Talk:The Oceanides

Infobox usage and editing on Sibelius tone poems

Hello, fellow Sibelian and welcome to the wonderful world of the Sibelius tone poems! I am sure we are of one mind: the 13 Sibelius examples in this form represent, along with his seven symphonies and the violin concerto, the height of his orchestral powers. As such, I have taken the liberty over the last year of giving some of these tone poems (namely, The Wood Nymph and The Oceanides) the expanded treatment I think they deserve.

As part of this expansion project, I have added infoboxes onto each of the tone poem pages (save for Finlandia and Luonnotar and two that don't yet exist, The Dryad and Pan and Echo) to assist our readers in having the most important information about each piece at their fingertips. I feel that standardization of infobox information and form is something we should strive to maintain among these pieces, and as such, I suggest that any changes be agreed to by the community. If you're interested, I have the following opinions:

1. Let's keep the picture of Sibelius the same for all his compositions, so as to create the feel of 'articles in a series'
2. Let's have the opening title be the name in English (unless the native title is more famous, e.g., En saga)
3. Let's include 'native name' or 'English name' below the picture if the piece goes by more than one name
4. Let's have the form (e.g., tone poem) appear up-top next to the composer's name
5. Let's include the average duration
6. Let's have the caption under the image of Sibelius be "The composer in 1913"
7. Let's keep the dates of composition/revision (important for some pieces, e.g., the Fifth Symphony, consistent with List of compositions by Jean Sibelius
8. Let's have each infobox include information on 'movements', even if it is only one; this provides standardization among pieces.

Okay, thanks for reading! If you are so inclined to add the infobox to the seven symphonies (or the four tone poems mentioned above) or some of his incidental music, please be my guest. My focus, for now, is on the tone poems.

Sgvrfjs (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: I have included this message on the talk pages of each of the existing tone poems that have infoboxes.

Thank you. If you think any of you wishes are left open, talk on the template talk of {{infobox musical composition}}. I am more inclined to use different images, such as the composer about the time of the composition, but would not fight over that ;) - I don't think we have to repeat that a symphony is a symphony right below the title, but to keep the information in the additional "form" parameter is a good idea, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria Hi, Nikkimaria. I wanted to, first of all, thank you for your work on editing and paring down the composition infoboxes I have placed on the Sibelius tone poems, as well as for your contributions to Wikipedia more generally. My irrational fear of editing wars has until now prevented me from popping my head out of my hole, but I thought it might be constructive to involve you in the discussion Gerda Arendt and I had earlier had on the standardization and usage of infoboxes in the Sibelius realm. :) We have no need to rehash the debate points of the past, so let's cut to the chase. In my mind, the three of us have what appear to be different initial opinions for these boxes: you seem to emphasize economy, I worship consistency between like-pages, whereas Gerda has a fondness for "granularity." But I think it is likely that more unites us than it at first appears and we can probably work together towards a happy middle ground that expresses essential information in a consistent manner. Take, for example, your edit to The Oceanides: I actually agree with and appreciate your elimination of GENRE = orchestral and MOVEMENTS = 1, and I admit that before your edit, I couldn't recognize that this information was extra and failed to make the box economical. In my mind, CATALOGUE = Op., NATIVE NAME, DURATION, DATE (including revisions), and the three pieces of information under PREMIERE are the essential pieces of information (although maybe on multi-movement works, MOVEMENTS should be retained). I am a little ambivalent on PERIOD's necessity, but could probably agree that it, too, is superfluous. So, having accepted your careful edits, I was disinclined to reopen the discussion until the thing I value (and I recognize it's probably a losing battle), consistency between like-pages, was regrettably not maintained after you continued on to other tone poem pages. For example, in Tapiola, you also eliminated DURATION, which I am very much opposed to deleting. My point is, maybe we can together work, with Gerda if she likes, on a happy middle ground. I propose following your example on The Oceanides":

