Talk:Requiem (Reger)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: RHM22 (talk · contribs) 05:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun the review of this article, and I will complete it soon. I hope to be finished by tomorrow night.-RHM22 (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I found this to be another interesting subject, about which I knew almost nothing. It's generally well-written, although I do have a few questions and concerns, which I'll address here.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
~~A few things strike me as confusing in the prose.~~

"...about a project "Die letzten Dinge (Jüngstes Gericht u. Auferstehung)"..." What is the meaning here? Is the project in question entitled "Die letzen Dinge"? If so, a comma is needed after "project" to let the reader know.

Let's see. I found in the FitzGibbon source - just now - that Regers idea had not been the Latin Requiem (as I had believed until I read the source) but a project "Die letzten Dinge (Jüngstes Gericht u. Auferstehung), - this is in quotation marks in the source already, as the projected title, would almost need a double quotation, but how? The source translates "[The Last Things (Final Judgment and Resurrection)]". I am not sure about that. "Die letzten Dinge" is a phrase you will find in older hymnals, for the last mysteries or however that might be called in English. "Jüngstes Gericht" (one of them) is commonly translated to "Last Judgement", to my knowledge, "Auferstehung" (another) to "Resurrection", "u." is short for "und" ("and"). All this is the title of a project which was not further pursued, while Louis Spohr wrote a well-known (well, at the time) oratorio of that title, de:Die letzten Dinge (Spohr). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's always interesting how things translates (or don't). I used to often read over German auction catalogs when I conducted research on Schützentaler, but I don't understand it well enough to see the intricacies. The current wording looks fine to me.-RHM22 (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~"...orchestra and organ to his publisher on 3 October 2014..." I think this should be 1914!~~

O dear, yes ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is some inconsistency regarding quotation marks. I added a few, but I'm not sure where they should go and should not go. It seems to me that they should be placed around all quotations, but not around titles. Could you please look into that? Italics can't be used as a substitute for quote marks, even when they're foreign-language quotations, which should be in quotation marks anyway.

Will look for that. I understand it's quotation marks for poem and hymn, italics for works and their movements. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a few. It's in interesting experiment, to expand an article five years later. Not many people know these works, but now Barenboim made the Hebbel Requiem peace music, and it's scheduled for the Salzburg festival. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I trust your judgement regarding the quotation marks, because I'm not entirely sure where quotes end and titles begin, being a complete novice. I'm going to look up this piece of music on Youtube tonight.-RHM22 (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The references are formatted a little strangely, but everything looks acceptable and reliable.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article is broad in its coverage, yet remains focused on the subject.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The article remains mostly neutral throughout. Perhaps a couple of the adjectives could be toned down a bit, but that's only a suggestion.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is free of any apparent edit warring or long-standing disputes.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Both images need another copyright tag, as the PD-70 tag is not sufficient in the United States. I think {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} might be appropriate here.

I replaced the copyright tag on the infobox image, but I think the painting might not be PD in the United States. I'll leave some more information on your talk page.-RHM22 (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that the score image was uploaded especially for the article. If the other is a problem, it could be replaced by the standard Reger image, but I prefer to see him at work ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the painting was created in 1913, but that doesn't mean it was published then. In the U.S., the author has to have been dead for 100 years for the image to be automatically PD. Even if it was on public display (in a museum or something), it's not considered "published" unless copies were created for distribution, such as in a book or a postcard. Personally, I'd opt for the postcard photo of Reger from 1910, which is unquestionably PD. If you do happen to find a book or postcard from before 1923 with the painting in it, then it would of course be perfectly acceptable to add it in the future. Another member showed me an interesting technique for cropping images. Would you like me to show you an example?-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have helpers for cropping (Gardiner, Hogwood), but think it's not needed in this case. For now I will take the postcard, but will keep talking about the other. Seems strange that readers used to seeing the work pic loose on the article being improved, sigh. - I still don't know who 1923 is a magic date. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. copyright law is a bit strange and even convoluted at times. Our magic number is 100 years post-mortem for authors. Articles on subjects who were active around the early twentieth century can be tantalizingly difficult for that reason. Little consolation though it may be, the painting will be in the public domain in 2018 no matter what.-RHM22 (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
Pass/Fail:
~~This nomination is currently on hold, until the issues are addressed.~~ The article now meets the GA criteria, in my opinion.