Talk:Radu Lupu

New link to Patner article & different title

Even though the blog entry title differs from the title of the published article, the original title of the published article is retained in this reference. DJRafe (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

busted links

The first three links are broken, in one way or another. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Radu Lupu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 20:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soon. Tim riley talk 20:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

First comments

As is my usual practice, I leave the lead till last, to be sure it summarises the whole article and doesn't contain anything not substantiated in the main text. At a first quick run-through, this article looks in good shape, and unless otherwise noted, my remarks are merely suggestions.

• Early life and education
  • Source at note 6 doesn't substantiate the first sentence.
    • Yes, I am incredibly confuzzled... after viewing the page's history, this information was actually added more than twelve years ago by Turgidson. Pinging them to see if they remember the exact source; I thought it was actually in the NY Sun article, but looks like it isn't. My bad. I will also continue to dig through sources to see if any source can substantiate his parents' names and occupations. Zingarese talk · contribs 22:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "at the age of 5 ...as a six-year-old "– better to be consistent about words or figures for numbers under ten, perhaps?
    • Agree 5 → five
• Early career
  • "In 1965, Lupu was placed fifth ... The following year, Lupu" – perhaps "he" the second time?
    •  Done
  • "First Prize in the Second" – strange outbreak of Capital Letters here and throughout this sentence. I don't think the Manual of Style endorses this.
    • My mistake.  Fixed
  • "Sergei Prokofiev's Piano Concerto No. 2 (Op. 16)" – as opposed to the Piano Concerto No. 2 that isn't Op 16? Seems a touch gratuitous, verging on showing off, but if you want to keep it in I shan't quibble. Ditto for other opus numbers later.
    • Hm...do you suggest adding key, then?
      • Neither key nor opus number is included in the title of the WP article on Piano Concerto No. 2 (Prokofiev), and I don't think adding either of them here helps the reader one little bit. But if you want one or the other or even both it's your call. Tim riley talk 08:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "in the Finals" – this oughtn't to be capitalised, surely?
    •  Fixed
  • "He brought what seemed like a lifetime's experience to its alternating desolation and pride" – your reporting sources are fine, of course, but if you want to cite the original it is Chissell, Joan. "Prize-winner's debut." The Times, 28 November 1969, p. 16, http://tinyurl.galegroup.com/tinyurl/9i3Dw9.
    • Thank you very much for this  Added
  • "In March and April 1970, Lupu made his first recording for Decca Records of Brahms' Rhapsody in B minor" – "Brahms'" rather than "Brahms's" seems rather odd, but to each his own, and as to the sentence, I don't suppose anyone will really misunderstand it, but it doesn’t actually say what you mean it to say, viz that it was Lupu's first recording for Decca of anything, rather than his first of the Brahms Rhapsody. It is also uncited, and doesn't seem to be entirely corroborated by the Decca archive
    • I added that source and made a minor modification to make the meaning more clear (that it's Lupu's debut Decca recording).
  • "By 1981 he had played with every major orchestra "– this is cited but is highly debatable. Every major orchestra? Defined by whom?
    • Here is the quote: "Radu Lupu has played and been re-engaged with every major orchestra, under the baton of the world's leading conductors." This was from an article by Carol Mont Parker in Clavier magazine in 1981.
      • Hmm. A touch of journalistic licence there, I feel, but I don't press the point. Tim riley talk 08:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

That's all for now. More tomorrow. I'm enjoying this excellent article and look forward to resuming my review. Tim riley talk 21:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Concluding comments

All looking good. A few more very minor points:

• "which was raved by John Rockwell" – is there a word missing here?
  • Is there? I've taken a hard look at this sentence and I'm positive there's no problem.
    • Probably an Engvar thing. In BrE you'd need "about" after raved. If you're happy with the present version, fine. Tim riley talk 07:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
• Rockwell block quote: See MOS:PMC – I'd silently correct the typo, as recommended in the Manual of Style, rather than using the "sic".
• "In 1975, Lupu debuted with the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra" – just the plain Concertgebouw Orchestra at the time.
• "Lupu was awarded the "Abbiati" prize ... Edison Award ... Grammy Award" – Inconsistent treatment of quotation marks and capitalisation for the prizes/awards.
• The last two sentences of the Remainder of the 20th century section are uncited (and even if one takes the "Grammy" awards as seriously as they are taken in their native US, it seems a bit odd to mention one that Lupu failed to win.)
• 21st century – It is not a requirement for GA that an article should be comprehensive, but it does seem odd that Lupu's only biographical details for the past two decades are limited to an Italian prize and a British gong.
  • When I take this article to FA this section will definitely undergo some expanding!
• Musical style
  • Spelling: in the second para the spelling switches from AmE to BrE "favourite" (and I don’t imagine it was obvious on the radio that Uchida was speaking in BrE spelling when she mentioned "colour").
  • A spot of parenthetic OR: I can vouch for Stephen Hough's being an admirer: I sat in the row behind him at the Barbican in 2003 when Lupu played the Schumann (very slowly) after which Hough and companion left, missing a blazing Sibelius 5 from Colin Davis and the LSO. But I digress.
    • Thank you for sharing! Well, the tempi in his classic recording of this concerto with LSO and Previn are quite normal (even a little fast for me at times), but that performance dates way back to 1973. I was in the audience when Lupu performed with the Chicago Symphony and Muti, playing Beethoven 5; despite almost losing his way in the third movement, he played with such conviction, beauty of sound, and incandescence. (Some dot-connecting to this anecdote: I also listened to the same concerto live three months prior by the NY Phil and Gilbert; the soloist was Stephen Hough )
• Personal life
  • It seems strange to give the year of the first, but not of the second marriage.
    • It is not established in any source the exact time the marriage between Lupu and Bugarin began. However, a 1992 interview in clavier magazine states that it was a "recent" marriage, so I put circa 1992 in the infobox.
• References: Some tidying needed:
  • 3 – Gramophone should be italicised. Also at ref 47.
  • 4 – and all subsequent cases: all the headlines in capital letters should be changed to title or sentence case: see MOS:ALLCAPS
  • 9 and 10 – The "via" is unexpected, and is inconsistent with the style of the other references
  • 15. Should have either a URL, or a page number if you're quoting a paper copy.
  • 17. Ditto. (And likewise for refs 28, 29 and 36)
  • 18. Looks very odd, but I can't open the link (not available in the EU as it doesn't comply with data protection law). I find it hard to believe in the existence of a writer named "Register, Scott Duncan, Orange County". Same for ref 44.
  • 26. You might perhaps remove "Buy from ArchivMusic" from the link
  • 45. The linked page does not substantiate the statement. I think you need the Cite episode template and an approximate timing. Ditto for ref 57.
  • 52. Decidedly inadequate citation. But I have checked the ODNB and the statement is there all right. These are the details of the citation: Wade-Gery, Robert, and Sarah Wilkinson. "Wilson, Sir (Archibald) Duncan (1911–1983), diplomatist." Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. January 03, 2008. Oxford University Press,. Date of access 11 Apr. 2019, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-978019861412 8-e-64933 (subscription required)

