Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tchaikovsky and the Five/archive1

Add links
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 23:20, 10 January 2010 [1].

Tchaikovsky and the Five[edit]

Nominator(s): Jonyungk (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

This is an article on a known but little-discussed (in the West) area of Russian classical music, one that helped shape Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky as a creative personality and determined his outcome as a composer. After much work and input through peer review, for which I am thankful to my fellow Wiki editors, I believe this article is of a depth, bredth and overall quality to be nominated for FA status. Jonyungk (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • No dab links or external links (dead or otherwise)—good.
  • Alt text looks good. I had thought of adding details to the Martin painting alt, but they'd distract from the ultimate point of the article IMO.
  • I couldn't find any full dates (i.e. with months, days, and years); make sure any that are present have a consistent format in the prose and in the refs.

--an odd name 23:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Is the article intended to be in UK or US English? At present there are spellings from each in it (e.g. UK recognised, counsellor and programme but US theater, color and program). It really ought to be consistent throughout. Happy to give it the once-over if you say whether it should be UK or US. - Tim riley (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much for your offer. The spellings should be US, not UK. Jonyungk (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Only a handful of changes: I have of course not tampered with any UK spellings within quotations. I'll go through the article in the next few days and offer any more general comments. At first sight it looks like a plausible FA candidate, but more a.s.a.p. - Tim riley (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Later: This is an excellent article, highly readable and full (but not too full) of relevant information. Everything that seems to need a reference has one (though see my comment below on one para in the Tchaikovsky's private concerns about the Five section) and no one source is relied on too heavily. I look forward to adding my support for its elevation to FA. In advance of that, a few, not on the whole earth-shaking, comments:

    • Thank you very much for all the comments below, nearly all of which I have incorporated. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
    • You use lower case for the definite article in "the Five" but capitalise the article in "The Mighty Handful." Is this deliberate? (I notice you use a lower case "the Mighty Handful" later in the article.)
    • "verbally" – I think you mean "orally" – verbally means with words (spoken, written or printed)
    • m-dashes – I believe the WP standard for such parenthetical dashes is to use n-dashes with a space on either side, but someone with a better knowledge of the MOS may like to confirm or otherwise
    • "the older Rimsky-Korsakov" – ambiguous: it could be read either as meaning Nikolai when older or else some other, senior, Rimsky-Korsakov. Something like "and, by then, Rimsky Korsakov" might be clearer.
  • Early years
    • "the first presentation of an opera occurred in Russia" – "occurred" is a strange word here: perhaps omit it?
    • "composers, these composers" – suggest "composers, they"
    • "Likewise, while the first public concert" – there are two likewises in this sentence. Perhaps "similarly" for the second?
    • "native-born" – tautology: just "native" is enough
  • 'The Five
    • "style and color that was different" - style and color that were different?
  • Rubinstein and the St. Petersburg Conservatory
    • "performed and composed in Europe" – As St. Petersburg and Moscow are in Europe too, perhaps this should read "Western Europe" or some such
    • "Leipzig" – I'd be inclined to blue-link this, I think
  • Difference in Russianness
    • "thrown out of the Preobrazhensky Lifeguard regiment" – rather colloquial for an encyclopaedia article, possibly?
  • With the Five
    • "that resulted Romeo and Juliet" – missing "in", I think
    • "After hearing Tchaikovsky play the final movement of this symphony" – a piano reduction, I imagine: perhaps worth spelling out?
    • "a tone poem based in this subject" – based on?
  • Balakirev
    • "…Russian Music Society (RMS) orchestra. His replacement at the RMS was Balakirev." A bit convoluted; you could simplify on the lines of "…Russian Music Society orchestra, and was replaced by Balakirev." (RMS does not occur later in the article, so the parenthetical mention is not needed)
    • "he looked forward to discussing the piece with him on an upcoming trip to Moscow" – it isn't clear which of them would be making the trip; the casual reader may not immediately remember at this point who was based in St. Petersburg and who in Moscow. Might be worth clarifying.
      • I have clarified briefly that Balakirev was writing from St. Petersburg. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rimsky-Korsakov
    • "its charming orchestration ... its structural novelty, and most of all by the freshness" – this would read more easily if you replaced the "by" with dots.
  • Stasov, The Tempest and the Little Russian symphony
    • "center the plot around the heroine" – some people get frightfully exercised by "centre around", insisting that it should be "centre on". I am indifferent, personally, but I just mention it.
  • Tchaikovsky's private concerns about the Five
    • "he wrote to von Meck" – Russian usage may well be different but in German usage when referring to Herr X von Y by surname alone, the "von" is not used – thus one refers to e.g. Karajan or Bismarck not von Karajan or von Bismarck. I just raise the point so that you can assure yourself that including the "von" here is idiomatic – e.g. does David Brown so refer to her?
      • Brown used either "Mrs." or her first name before "von". I have changed the passages in question to match. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Tchaikovsky's analysis of each of the Five was unsparing". This paragraph contains three strongly expressed judgments: are they all covered by the one reference at the end of the para? Decidedly POV if not.
      • They were all covered by the reference, but I have repeated that reference in the other two sentences in question out of clarity. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Balakirev returns
    • "Tchaikovsky declined the project at first, claiming the subject left him cold." This reads as though Tchaikovsky was lying. A more neutral verb such as "saying" might be safer.