• type=Tone poem
• name=The Oceanides
• image=Jean sibelius.jpg
• caption=The composer in 1913
• border=Yes
• native_name=Aallottaret
• composer=Jean Sibelius
• catalogue=Op. 73
• composed=1913 (1913)–1914 (r. 1914)
• duration=10 minutes
• premiere_date=June 4, 1914
• premiere_location=Norfolk, Connecticut
• premiere_conductor=Jean Sibelius

But including movements when the piece if >1 (e.g., the Lemminkäinen Suite); I agree with eliminating PERIOD and GENRE from all tone poems. I am opposed to placing orchestral with type and think it should just say tone poem; will all three (orchestral, tone poem, and Jean Sibelius) on one line, it looks aesthetically too cramped. Thoughts? Thank you again for your participation in this project! Respectfully and constructively yours, Sgvrfjs (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sgvrfjs, I think it's important to adapt the infobox to the needs and content of the particular article. For example, in Tapiola, the duration parameter presented a specific number but the article text provides a range - the specific number was within that range, true, but suggested what seems to be false precision. In The Wood Nymph, conversely, not only does the number match between text and infobox (though unsourced in both places - that's something to be addressed), but also the significance of this number to the topic is indicated. Thus, if properly sourced, it is a good addition to Wood Nymph, but far less essential and even potentially misleading in Tapiola. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Notable recording

One of the most notable recodings of The Oceanides (all three versions of the work) is included in the 2003 album BIS-CD-1445 Rondo of the Waves [1] with Osmo Vänskä conducting the Lahti Symphony Orchestra. See, for example, the review by Andrew Clements of the Guardian who calls it the best album of the year as well as the very positive Gramophone magazine review. See also the Google translation of [2] which also mentions acclaim by Matthew Rye of the Daily Telegraph. I think it should be included in the table, perhaps with appropriate comments in the text.--Ipigott (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Thanks for your comment! So, first of all (and just to make sure we are on the same page), the text currently reads, "To date, the only recordings of the Yale version (7:25) and the pre-Oceanides suite (7:17) are by Osmo Vänskä and the Lahti Symphony Orchestra under the BIS label (BIS-CD-1445, Rondo of the Waves)." Moreover, the information about the final version appears in the table (with the appropriate citation of the CD you mentioned). The reason I did not also place the information about the Yale version and the suite in the table is because I considered it best a table for final version recordings only, so as to avoid any confusion on the part of the reader. So, I am a bit reluctant to add this information still to the table, although I wouldn't mind hearing your case. Third, I agree that it is a TREMENDOUS CD :) , and I have no problem with adding the praise and accolades you noted to the paragraph under Discography. If you want to take a stab at the new sentences, then be my guest. Otherwise, once I have had time to read the reviews you cite, I can add them myself sometime this week. But thanks for finding these cites! Also, I like your addition of translating Aallottaret, but I almost always see this (in the books we have cited below) as "Spirits of the Waves" rather than "water nymphs." I double check, though.

Fourth, this also seems like this is a good place to discuss our English usage (and bring in @Gerda Arendt:): are we doing American or British English? I defer of course to your knowledge, but my quick reading of MoS led me to the following understanding: where MoS permits either American or British English, use the latter if the article clearly relates to that country and use the former if vica versa. Well, Sibelius is neither country's property :( So, as a U.S. writer, I obviously expanded the stub using the English I use. I obviously don't really care what we decide on, but (with the article under GA consideration) we probably should go for consistency; reading Tim's review of one of Gerda's pieces, he seemed to stress that inconsistencies in formatting and grammar could lead to a reject. And we have been, however well-intentioned, collectively introducing inconsistencies: some but not all dates switched to European style; some by not all ." and ," switched to ". and ", ; some by not all programme switched to program and switched back to programme (all in 48 hours!). I mean, if we start changing color to colour then I'm really going to fall out of my seat laughing... Just seems to be a lot of quibbling that is making our collective lives harder. Thoughts? As always, thanks for your guidance and good will! :D Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I said before that if you go for consistency, you will be unhappy ;) - European dates for a European composer seems "natural" to me, and is what we had for Nielsen, - but it doesn't have to go with British English, if you ask me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

