Talk:Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky/GA1

GA Review

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

I am reviewing this article. Of course, feel free to make comments or ask questions. Diderot's dreams (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Status: On Hold (for up to 14 days)

First let me give an overall impression of the article. It has much to offer the reader, and is an engaging piece, especially the personal section. And an A+ for the dramatic portrait in the lead, it really captures the reader's attention, etc. It's clear to me that a great deal of good work has gone into the article.

There are some problems with the various GA criteria, mostly because Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky is a long, frequently changing article, and so there are some slip ups. Let's see if we can't straighten them out. I'll go by section.

The Lead

Prose: the first sentence is an awkward monster. And his name in two additional languages? Please explain. And that aside, the sentence lumbers along and finally trips you up when you get to his First Piano Concierto. The his made my brain fall on its face. Please straighten that out.

Done. But I think once it was broken up and some extra stuff taken out, the 'his' was better left in to clarify whose 'First Piano Concierto' it is.

Life

Prose: It should be clearer from the start of the section on it that The Five is a musical/composition group.

Done.

NPOV/evidence for dramatic claims: The writer Alexander Poznansky has demonstrated through his research that Tchaikovsky had homosexual tendencies and that some of the composer's closest relationships were with persons of the same sex. After reading all Tchaikovsky's letters (including unpublished ones), Poznansky concludes that the composer "eventually came to see his sexual peculiarities as an insurmountable and even natural part of his personality ... without experiencing any serious psychological damage."

Are these statements too definitely worded? More supporting evidence should be given. Also a close relationship doesn't mean homosexuality unless its sexual too. More evidence please, see the next comment.

Now that I've read the paragraph again, it is clear that adequate evidence has been presented. It was the overconclusiveness in the first statement that caused my knee-jerk reaction to it. It is worded like a scientific research experiment in a lab with the according confidence level when it is, of course, an historical examination. The first statement needs to be toned down a bit. Rephrasing it as something like "showed in his research" or "found in his research" is needed.

Done.

Breadth, given the homosexuality information: Who were his important homosexual lovers? Or if there weren't any important ones then state that. With a ref, I think. ~~This also would help dispell the NPOV/evidence question above.~~

Done.

Breadth: Did he have any children. If not then say so. With a ref, I think.

Done.

Stating that Tchaikovsky had no important lovers nor any children is not a problem; supplying refs for these things is more difficult as none of the biographies I have on hand state these things explicitly. Suggestions? Jonyungk (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already, try Google. Also one fact tag on a noncontroversial statement isn't enough to stop an article from becoming GA. Diderot's dreams (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Material added. Jonyungk (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For breadth, I was hoping for # of kids through his life, but that information may just not be stated anywhere.Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel wordy: However, some have theorized that his death was suicide. Who? Why?

Done.

Music

NPOV: While some of these can be challenging technically, they are mostly charming, unpretentious compositions intended for amateur pianists.[84] However, there is more attractive and resourceful music in some of these pieces than one might be inclined to expect.[85] These are some pretty strong statements. Maybe they best belong inside a quotation from the person who thinks them, or use some other method to express them as opinion. Even if one expert says so, that isn't really enough to prove such as strong statements.

Done.

Breadth: Please include something about Tchaikovsky's impact on music. How did he change music? Most great composers have an impact that way. If he didn't, that would be worth talking about. At least a couple of sentences. An eloquent quote by an expert or prominent person summing his impact up can be cool way to close the article. Not at all required, but just thought I'd throw the idea out there.

I added some statements made by Dr. David Brown in the New Grove but am not sure this is what you had in mind. Could you please look it over and comment? Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you've added is good content, but it doesn't speak to his impact. Here are some example questions you might answer. Was he the first Russian known as a great talent in classical music? Did this affect future Russian classical music? Did he make classical music more popular? How great is his legacy, e.g. is he ranked on a list of greatest classical composers? Were the classical composers that came after Tchaikovsky influenced by his methods, compositions, or anything else that he did uniquely? If so, how? Things along these lines are what I'm talking about. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the section titled "Impact." Hopefully, the answers to some of these questions might be a little clearer, but any additional input would be welcome. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new impact section that you added is OK. I would have preferred some more direct statements about how he affected other composers or the future, as you do in one sentence: Between these two very different worlds Tchaikovsky's music became the sole bridge. But this is enough.

