be proved and cited in the article itself. Could you please clarify this? Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not that familiar with the rules and nuances of featured articles; best to try asking at WT:WIAFA. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I came here to comment on the peer review in response to your message on my talk page and saw the above question. See WP:LEAD (and I think maybe WP:CITE mentions refs in the lead too). The most common way is to not include refs in the lead unless it is a direct quotation or an extraordinary claim - everything else the refs can be in the text (body of the article). It is also permissible to add refs to the lead for everything.
- I was going to say that it was clear to me that the article has had a lot of work, there are a lot of refs and they seem to be done properly and use reliable sources. I just had a hard time following the article because too much background / context information is not provided, including something as basic as the names of the Five (although Mighty Handful sounds way cooler). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Peer reviews
I was somewhat overwhelmed - pleasantly so - by the extent of the PR comments on the Smetana article, and am still working on my responses. I shall be away for several days next week, so it is unlikely that Smetana will move from Peer Review before the end of the month. This should not prevent you from re-presenting Choral symphony for peer review. It is on my "to do" list, and I will try and at least get started on it this weekend, before I go away on Monday. Also, there are other editors who can look at it. As to Symphonic Poems (Liszt), I will comment on the FAC within a day or two. It is most encouraging that more classical music/opera articles are coming to PR and FAC now. Brianboulton (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
re: Symphonic Poems (Liszt)
I apologize for not being available to do a proper review of choral symphony. As of late I have been rather busy on and off Wiki; in fact, I have an FAC of my own to worry about at the moment. I'm just one of those people who believes in reviewing a couple articles for every nomination I make. Good karma, etc. :) I'll take a look at the rest of the article tomorrow and see what I can do. Would you rather I post concerns on the FAC, article talk page, or simply make the edits myself? María (habla conmigo) 20:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Piggybacking this thread—I think there is some misunderstanding, I was advising the use of any of the following four photos (not etchings):
- These photos can be uploaded to Commons and safely remain there because they are in public domain in both Germany ({{PD-Old}}: authors likely more dead more than 70 years ago) and US ({{PD-1923}}: published before 1923). Etchings could be an issue especially if their authors are British (UK allows copyright for "sweat of brow" works; moreover, how shadings are drawn might be construed as originality) or unknown (when was the etching created and published?). Jappalang (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I tweaked a bit.[1] I was confused by what "programmatic" could be. I kept thinking of schedules—an orderly procession—until I checked the dictionary and found another definition is of the qualities of program music. Jappalang (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Running through some proposals (because changes are quite large, or I am unsure of) with you.
- "After an assistant—August Conradi from 1848 to 1849, Joachim Raff from 1850 to 1853—had realized his ideas and provided a performable score, Liszt would then revise. Liszt made further amendments by moving sections into different structural relationships, modifying or composing new connective material to gain a complete piece of music. The music would be copied ..."
- Suggestion: "After an assistant—August Conradi from 1848 to 1849, Joachim Raff from 1850 to 1853—had realized Liszt's ideas and provided a score of an acceptable standard, Liszt would then make further revisions; he moved sections to form different structural relationships, and modified connective materials or composed them anew, completing the piece of music. The score was copied ..." Jappalang (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- "a folk hymn sung to Liszt by a gondolier in Venice in the late 1830s."
- More stuff to clarify
- "... his then-consort Princess Carolyne zu Sayn-Wittgenstein ..."
- As "consort" can mean "spouse of a monarch (or royalty)", perhaps "companion" would be a better choice?
- "... their poverty of invention."
- Is "... their lack of creativity." better?
- "thus naming it the musical counterpart of the old Scottish saga of that name."
- What is the "old Scottish saga of that name"?
- "... several of the pieces had to wait until the 20th century for definitive interpretations."
- What has this got to do with 19th century audiences finding the pieces puzzling? Are not interpretations done by performers, not listeners?
- "... unusual time and key signatures, ... chamber-music textures ..."
- More stuff to clarify
- File:Karl Klindworth.jpeg does not have enough information to make me confident of its status in US or its country of origin. Try File:Karl Klindworth portrait.jpg, which I have uploaded to Wikipedia; it is at least verifiably published before 1923. As for "unusual time and key signatures", is it correct to call them "unusual beat"? Jappalang (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- File:Cesar franck.jpg is fine, as long as it is on Wikipedia for the time being. Have you considered File:Cesar-Frank-playing-organ.jpg or File:Cesar Franck At Organ.jpg? By the way, the MOS does not recommend forced sizes for images unless required for clarity, e.g. maps. Jappalang (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
| This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |