Talk:Anna Magdalena Bach/Comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Composers Project Assessment of Anna Magdalena Bach: 2015-05-27

This is an assessment of article Anna Magdalena Bach by a member of the Composers project, according to its assessment criteria. This review was done by Magicpiano.

If an article is well-cited, the reviewer is assuming that the article reflects reasonably current scholarship, and deficiencies in the historical record that are documented in a particular area will be appropriately scored. If insufficient inline citations are present, the reviewer will assume that deficiencies in that area may be cured, and that area may be scored down.

Adherence to overall Wikipedia standards (WP:MOS, WP:WIAGA, WP:WIAFA) are the reviewer's opinion, and are not a substitute for the Wikipedia's processes for awarding Good Article or Featured Article status.

Origins/family background/studies

Does the article reflect what is known about the composer's background and childhood? If s/he received musical training as a child, who from, is the experience and nature of the early teachers' influences described?

  • Gaps in early life should be cited.
Early career

Does the article indicate when s/he started composing, discuss early style, success/failure? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed?

  • Is it known how she got from Zeitz to Leipzig?
Mature career

Does the article discuss his/her adult life and composition history? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed?

  • ok
List(s) of works

Are lists of the composer's works in WP, linked from this article? If there are special catalogs (e.g. Köchel for Mozart, Hoboken for Haydn), are they used? If the composer has written more than 20-30 works, any exhaustive listing should be placed in a separate article.

  • pass
Critical appreciation

Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)?

  • pass
Illustrations and sound clips

Does the article contain images of its subject, birthplace, gravesite or other memorials, important residences, manuscript pages, museums, etc? Does it contain samples of the composer's work (as composer and/or performer, if appropriate)? (Note that since many 20th-century works are copyrighted, it may not be possible to acquire more than brief fair use samples of those works, but efforts should be made to do so.) If an article is of high enough quality, do its images and media comply with image use policy and non-free content policy? (Adherence to these is needed for Good Article or Featured Article consideration, and is apparently a common reason for nominations being quick-failed.)

  • ok
References, sources and bibliography

Does the article contain a suitable number of references? Does it contain sufficient inline citations? (For an article to pass Good Article nomination, every paragraph possibly excepting those in the lead, and every direct quotation, should have at least one footnote.) If appropriate, does it include Further Reading or Bibliography beyond the cited references?

  • Article has citations; no separate reference list
Structure and compliance with WP:MOS

Does the article comply with Wikipedia style and layout guidelines, especially WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, and possibly WP:SIZE? (Article length is not generally significant, although Featured Articles Candidates may be questioned for excessive length.)

  • Poorly written; MoS formatting violations.
Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review
  • Article requires more inline citations (WP:CITE)
  • Article prose needs work (WP:MOS)
  • Article text formatting needs work (e.g. quotation methods, punctuation, inconsistent styles)
Summary

Not really a composer biography, but what the hey. The bio is a bit sketchy, which is not necessarily surprising. However, it should be made more clear what sorts of resources are available, and how they indicate the gaps that are present.

There are a variety of MoS violations that should get attention, and the whole article would benefit from some work to give it a more unified encyclopedic voice.

Article is a weak B; the gaps in background really need to be justified. Magic♪piano 01:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)