Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:21, 28 February 2010 [1].
Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle[edit]
Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
This article is a sequel to Tchaikovsky and the Five, which was recently listed as FA. Like its predecessor, it is on a topic known about Russian classical music but seldom duscussed in detail in the West; unlike its predecessor, it talks about a later, more positive relationship Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky had with his peers, one that was mutually beneficial in terms of artistic growth. I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that after valuable input from peer review, it meets FA criteria. Special thanks to Brianboulton for his encouraging me to create this article, and to Ruhrfisch for the very cool lead image, which he provided. Jonyungk (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. No dab links, no external links. Alt text present and good;
perhaps you can add something saying that the portraits in the first image are part of the full portraits later in the article. Ucucha 14:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Image check: 7 images, one of which is actually a cropped montage of 4 others present in the article. All are public domain (old) from Commons, and everything checks out. Captions look good. --PresN 05:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Ruhrfisch. As noted, I made the composite lead image and uploaded the Conservatory image, as well as peer reviewing the article. All of my concerns were addressed in the peer review (which was very thorough) and I am glad to support this well-written and informative article. I have two suggestions, which do not detract from my support:
I think the second he needs to be spelled out here:He also assistedhe[Rimsky-Korsakov] and Balakirev in editing the orchestral scores of Glinka,[52] ...Nadezhda von Meck is mentioned 7 times in the article and each time her name is spelled out in full "Nadezhda von Meck" - by the MOS isn't she supposed to be called just "von Meck" sometimes?- This point came out in the FAC review of Tchaikovsky and The Five. At that time, I was told that the name needed to be spelled out in full or to use Madame to use "von Meck"; if the name were shortened, it should be to "Meck", not "von Meck". Since Nadezhda von Meck is generaly known as von Meck and not Meck in biographies of Tchaikovsky, I was concerned about potential confusion if I shortened the name to "Meck". Therefore, I continued writing out the name in full throughout the article. However, I am open to other solutions to this problem. Jonyungk (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for your support, and all the work you put into this article. Jonyungk (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: This article began life as a tailpiece to Tchaikovsky and the Five. I felt that the subject of Tchaikovsky's brief association with the Belyayev circle deserved an article of its own, and this piece is the result, a thoughtful and thorough examination of this aspect of musical history. I made many comments and suggestions during the peer review, and won't repeat myself here, except to raise again one point I touched on in the peer review. Is the "Legacy" section about the legacy of Tchaikovsky's association with the circle, or is it the legacy of the circle itself? The article title suggests it should be the former, but the text of the section suggests the latter. Perhaps, if this is the case, the section title should reflect this? This small point does not detract from the general high quality of this interesting article. Brianboulton (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your kind words in support of this article. I agree that the Legacy section should be about the legacy of Tchaikovsky's association with the circle, which covers the first paragraph of that section. The rest of the section talks about the legacy of the circle itself, which is getting off-target. Would you suggest cutting the rest of the section? This would leave the section itself pretty short but considerably more tightly focused. Jonyungk (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the first paragraph is most focused on Tchaikovsky and should stay in. I like the rest of the section, but agree that its focus is almost exclusively on the Belyayev circle. I am not sure to what extent this would be original research (and so not allowed) but I wonder if the Legacy section could mention that Tchaikovsky's music continued to be performed in Russia and world-wide (much more so than that of the members of the Belyayev circle). I also saw Tchaikovsky as more closely identified with the Moscow school, and the Belyayev circle with St. Petersburg, so the conversion of the Moscow conservatory to Belyayev school could be recast in those terms. I also see the triumph of the Belyayev circle as sort of the worst of both worlds from the Five and Tchaikovsky - from Tchaikovsky they got the solid academic grounding but took it to extremes (while the Five were proudly amateurs). From the Five they got the idea of a school that all members would adhere to (whereas Tchaikovsky followed his own muse). Can the last parts be recast a bit - contrasts drawn with Tchaikovsky? Add that even as they continued to perform his music, they did not compose like he did? If the last parts are cut, could the Taruskin block quote still be kept as a sort of coda? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good suggestions, and much food for thought. You're very right about the Moscow versus Saint Petersburg schools of composition—the fact that Tchaikovsky attempted to bridge the gap between these two entities through his friendship and support, in a sense, made the conversion of the Moscow Conservatory to the Belyayevets possible. (A large part of that was also the inevitable spread of Rimsky-Korsakov's students from Saint Petersburg to the rest of the Russian Empire.) Your suggestions might work in refocusing the section; what I need to implement them is to find the attribution needed to back up the new assertions, which are all basically true. Jonyungk (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a word and linked epigonism. I also think ... however, these composers chose not to compose in his style. is a bit awkward - perhaps ...however, these composers chose not to emulate his style. or something similar? Could Tchaikovsky somehow be added to this sentence, perhaps: Mikhail Ippolitov-Ivanov became director of the Moscow Conservatory[, where Tchaikovskyhad had once exerted great influence,] and Reinhold Glière likewise in Kiev, ensuring that these institutes "retained a direct link with the Belyayev aesthetic".