Talk:Schubert's last sonatas
Appearance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Schubert's last sonatas article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Schubert's last sonatas was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Reassessment
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The "structure" and "the sonatas" sections of this 2008 GA are near-completely unverifiable, with inline referencing seemingly haphazard in the extreme, failing GA criterion 2.
If someone does have relevant literature to hand, however, this will probably be a rather quick fix. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Curiously, the GA reviewer thought it was WP:OR back in 2008, but declared it passed anyway. Since they were probably completely correct in their opinion about how the article was written – by a knowledgeable editor, i.e. relying only indirectly on sources for those sections, a fix would likely mean rewriting the offending parts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- OR is definitely an issue. More specifically, there's quite a bit of essay like synthesis. And even if such information can be more reliably sourced/presented (which is doubtful), it must be too specific for an encyclopedic overview article. Aza24 (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.