The section adds a lot of good information about how Tchaikovsky innovated and was different, better, and implies impact on others or the future. You might add direct statements on this for some of the information you added. For example, ...and transformed Liszt's and Berlioz's achievements in depictive-programmatic music into matters of Shakespearian elevation and psychological import." If others who came after Tchaikovksy composed like this or built on it in some way, you could add who, what, and how. Diderot's dreams (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Oh, this doesn't quite fit anywhere, but the article needs a picture that isn't about a picture of a person or group of people, especially of the subject. There are just too many of them. Something relating to his music would be best, but anything is good enough for now. A photo of the original score to one of his works, or the house he was born in, for example. This is a stretch, but I'm gonna call this a breadth problem.

This is a problem, but on reflection it would be going to far to include it as a GA requirement, after all this is not a FA review. Diderot's dreams (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this has been addressed. Again, please look and comment. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've gotten rid of the too many portraits problem. My only other comment is I have a preference for adding back one of the portraits of him as a young man, replacing one of the buildings. Not really a problem, though. Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please work on this stuff, and I'll give it another reading just to sure there's nothing else. And if any clarifications, etc. are needed, just ask. Thanks! Diderot's dreams (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA status

Congratulations, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky is now a Good Article!

All of the review's concerns have been met, hats off to Jonyungk and all other editors who have contributed to the article. Jonyungk, you have done a lot of work for this review, I think the article is better for all your efforts. And thanks for reintroducing me to the music Tchaikovsky-- I have been listening to the 1812 Overture while reviewing the article.

I have a few suggestions for further improvement, as if anyone feels like editing anymore, but it's part of my task.

You might try putting one of the music files under Tchaikovsky's portrait.

There may be enough vandalism to warrant page semi-protecting it permanantly.

Making the notes all the same size would be good, if it can be done. I tried <small> on the manually added notes, but it didn't look right.

Psychoanalysis has been discredited as pseudoscience, that anon editor might be right to dump the analysis. I'm not sure, I just don't feel quite content about the article there. You might want to keep looking and thinking.

I am still thinking also of the possible suicide. The rapid onset of Tchaikovsky's symptoms isn't consistent with cholera, which usually takes 24-72 hours. I am wondering if the story about the Tsar or his school might be true. Maybe he suffered the same fate same Oscar Wilde, who was destroyed because, in his fame, he decided that he didn't have to hide his homosexuality anymore. Just speculation.

The lead sentence, with the additional note, is cluttered a bit. Redoing all the dates in the article in one style would allow removing one of the notes and reduce it. It's a good idea anyway and required for FA if that is your goal.

Lastly, I wanted to point out how many people read this article. I took May of last year as a sample month, and the server count, with redirects added in as they are counted separately, totalled 84,200. This would be 1,010,400 people a year! So what you and I do here is surprisingly important. I hope my review has done the article justice.

Well, that's it! And if you do go for FA, best of luck! Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congatulations, Jonyungk. Your hard work and persistence has paid off. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

We use the "month-day-year" format throughout (except for the date of Désirée Artôt's marriage, which can easily be fixed). I have no problem with that. The format is <month space day comma space year> - the comma is mandatory. However, in the lede, his vital dates come out without the comma. That's because we're using the OS/NS template. I don't think it’s possible to insert a comma there without manually coding the relevant dates. That's possible, but perhaps a neater solution would be to convert all dates to "day-month-year" format, which requires no commas. I'm happy to do that if there are no objections. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are the OS dates there for? I don't understand their relevance or usefulness for readers. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I do. Many references involving pre-20th century Russia use OS dates. Some explain that they're using OS dates because the time periods in the whole book might not extend to the 20th century, so it's simpler to keep all the dates exactly as they appear in the original sources. If the readers want to convert them to NS for their own purposes, they're free to do so. Some use strictly NS dates. That's fine, too, as long as we're told that's their system. Which means we can convert back to OS if we want to. Some use the "13/25 October" style, which I like, but can be a bit clunky if many dates are quoted. Some references just give dates, without saying whether they're OS or NS. But it's usually possible to work out what date format they're using, assuming they're consistent. Some clearly use a mixture of both OS and NS dates, and that's worse than useless. But we have a better standard than all that. We give both the OS date as it would have appeared at the time, and the NS equivalent, so that nobody is in any doubt as to what's what. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, Russia was still using OS dates in the 19th century. So you put it in the birth and death dates-- that makes sense. What about the other dates in the article? Are they new style? Also, I would suggest dumping the templates and just add the OS dates manually, and keeping the more common and readable month-day-year format. But this is just a suggestion, not a requirement. Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP's standard practice to use NS dates. The only time we normally use OS dates at all is in birth and death dates for people born/died in a place that was still using the OS calendar. Actual references from such places from around that time will show the OS date, so we need to make it clear that when such a reference says "<Subject> died on 13 February 1892 in Moscow", we have to understand that that date corresponded to 25 February in the West. Hence, we show both dates to make it crystal clear. That's for vital dates, but any other dates mentioned in an article should normally be in NS only. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent]

This is from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers):

The dating method used in a Wikipedia article should follow that used by reliable secondary sources. If the reliable secondary sources disagree, choose the most common used by reliable secondary sources and note the usage in a footnote.

So it's not clear because the sources in the article vary in which style they use. Let's use footnote(s) to clarify which style each date is. Diderot's dreams (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's very common in WP articles on Russians born before 1918 to show both versions of their dates in the lede - see Leonid Brezhnev, for example. This is very common in reference works generally. I've made a change that shows both dates for Tchaikovsky, in the correct format, with the comma. And I've also changed Artot's marriage date to the same format. I hope that's all we need to do. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonyungk, re this edit: My only concern is that the lede now uses the "day-month-year" format, but all the other dates in the article use the "month-day-year" format. I don't care which format we use, but it should be the same format throughout any one article. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

What is the difference between the Bibliography and further reading? The former is used as references? In that case i think Bibliography should be renamed (to references, with the citations under notes), as i expected it to be a list of book by the subject. I think Bibliogrpahy of xxx generally refers to books by xxx than books about xxx, yes?YobMod 07:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is from Wikipedia:Citing sources:

Editors are free to use any method; no method is preferred. Some examples of common styles include:

Putting all references in a single section, "References". This is the simplest and most common approach.
Putting linked short citations in a “Notes” or "Footnotes" section, followed by a list of full citations in a “References” section. See, e.g., Starship Troopers.
Putting linked comments in a “Notes” section, followed by linked short citations in a “Footnotes” section, followed by a list of full citations in a “References” section. See, e.g., Augustus.
Putting linked full citations to inline references in a “Notes” section, followed by a list of full citations to general references in a “References” section. See, e.g., Rosa Parks, or Absinthe, which reverses the order of the sections.
Alternatively, particularly for articles with fewer notes and references, an article may have a combined “Notes and references” section.

This article is using the second system, so the "Notes" followed by "References" are the appropriate headings. So right you are. I wondered about this when I went through the article, but I wanted to check it out first and just fix it myself if it was wrong. It's an easy, uncontestable fix and reviewers are encourged to fix these things up ourselves. Thanks for motivating me to look it up and get it done. Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers for refs?

Does anyone have page numbers for the refs for the following info? To be able to use this information in the article, we need page numbers from the sources mentioned below; otherwise, it cannot go in and still have us (hopefully) receive a GA rating.

Relevant portions of his brother Modest's autobiography, where he tells of his brother's sexual orientation, have also been published.^[1] Some previously suppressed letters, where Tchaikovsky openly speaks out about his homosexuality, have been published in Russian.^[2]

^ See Tchaikovsky through others' eyes , ed. Poznansky (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1999)
^ P.I. Chaikovskii. Al'manakh, vypusk 1, (Moscow, 1995).

Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If necessary, I'll keep the article on hold for a few days past 14 to resolve this. It would be a shame for a last minute content dispute or unsourced contentious material to stop GA promotion after so much hard work and improvements. Diderot's dreams (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The info is currently not in the article but it would be nice to re-insert it if the proper refs could be supplied by someone with the books mentioned above. I have ordered a copy of Poznansky's Tchaikovsky Through Others' Eyes from Amazon. Hopefully, it will arrive in the next few days to a week. Meanwhile, though, if anyone else had access to it and could look up the info ... :) Jonyungk (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I undertook an extended search of Poznansky's Through Others' Eyes and found some relevant page refenerences. They are now included in the article with the copy formerly in question. Jonyungk (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am just waiting to see if the anon editor still has a conflict. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] See Tchaikovsky through others' eyes , ed. Poznansky (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1999)

[2] P.I. Chaikovskii. Al'manakh, vypusk 1, (Moscow, 1995).

[1]

[2]

GA Review

more review and problems

Final GA status

Date format

Bibliography

Page numbers for refs?