As always, Gerda, you've stated it perfectly. I too like the European dates, and I am fine with the punctuation outside the quotation mark. But British spelling...seems unnecessary. Let's wait to hear from Ipigott, but either all the programs need to be programme or none of them. Thanks for your input! In my defense, I stupidly didn't know programme was British, which is why I used it earlier. But I agreed with Nikkimaria's alteration of these programmes to program. Especially if I didn't use colour! Sgvrfjs (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Let me take these points one by one. I think the problem with the recording stems from the date given for it in the table (2000). As far as I can see, it was first released in March 2003 and I would have therefore expected it to be listed with that date in the table. As the date was missing, I simply thought it had been forgotten. If you have evidence that the recording was in fact made in 2000 then this requires and explanation but in any case I think it is important to list the release date of the CD. Forgive me for not spotting the record number in the introduction to the section. I think it would be helpful to give more background on the recording, given the acclaim it received.

On American vs British English, I'm afraid I cannot agree with Gerda that you can combine British dates with American prose - it's either one or the other, particularly if you are aiming for GA. Here we are dealing with a Finn who had close ties (especially for this piece) with the United States and I therefore suggest we go back to American dates and American spelling. After checking the editing history, I saw that both {u|Sgvrfjs}} and Gerda Arendt had worked on the dates and I therefore assumed both had opted for British English. I the light of the explanations above, I will now go through the article and re-establish American English although I would like to maintain some of my copy edits, particularly those in regard to whole uncapitalized sentences in brackets. I would even suggest that in many cases the brackets could simply be removed as the information they contain is important.--Ipigott (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I now have time to expand on the translation of Aallottaret. I think "spirits of the waves" might indeed be preferable, especially if you can give sources. Aallot certainly comes from the Finnish for wave(s). Sibelius appears to have found the term in the Kalevala (see here where it is said to mean wave goddess. Water nymph is a less literal but perhaps a more natural English translation. A fuller explanation is given in Crawford's Preface to the Kalevala: "A general term for the other water-hosts living not only in the sea, but also in the rivers, lakes, cataracts, and fountains, is Ahtolaiset (inhabitants of Ahtola), 'Water-people,' 'People of the Foam and Billow,' 'Wellamo's Eternal People.' Of these, some have specific names; as Allotar (wave-goddess)..." I think Sibelius has used the Swedish form with the -et definite article suffix in his title. (Interestingly Skogsrået also comes from the Kalevala.) The Swedish encyclopaedia Nordisk Familjebok defines it as "böljernes mö" (maid of the waves) and I therefore believe it approximates to what we would call "The Water Nymph" but I certainly don't want to impose this if you can quote sources which translate it "Spirits of the Waves". As far as I can see, though, the Finnish title is singular rather than plural.--Ipigott (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott: I think all your concerns have been addressed by my recent edits. 1) I added the review of The Guardian writer on the CD but could not access the Gramophone one; you can add it if you like. Also added the 2003 recording date for the suite and Yale version to the paragraph but not the the table; Vanska recorded the final version first in 2000. Double checked by looking at the liner notes for the CD (in my possession). Second, went with U.S. dates and spellings per your correct suggestion that the piece relates more to the U.S. than U.K. Indeed, earlier when trying to check on usage rights for The Music Shed pictures I loaded into Wikipedia, I corresponded with the woman in charge of the festival today, and she seemed very eager in using the completed Wikipedia piece in their archives or something. Hence, let's go with U.S. English. I have made the changes to the date and programme, but not to the ." vs. ". Third, I have found sourcing information for "Nymphs of the Waves" being the translation for Aallottaret; please see the new paragraphs I have added to the composition section. I hope we're good. For the time being, I need to put this piece aside, at least until the GA review. Thanks for your help!! Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sgvrfjs: Thanks for going to all the trouble of restoring the dates and spellings. Just a couple of comments: I think it would be more good if you provide a source to your translation of "Nymphs of the waves" as I believe the original is singular rather plural. Second, I still don't understand why you want to maintain 2000 for the recording when you reference in the introduction clearly states "Physical Release: 03/2003". In any case, you should follow the normal method of referencing and not just include an internet link in the text. Perhaps you can provide an additional source giving the date of the actual concert or recording. I too need to move on to other things but this is an important point.--Ipigott (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Thanks. I provided the citations for a number of things, including your Kalevala reference and Nymphs of the Waves, cite in the paragraph under compositions. Also, While the CD Rondo of the Waves was released on 3/2003 as the source says, the liner notes indicate that the final version was recorded in 2000 for an earlier CD. Maybe it would be better then to link to that release for the Vanska in-table? Also, I'm not sure what the proper way to cite the CD information is, whether in text or in the table. Can you kindly provide a link to instructions? Thanks :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