[82] I am interested in what Brian has to say about this - I think it is better at focusing more on Tchaikovsky, but I am probably also too close to the ideas to judge well. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the focus is now much more as it should be, while retaining the important information on the continuing influence of the Belyayev group. I'd say this wording can stand scrutiny. Brianboulton (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a word and linked epigonism. I also think ... however, these composers chose not to compose in his style. is a bit awkward - perhaps ...however, these composers chose not to emulate his style. or something similar? Could Tchaikovsky somehow be added to this sentence, perhaps: Mikhail Ippolitov-Ivanov became director of the Moscow Conservatory[, where Tchaikovskyhad had once exerted great influence,] and Reinhold Glière likewise in Kiev, ensuring that these institutes "retained a direct link with the Belyayev aesthetic".[82] I am interested in what Brian has to say about this - I think it is better at focusing more on Tchaikovsky, but I am probably also too close to the ideas to judge well. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good suggestions, and much food for thought. You're very right about the Moscow versus Saint Petersburg schools of composition—the fact that Tchaikovsky attempted to bridge the gap between these two entities through his friendship and support, in a sense, made the conversion of the Moscow Conservatory to the Belyayevets possible. (A large part of that was also the inevitable spread of Rimsky-Korsakov's students from Saint Petersburg to the rest of the Russian Empire.) Your suggestions might work in refocusing the section; what I need to implement them is to find the attribution needed to back up the new assertions, which are all basically true. Jonyungk (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the first paragraph is most focused on Tchaikovsky and should stay in. I like the rest of the section, but agree that its focus is almost exclusively on the Belyayev circle. I am not sure to what extent this would be original research (and so not allowed) but I wonder if the Legacy section could mention that Tchaikovsky's music continued to be performed in Russia and world-wide (much more so than that of the members of the Belyayev circle). I also saw Tchaikovsky as more closely identified with the Moscow school, and the Belyayev circle with St. Petersburg, so the conversion of the Moscow conservatory to Belyayev school could be recast in those terms. I also see the triumph of the Belyayev circle as sort of the worst of both worlds from the Five and Tchaikovsky - from Tchaikovsky they got the solid academic grounding but took it to extremes (while the Five were proudly amateurs). From the Five they got the idea of a school that all members would adhere to (whereas Tchaikovsky followed his own muse). Can the last parts be recast a bit - contrasts drawn with Tchaikovsky? Add that even as they continued to perform his music, they did not compose like he did? If the last parts are cut, could the Taruskin block quote still be kept as a sort of coda? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your kind words in support of this article. I agree that the Legacy section should be about the legacy of Tchaikovsky's association with the circle, which covers the first paragraph of that section. The rest of the section talks about the legacy of the circle itself, which is getting off-target. Would you suggest cutting the rest of the section? This would leave the section itself pretty short but considerably more tightly focused. Jonyungk (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm glad to see the finish and polished version of the article I read some time ago, when it was very little. It has really improved and meets all the critera. Bravo! OboeCrack (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Like its predecessor on Tchaikovsky and the Five, this is a comprehensive and well-documented article. It conveys a considerable amount of information (all of it to the point) while remaining easy to read. It clearly meets the FA criteria, in my opinion. - Tim riley (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, please review WP:PUNC, logical punctuation, and WP:MOS#Ellipses throughout (ellipses have spaces). Per WP:MSH, I'm concerned about the amount of repetition of "Tchaikovsky" in the sub-headings; while it's not a direct repeat of the article heading, there's an awful lot of Tchaikovsky in the article headings, which is in the article name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for this advice. While I understand your concern about "Tchaikovsky" in the article sub-headings, I am a little confused. "Tchaikovsky" was added to the sub-headings per peer review for clarity, to spell out whose increased confidence and whose increasing acceptance was bring referred to in the article. Should "Tchaikovsky" now be removed from these sub-headings? Jonyungk (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a long peer review (a good thing), so I can't locate exactly what you were told there, but so much repetition of Tch in the headings is not a good thing. Perhaps you can find other ways to rephrase to avoid overusing the name? At any rate, it's not a big thing, the article is promoted, but I hope you can find a way to sort that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for this advice. While I understand your concern about "Tchaikovsky" in the article sub-headings, I am a little confused. "Tchaikovsky" was added to the sub-headings per peer review for clarity, to spell out whose increased confidence and whose increasing acceptance was bring referred to in the article. Should "Tchaikovsky" now be removed from these sub-headings? Jonyungk (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.