That's my lot. Nothing too earth-shaking there. I look forward to promoting the article once these small points are addressed. – Tim riley talk 08:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I see progress being made on the article page. Looking good. I'll leave it a couple of days and revisit the review. Tim riley talk 13:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Zingarese, are we making progress on the above? I'm in no rush, but if more time is needed I can put the review on formal hold if you wish. Tim riley talk 20:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Yes! I just needed to find where I had buried the offline resources (for the page numbers) but just found them. I should finish addressing all of the above points very soon. Zingarese talk · contribs 20:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll happily await developments. Tim riley talk 20:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear Tim riley, Other than the points I've written a response to, I believe I have addressed everything. Thank you so much again for your excellent review. Zingarese talk · contribs 02:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Overall summary

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:

   Well referenced.

   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:

It has been a pleasure to review this article, which in my view meets the GA criteria in every regard. I am very pleased to see from the exchanges above that you are thinking in terms of FA in due course. I'd strongly advise taking the article to peer review first, which in my experience makes the nominator's life much more comfortable at FAC. I hope you will ping me at PR/FAC stage. Meanwhile, congratulations on getting the article to GA. – Tim riley talk 07:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

What to do about the promotion of the Decca label?

This article promotes the Decca label in multiple places, with the egregious phrase "exclusive Decca artist" appearing three times. My attempt to trim just a little of this has been reverted twice. What is going on? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, how is he even an "exclusive Decca artist" (sound the trumpets!!) when the article also mentions his recordings for CBS Masterworks, EMI, and Teldec? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I have removed what I consider excess and unuseful-to-the-reader mentions of Decca here. By no means have I excised all mention of Decca. If reverted, please explain. Thanks. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear @Hobbes Goodyear: First of all, please remove the {{advert}} tag at the top of the article. This has nothing to do with promotion, and even it was, the remaining 99.5% of the article is definitely not promotional. Lupu has remained an exclusive Decca artist, despite publicly declaring he won’t record any further. This has not a thing to do with promotion. Many musicians are exclusive Decca artists. Also, there are exceptions to exclusivity, notably including collaborating with other artist on their label. All of Lupu’s recordings for non-Decca labels are all Chamber music. Zingarese talk · contribs 03:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

ALso, you’ve just excised all mentions of Decca exclusivity now, so what is the advert tag still there for? This is a carefully reviewed GA. Zingarese talk · contribs 03:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed the tag; it is totally misplaced. That tag is for articles that are “advertisements masquerading as articles” and require an abundance of cleanup to describe its subject from NPOV. {{Advert inline}} is the appropriate tag in this case, for the tiny bits of text you feel is PROMO in tone. What is the reason to tag the entire article??? In any case.. I can’t see how this is PROMO at all. I respect your viewpoint, but I am really having trouble understanding it. Radu Lupu is an exclusive Decca artist. It means he has an exclusive recording contract with the label. That is as objectively written as it gets. I’m happy to discuss further. Zingarese talk · contribs 04:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Zingarese, I thought we'd come to a compromise--you returned some of the (to my mind) excessive mentions of Decca, but not the egregious "exclusive Decca artist" promotion, so I withdrew. Now you come out of nowhere after two months to add back in. I suggest that we return to thecompromise. Please raise an item at RfC if you still have a problem, but if you do, I will also request further removal of Decca advertising here. Thanks. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

fixed misattribution error but only in part

When I fixed the erroneous NYT attribution to John Rockwell (it was really Allen Hughes) I failed to do the footnote correction ... so if someone could attend to that it would be much appreciated. tiavm !

(It arose from a misreading of the confusing layout of the Times archive in text form.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidrmoran (talk • contribs) 20:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)