As I have said before, I think it would be best to give the release date in the table but if you wish to give an explanation you can use a note. There are examples in the Claudia Cardinale article on which I have also been working.--Ipigott (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ipigott. In my haste, I think my writing has perhaps been less than clear, and if so, I apologize. Please allow me a second chance to explain the decisions I made when constructing the discography table. 1) In the table, all recording are of the final version of The Oceanides. So as to avoid confusion, the intermediate versions recorded by Vanska in 2003 are left out. The list is, to my knowledge (after extensive online research), more or less, complete. 2) The dates that appear in the third column are to the best of my knowledge all dates of first recording rather than dates of CD release. Why my preference for the former over the latter? In my mind, date of recording is more important because it shows when the recording first appeared, and thus, when this particular interpretation of The Oceanides first became a part of the 'discussion' (by which I mean was available for listeners and even subsequent conductors to hear). Even more importantly, consider the example of Sir Adrian Boult. The recording date is 1936 (first recording ever, and on a LP), whereas the CD that we can today purchase the recording on was released in 2007. To my mind, the more essential date is clearly 1936 rather than 2007. 3) Following this logic, then, and for consistency purposes in a table, I listed the dates of first recording for all conductors. 4) Vanska first recorded the final version of The Oceanides in 2000, and the CD was released that year. Later, in 2003, this recording was re-released on the Rondo of the Waves CD we have been focused on, as an accompaniment to the interminate version recordings from 2003. 5) You might disagree and think the release date is still more important, to which I would only counter with one other point that I'm sure you're obviously well aware of: release dates in classical music are in my mind pretty meaningless because a single recording might be reissued and reissued and reissued a handful of times. Thus, any release date listed in the table would be arbitrary. 6) Which leads me to my final point: perhaps you are on board with using the date of first recording in the table, but don't like how the links I provided to the CD sometimes doesn't contain this recording date. To this point I concede that I just sought to find a CD a given recording was on, rather than its first issue. I didn't have the time or the resources to dig that deep. 7) The AVAILABLE ON column, then, merely is designed to give the reader a CD upon which to find the recording, not necessarily its first. 8) Perhaps you'd rather me provide a link for the Vanska final version to the CD from 2000 rather than the 2003 release. If this would solve the problem, I am happy to do so. 9) For clarity purposes, I have altered the title of column three in the table from YEAR to RECORDED, so that it is obvious to readers that the years listed are not for the CD release. Again, I apologize if I still have not addressed your concerns; the weaknesses of comprehension are entirely my own fault, but please know that I have tried to be accommodating and a team-player. Happy editing! :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 07:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 20:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More in the next day or so. Tim riley talk 20:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an impressive piece of work, resourcefully written to be useful to the lay person and the trained musician alike. A few suggestions that you might like to ponder:

• "However"
  • This is a maddeningly invasive word which sneaks its way into one's prose whenever it can; it should almost always be evicted. There are six "howevers" in the present text, all but one of which (see below) could advantageously be deleted, leaving the meaning clear and the prose less cluttered.

All eliminated, save the one you permitted Sgvrfjs (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• WP:OVERLINK
  • Duplicate links to: Norfolk Music Festival, Yale University, Fifth Symphony, Fourth Symphony, Second Symphony, Pohjola's Daughter, glissandi, Osmo Vänskä, The Bard, The Swan of Tuonela, Osmo Vänskä again, and Lahti Symphony Orchestra.

Eliminated all the duplicate page links you identified, as well as a couple of others I found that were not mentioned. Apologies on the overlinking; I had thought it was okay to link an item again in each new section. I have retained the duplicate links for Stenhammar, Kajanus, Debussy, Sibelius, La mer, and Parker, all of which are associated with the image captions and which were added by another editor, not me. If you'd like these to be removed as well, I am happy to do so. Sgvrfjs (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Lead
  • "often translated to English as Nymphs of the Waves or Spirits of the Waves" – often? I can't say I've ever run across those translations in fifty years or so of concert-going in England.
  • "As such" – I'd lose these two words, which don't seem to me to add anything to the meaning.

Made three changes to the lead: 1) changed 'often' to 'occasionally' (note: the addition to the article of information about the English translation of Aallottaret was in collaboration with Ipigott, who asked me to find sources on the English translation since we disagreed on what it is usually translated as (if it is even translated at all). I have set up the phrase in the lead to page jump to the subsection 1.1.3 where the sources can be found.); 2) rearranged the clauses in the 'which refers to the nymphs...' sentence; 3) changed 'as such' to 'thus' (admittedly a different transition, but I feel it needs one). Please let me know if not an acceptable fix. Sgvrfjs (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)"

• Final version
  • The block quote from Kilpeläinen is 123 words long. As there are no special turns of phrase in it I think it would be better to summarise its content in your own words. Our job as Wikipedia editors is to say what experts have said but not generally to replicate how they said it.

Reworked the Kilpeläinen block quote into a paraphrased two sentences in text. Please let me know if this is sufficient. Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• • Is the opinion that the wave-crash is "arguably the work's most stunning section" Barnett's or yours?

It might be mine; I need to check. I think it might also be the opinion of Rickards and Tawaststjerna, so if push comes to shove, I can find a citation for this opinion in another source. Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Tim riley talk 20:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• • "Neither the suite or the Yale version of the tone poem were performed" – should be "…was performed".

Nice catch! Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• European premiere
  • "self-isolate" – perhaps put this into plain words as "isolate himself"?

Changed to 'isolate' Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Other notable performances
  • "Kajanus praised Sibelius in glowing, if somewhat melodramatic, terms" – WP:EDITORIAL: I'd lose the last six words.

Fixed, along with the editorializing on Hurwitz. Sgvrfjs (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Reception
  • "The influential Swedish critic Wilhelm Peterson-Berger" – you are trying to cram too much into one 82-word sentence for it to be comfortable reading. I suggest you either recast the text as two sentences or (perhaps better) make the list of P-B's savagings an explanatory footnote. (If you go on to peer review/FAC I shall be suggesting several more statements that would, in my opinion, be better as explanatory footnotes, but that's for another day.)
  • The blockquote from Gray is 124 words long. I don't propose to object to it at GAN level, but if you are thinking of going on to peer review and FAC I'd advise paraphrasing most of it, perhaps keeping "timid and conventional" and "effects of sonority hitherto unknown" as direct quotes.
  • "Somewhat stridently" – WP:EDITORIAL
  • The Hurwitz block quote, weighing in at 137 words, could be paraphrased in at most two sentences. Hurwitz is frankly rather wordy here, but there is no reason why we should follow his example.

Hurwitz block quote reworked into paragraph form, using smaller direct quotes and paraphrasing. Sgvrfjs (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Relation to The Bard
  • "is none other than the tone poem" – why the "none other than"?
  • The closing paragraph of this section should be backed up with proper citations or deleted. If retained, "Absent any new information" should be "In the absence of any new information" or something like that. The "however" here is all right, if you keep the sentence, as it is pointing up a genuine "but" point.

Removed both the unnecessary 'is none other than' and the unsourced 'absent any new information' paragraph. Sgvrfjs (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Discography
  • "has been only moderately recorded relative to…" – ambiguous. To make it clear that you are talking about quantity rather than quality I'd make this something like "has received fewer recordings than…"
  • "The first recording of The Oceanides occurred" – I don't think recordings occur, as if spontaneously: I think they are made.
  • "leading the BBC Symphony Orchestra" – to avoid confusing British readers you might make this "conducting the BBC Symphony Orchestra". (In British usage "leading" an orchestra means being the concertmaster/principal first violin.)

