Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Choral symphony/archive1

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 02:58, 25 July 2009 [1].

---

Choral symphony

Nominator(s): Jonyungk (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Choral symphony/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because, after a considerable amount of work and two peer reviews, I believe it is either currently at or fast approaching FA quality. At this stage, it would only be beneficial for the article to receive FAC feedback and eventual promoition to featured article status. Jonyungk (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. I added alt text for the first image, to help get you started. Eubulides (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you very much for alerting me to this. Jonyungk (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Another welcome nomination by a writer who is likely to raise WP's profile in this field. I've had a go at the lead—please see what you think.
  • I like what you've done with the lead so far. It reads much more smoothly than before. Jonyungk (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• A couple of things apart from the purely micro-technical (including quite a few redundancies and repeat links):
  • "Because the intention was for the choral symphony to remain symphonic (rather than narrative or dramatic), the words were treated symphonically to pursue non-narrative ends, with frequent repetition of important words and phrases, and the transposing, reordering and omission of linguistic passages." The causality (swinging on "Because") works for me, but may I question the opposition created of "symphonic" vs "narrative/dramatic"? I'd have thought it was a fusion, rather than one or the other. Doesn't opera do the same? ("frequent repetition of important words and phrases and transposing, reordering and omission of passages to pursue non-narrative ends"). I do notice a slight tendency in your writing to create binary concepts where it might be safer not to; if I may be so bold, I think this emanates from the sources, and while sources are at the heart of WP's text, we do have the lattitude to pick and choose and interpret a little.
    • You have a very good point. Opera does do the same though the driving force behind an opera remains the overall plot, whereas with the choral symphony the compositional rules governing the symphony take (or should take) precedence. But I have thought through what you are saying about the fusion of symphonic and narrative/dramatic elements and you're essentially right—it is more of a fusion rather than one over the other. I'm open as to how to reword this passage. What about: "The intention was for the choral symphony to remain symphonic, even with its fusion of narrative or dramatic elements that stemmed from the inclusion of words. To this end, the words were treated symphonically to pursue non-narrative ends, with frequent repetition of important words and phrases, and the transposing, reordering and omission of linguistic passages"? Jonyungk (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's ok. Just one point: a choral symphony can be under the influence of an external narrative even in parts where there is no singing; is that correct? Tony (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is correct. Berlioz mentions this and it is covered to some extent under "Programmatic intent" with the two Schnittke symphonies. I've now mentioned this aspect in the lead section and in "General features" but am open to suggestions on how or whether this should be rephrased.Jonyungk (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• • "The text came to determine not only tone, but the basic symphonic outline, while the orchestra maintained an equal share with chorus and soloists in conveying the musical ideas." Will readers know what "tone" means here? Is it to do with the linguistic relationship between writer and listeners? And here, I don't quite get the connection that hangs on "while"—these are two quite different statements, aren't they, and deserve separate sentences. Risky to transmit the idea of "equal share" ... really equal? Perhaps "the orchestra conveyed the musical ideas to a similar extent as chorus and soloists"? I'm unsure, but what is there now is unsafe, I feel. This similarity in contribution is compared with what precursor?
    • I've changed the wording per your suggestion. Jonyungk (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Do watch the "noun plus -ing" constructions, which are usually replaceable by neater grammar ("the first example of a major composer using the human voice"). See these nerdy exercises, on which I'm pleased to receive feedback. The latest edition of the Chicago MOS rightly says that "with" as a connector, can be clumsy, too. Tony (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Support: Declaration - I have done substantial copyediting on this article, and have watched its progress from a very uncertain, incomplete draft at its first peer review, to what I think is now a mature and high-quality article. No doubt (as with almost every FA I've seen) it could benefit from a final pass over the prose - I have just got rid of a few "with" connectors - but I see no reason at this stage to withhold support. This is a lucid exposition of an important musical concept, thoroughly deserving of its promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the declaration and for all the time you put into this article, which was really going "above and beyond the call." Jonyungk (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Support I peer reviewed this article, and while it was good then, I believe it is even better now. It is a well-written, thoroughly researched article that meets the FA criteria. Ricardiana (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments and for all your help on this article. Jonyungk (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on basis of criteria 3:

• File:Krzysztof Penderecki.jpg: {{PD-Poland}} requires the first publication date and the absence of a copyright notice then, so where was this first published?
  • This image has been removed. Jonyungk (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• File:8th.jpg: similarly, for {{PD-US}} first publishing is required—creation is not publication. When or where was this image first published?
  • I would guess probably sometime close to the premiere as it is obviously a publicity photo. What would be the easiest way of finding out? Jonyungk (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • A search at or contact with the Otto E. Albrecht Music Library could yield results. Jappalang (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I have sent an inquiry to the library and should receive a reply within the next business day. Jonyungk (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Image removed. Jonyungk (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• File:1944 Soviet investigators at Babi Yar.jpg: what makes this a public domain image? Who stated it came from the Soviet Archives? The Holocaust Museum certainly does not say so.[2] In fact, it warns that images on its site can be copyrighted.[3] Was it taken by a Soviet? Could it not be a journalist? "In October 1943, as German forces were beginning to retreat from Russian territory, Soviet officials brought a group of foreign reporters to Babi Yar, the ravine outside Kiev in which the Nazis had killed thousands of Jews." per Lipstadt, Deborah, 1993, Beyond Belif, p. 245, Simon & Schuster. Other journalists have visited the site at various times in '43–44.[4][5] Furthermore, this image most likely would not qualify for {{PD-Russia-2008}} or {{PD-Ukraine}}. The photo was taken in 1944, first publishing is unknown, as well as the identity of the photographer.
  • Replaced by Image:Poster08.jpg Jonyungk (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Any Soviet work that comes under {{PD-Russia-2008}} must have their authors dead before 1941–1942; works under {{PD-Ukraine}} would have publishing before 1 June 1946 and their authors dead before that time too. This poster, published in 1949,[6][7] fails on both (and it is questionable as declared under Ukraine as well). Jappalang (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Replaced with File:JStalin Secretary general CCCP 1942.jpg. Jonyungk (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Not too confident with that one. The War Department acquired photos from several foreign sources. This might comply with PD-Ukraine but we need to know the publishing date and author. Furthermore, it is most likely PD-Russia-2008 (which likely acquired most of the Soviet materials after the break up), which asks for death of author... so I recommend:

          File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-19400-0029, Berlin, Marx-Engels-Platz, Demonstration.jpg,

          File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-18684-0002, Dresden, Tod Stalin, Parade KVP.jpg,

          File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-R80329, Josef Stalin.jpg,

          or File:Stalin 1945.jpg.

        • Take your pick. Jappalang (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Photo replaced with File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-18684-0002, Dresden, Tod Stalin, Parade KVP.jpg. Jonyungk (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Okay, that leaves us with just the 8th.jpg for opposition material. Hopefully, we get some good news soon. Jappalang (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• File:Gustav-Mahler-Kohut.jpg: please move this to Wikipedia. 1900 German publication of a 1892 creation means it is possible the creator did not die more than 70 years ago. In fact, this photo was taken by "Berliner Photographie" in 1896.[8] Information from this photo, likely in the same set, points to commons:Creator:E. Bieber and expiration of German copyrights. Jappalang (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• File:OldCity07.JPG: not part of the opposition; the image seems okay, except for the date... EXIF states January 2007, uploader says July 07... Perhaps a clarification with the author is needed? Not a big deal, though (could be wrong setting on the camera, or bad memory...).

All other images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks as always for all the work you put in. You really do a lot and it is appreciated. Jonyungk (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. Greetings. Here are few issues (which however might be wrong):

• History, paragraph 3: what do you mean with "cosmic nature of the symphony". I think it's a metaphor. The word "cosmic" should be replaced. Maybe "epic"??
• Musical treatment of text, paragraph 1: "The composer write," shouldn't there be "writes"?
• Supplanting text wordlessly, paragraph 4: There is a "programmic", which I think you ment to be "programmatic".

Except for this three minor issues, the article doesn't seem to have any problems. The research is broad and the prose is fluent. It explains the topic very well and I think it meets the criteria.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for pointing out these things, which have all been addressed, and for your comments and support. They are all appreciated. Jonyungk (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment "a capella" I always thought it had two "p"'s. Nice work otherwise (this has been promoted; I was just doing some minor polishing before the FA star is tacked on). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It does have two "p"s. Thanks for pointing this out. Jonyungk (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.