Talk:Frédéric Chopin/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 10:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Will review. Beginning first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Preliminary observation: At the moment the main text contains a mixture of American and English spellings: "kilometers", "parlor", "favorable", "traveled", "catalog", "modeled" and "realized" from the US, and "organised", "rumours", "realising", "rumour", "centre", "subsidised", "pedalling", "colouring", "utilised" and "patronising" from Britain. As British spellings are in the majority, it might make sense to adopt them throughout, but either way, I think you should standardise. – Tim riley (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point! Now anglicised, except for 'modeled' which is the spelling used by Taruskin in the citation. I assume we should not adjust quoted text in this way.--Smerus (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely! Sorry: I didn't spot that it was in a quote. Tim riley (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I disapprove of any GA reviewer who thinks his/her job is to tell nominators how to write even though their original prose is perfectly fine, so my comments below are the merest suggestions, to be followed or ignored as you think fit, and don't affect the promotion of the article, which I have much pleasure in effecting, below.

  • Education
    • "commenced" – I can't remember if it was Fowler who put me off the word, but "started" or "began" is crisper, perhaps.
    • "resulted in him being asked" – gerund preferable here: "resulted in his being asked"
  • Travel
    • "his Piano Concerto No. 2 in F minor" – I wondered why there had been no mention of the First earlier, but having clicked on the link I now understand. Perhaps worth a footnote, do you think?
    • "he met with his parents … he met with Schumann" – one meets with disaster, disapproval or even success, but just meets one's parents and friends, surely?
  • Final years
    • "Recent research" – this will become WP:DATED quite quickly. Perhaps "modern research"?
  • Form and harmony
    • My mentioning this is flagrantly ultra vires, but can no-one be found to speak well of the piano concertos? I think they're delectable, and so do many others, I'm certain.
  • Titles, opus numbers and editions
    • Do any of the sources comment on the quality of the posthumously published works? (I mean, I suppose, was Chopin wise or mistaken in wanting them destroyed?)
    • "alternate catalogue designations" – this should be "alternative", I think.
  • Reception and influence
    • "virtually everything he wrote for the piano" – is there a "was" missing here, before "wrote"?
    • As Fauré's Vicar on Wikipedia I am sad not to see him mentioned among those influenced by Chopin. I should say that along with Schumann and perhaps Brahms, Chopin was one of Fauré's chief influences. But this comment, too, is ultra vires, I know.
  • Recordings
    • "Artur Rubinstein" links to "Arthur Rubinstein". People seem to get very hot under the collar about the form of his given name, and you may possibly like to consider changing it here. (Swank: I heard Rubinstein play Chopin in the concert hall back in the 1960s. Never to be forgotten.)
    • Are your selected pianists in random order or in order of personal preference? Alpha order might be kinder.

That's all from me so far as GA is concerned. I hope you will be taking the article to FAC. I shall have a few additional minor drafting points if you do, what with the more pernickety standard for prose in FAs (e.g. quite a lot of places where the text would flow more smoothly if "Chopin" were replaced by "he" or "him"), but this is plainly a potential FA, in my opinion. I have greatly enjoyed reviewing it, and have learned a lot. As the only substantive point, the mid-Atlantic spelling, is now dealt with I have much pleasure in declaring this GA open:

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: