Talk:Symphony No. 6 (Prokofiev)

"The symphony was written as an elegy of the tragedies of World War Two." Source?

Huh?

The final sentence says, "Some writers say this symphony has a tragic ending, but others consider the finale to be similar in mood to the classical symphony of Prokofiev.[1] and say that the final movement has an optimistic joviality reminiscent of the symphonies of Joseph Haydn." This is unsourced and, to my ears, is almost surreal. I will delete it if nobody objects. Opus131 (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I entirely agree with this deletion, the sentence makes no sense whatsoever. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, nobody objected for most of a year, so the deletion is done. "Optimistic joviality" indeed! Opus131 (talk) 04:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Article rewrite

Earlier today, I took it upon myself to rewrite this article. A lot of unsourced statements, personal opinions, and unencyclopedic material needed to be removed. At the same time, very little was meaningfully discussed about the symphony's genesis, structure (which can still be expanded upon, but time did not permit me to do that myself at this moment), and critical reception. Hopefully this will be accepted as an improvement upon the old article. Still a few things to do, which I hope to tweak and expand upon in the next few days. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I like your improvements, though I have restored some of the non-controversial things you removed (instrumentation, recording, authority control, Sergei Prokofiev navbox). Thanks, intforce (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Valereee (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Sergei Prokofiev (on the podium, right) receiving applause after the second performance of his Symphony No. 6.

• ... that Sergei Prokofiev's (pictured) Sixth Symphony was said to depict the "private world of modern man against the terrifying machinery of universal destruction"? Source: "В этом волнующем сопоставлении - личный мир современного человека и грозная машина всеобщего уничтожения - есть нечто роднящее Шестую симфонию с другой великой симфонией наших дней - Восьмой симфонией Шостаковича. (In this nerve-wracking juxtaposition—the private world of modern man against the terrifying machinery of universal destruction—there is something reminiscent in the Sixth Symphony akin to another great symphony of our times, Shostakovich’s Eighth.)" (Mendelson-Prokofieva, Mira (2012) On Sergei Sergeyevich Prokofiev: Memoirs, Diaries (1938 – 1967) (in Russian))
  • ALT1:... that the premiere of Sergei Prokofiev's (pictured) Sixth Symphony would be the "last unhampered, unmediated success" its composer would ever enjoy? Source: "The [premiere] was Prokofiev’s last unhampered, unmediated success." [1]

5x expanded by CurryTime7-24 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC).

• General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed:
• Used in article:
• Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: It's hard for me to tell if this was truly expanded 5x; the article is only modestly longer than it was prior to the recent renovation, but a lot of old material was removed in the course of the renovation. IAR, I think the recent renovations merit a DYK appearance, but for due diligence I feel compelled to note this.

ALT0 is AGF on sourcing because I can't read Russian. ALT1 is properly sourced, but I don't find it particularly enticing to someone who doesn't know who Prokofiev is.

For the picture license, I'm not sure which of the Russian public domain criteria the picture falls under, so I'd like a second opinion from someone with copyright expertise. The picture is clear enough, although you can't really see much detail at 100px; we might want to consider cropping.

Earwig turns up no concerns. QPQ not needed, as nominator is under 5 limit. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, in terms of expansion, this is a very odd case. Before a trio of edits on 30 January 2021, the article had 3043 prose characters. Today, the article has 6917 prose characters, about 2.3× the original. However, on 30 January, an editor reformatted the "Movements" section so that the prose in it was indented, as if this were a list, which means that the prose checkers would not have counted those three paragraphs, taking the prose count down to 931. (An expansion from 931 to 6917 is about 7.5×.) Normally, I'd give my regrets and note that going from 3043 to 6917 was insufficient expansion, even if the article were rewritten—as WP:DYKSG#A4 notes, Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article.—and recommend that the article be renominated if it attains GA status. The feeling in the past has been that expansion should not be from an artificially low level caused by a removal of text shortly before the beginning of an expansion. I thought new wording had been decided on to reflect this, but can't find it in the supplementary guidelines. This may or may not be an IAR situation; maybe you should inquire on the DYK talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I never understood why in these cases they didn't count towards the prose count: they're still prose right? I can understand table content, but in the case of indented lists it feels a bit unfair. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

As the person who indented then sections was not the person who has expanded it and nominated, it seems unfair to disallow this as a 5x expansion. At the time when they started expanding it ([2]) it was 931 characters, and they have therefore done a 7x expansion. We shouldn't be expecting users to go check formatting on previous revisions of an article before expanding them. The 5x requirement is from the time they started it, at which point it was only 931 characters according to our rules check. I believe that disallowing this nomination would therefore be unfair, because the nominator has met the 5x expansion criteria according to our normal way of counting. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm approving this. SL93 (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)