First of all, all changes you have recommended here have been made. More importantly, I noticed that (at least on my computer) the discography recordings table no longer displays after your edit. Thank you for you help on this, but does this mean you are of the opinion that the table should not display? Otherwise, being not the best at table code, I could use help getting it back up and running. Sgvrfjs (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)"

Good grief! The vanished table was the result of Firefox interfering with existing code when I edited. (It does that sometimes, but I failed to spot it on this occasion.) Gerda has most kindly put all to rights, for which I am greatly obliged. Tim riley talk 19:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please consider these points, and we can then take the review forward. At your service if you have any questions. – Tim riley talk 17:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

We progress admirably. Everything above is now entirely satisfactory for GA. The resurrected (renewed apoologies!) discography table needs attention. You could either stop it being sortable, or you could make the conductors sortable by surname (rather than, as at present, by given name, which really won't do.) For GA an unsortable table will be perfectly adequate. If you want to go further then you'll need to add the necessary coding to sort by surname. I'm not the one to help you with this, being chronically inept with tables, but Gerda may be able to help, and if she can't I know a very friendly editor who is a whizz in this department. And that, I think, will do for GA. I look forward to cutting the ribbon very soon. Tim riley talk 20:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I could help, sortable by surname now, ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Bless you, Gerda! I even (temporarily) forgive you for your morbid addiction to info-boxes. You have been a tower of strength in this article and its GAN. Tim riley talk 21:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Gerda once again comes through with shinning colors! Thanks! And looking at your code, I can now apply this to the discography sortable table for The Wood Nymph and the En saga (in my sandbox at present). Sgvrfjs (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Once I feel involved and temporarily forgiven, one more: do we need the record numbers in the table? For me, the label with a link to the WP article would be enough. The numbers could go to footnotes, if wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

ps: how about adding "|state=collapsed" to the template on the orchestral works, which is impressive leaning towards overwhelming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Tim. Thanks for looking through things. I am still willing to edit the Gray and especially the Hurwitz block quotes, but just haven't gotten to it yet. Also, I am more than willing to place items you think should be notes in a notes section, NOW, rather than later. Might you want to tell me which should be demoted to footnote status? Thanks. Sgvrfjs (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)"

By all means. I'll reread tomorrow with that specifically in mind, and reply either here or, more probably, on the article talk page as the matter doesn't directly bear on the GA review. To give you an idea of my own approach to footnoting interesting, relevant but not central information, you might have a look at Maurice Ravel. I try to keep the main text strictly focused on the essential narrative, consigning anything secondary to footnotes. I must emphasise that this is only my personal approach. There are superb editors who rarely resort to explanatory footnotes at all: we all have to find our own best way, and it isn't a case of one-size-fits-all. – Tim riley talk 21:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

As above, I'll offer further suggestions on the drafting on the talk page. For now it's my task to pronounce on whether the article as it stands is of GA quality. I have no doubt at all that it is, and therefore:

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:

A fine piece of work: permit me to congratulate you. I'll return to the prose and possible refinements when time allows. Tim riley talk 20:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Oceanides. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150620000801/http://www.classicsonline.com/catalogue/product.aspx?pid=1971657 to http://www.classicsonline.com/catalogue/product.aspx?pid=1971657
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150620004409/http://www.classicsonline.com/catalogue/product.aspx?pid=2030089 to http://www.classicsonline.com/catalogue/product.aspx?pid=2030089

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Oceanides. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150619222159/https://www.pristineclassical.com/pasc205.html to https://www.pristineclassical.com/pasc205.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Duration

@Silence of Järvenpää: I appreciate your preference to add Dahlström's value, but being reliably sourced is not the only consideration - that value contradicts the rest of the article, including your own discography table. It appears to be a case of false precision. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Okay, thank you. Removing it is preferable to the contradictory tag. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 04:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)