– Tim riley (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is an excellent candidate for FA, in my opinion. It demonstrably meets FA criteria 1(a), (c), (d), and (e) and 2, 3, and 4, and speaking as a devotee of classical music (though not a Tchaikovsky specialist) I see absolutely no reason to doubt that it meets criterion 1(b) as well. In passing, let me add that it is one of the best-written articles I have had the pleasure of reading for quite some time. Loud applause! - Tim riley (talk) 08:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have peer reviewed this twice, with the second PR closing only a day ago. The article has improved considerably in the time since I first reviewed it and all of my concerns from both PRs have been addressed. In the interest of full disclosure, I made the composite lead image from free images. The article is interesting and very well-done. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: all issues fixed at 23:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC), archived at Talk: Fifelfoo (talk)

Support. I have reviewed this article twice for peer review, and it has improved much since the first version I read. Jonyungk has made the article both more in-depth and more accessible, and I believe that it now solidly meets all FA criteria. Ricardiana (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: An excellent article, part (I hope) of a Tchaikovsky series that becomes ever more compelling. I heavily reviwed this at the PR stage and have no further comments to add besides sincere congratulations on a fine effort. Brianboulton (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nice work. --Carioca (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images—the images need a lot of work:
    • File:Youngtchaik.jpg—the used PD template requires the image to be public domain in its country of origin, but it is not demonstrably so listed.
      • This image is stored on Wikipedia (not Commons), and hence need only be PD in US (hence, the {{Do not move to Commons}} tag). Jappalang (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand that, but the template clearly says that it's only PD in the US if it's also PD in the country of origin by 1996, and there's no assertion of that anywhere. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) Looks like I misread Dave's concern; the image is PD in its country of origin (Russia) on Jan 1, 1996, because it is unlikely its author (who took the photo of young Tchaikovsky in 1863) would only have died within 70 years of Jan, 1996 (admittedly a very fine line; compare that to Balakirev below).
      • If that does not pass muster, then might I suggest this image of young Tchaikovsky (again 1863), which definitely can be stored on at least Wikipedia with {{PD-1923}} by virtue of publishing in 1906 or earlier. Jappalang (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Rubinstein repin.jpg—missing most information such as author dates, source, date of publication (if the license is to be valid), et al.
      • A higher resolution version of the same image under the same file name was on Commons, with complete author, dates, etc. I deleted the version here so the Commons version is now used in the article, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was File:Feodor Chaliapin as Ivan Susanin.jpg ever published? That would be the better license to use, and due to the Russian text I can't be sure this is valid (no mention of original copyrights again).
      • A source of where this image was gotten is definitely needed. The Russian text on the image's page only states where it was taken. Without an author (and with creation just at the start of the 20th century), it is not definite that the photographer died more than 70 years ago. Jappalang (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Balakirev1860s CuiIP 73 600.jpg—no author dates given or verifiable, needed
      • If the book states the painting was an 1860s creation, then it (the page and quote) should be stated and cited, but it would be more definite if the actual author (and life) can be cited. A 20-year-old in 1869 might live to be 80 in 1929. Although his works would be in public domain in this year, URAA might have restored copyrights if his works were first published post-1922. Jappalang (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As with the image of the young Tchaikovsky, I would hate to delete this image from the article, but should it be removed at this juncture? Jonyungk (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Turns out that while there are so many books with references to Balakirev, illustrations of him are scant... Of my initial search, I could only find this illustration in volume 40 of The Windsor Magazine (1914) that could be stored at least on Wikipedia. Jappalang (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • An older Balakirev here in Outlines of Music History (1913). Jappalang (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • That appears to be a version of File:Balakirev 1904 Elson.PNG, which is on Commons and in the composite lead image. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • That is quite similar to the one in the Outlines. Anyway, I am reminded that the composite and the portraits of the Five should be on Wikipedia instead. Although published in a US publication, it is more probable the images were first published abroad and reprinted here (hence their source country copyrights are yet undetermined). The Tchaikovsky image is fine on Commons since it was created during his visit to United States (and first published there as yet, thus qualifying as a United States work), but the Five would be better here on Wikipedia. Jappalang (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks - it was here originally, so I just un-deleted it and put a Do not move to Commons template on it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I found what looks to be an oil pianting of him on the Naxos website and have emailed Naxos asking for details on the artist and date. Since he died in 1910, I thought there might be a good chance of it being PD. If it is old enough to be free, there is a much higher resolution version of it here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (out) Thanks very much for your help with all this. For the time being, I will delete File:Balakirev1860s CuiIP 73 600.jpg from the article and hope to put another image in its place eventually. For instance, how would I go about capturing the image from The Windsor Magazine? It shows a relatively young Balakirev, which I had hoped to use since it shows how balakirev looked at approximately the time he met Tchaikovsky. Jonyungk (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Miranda - The Tempest JWW.jpg—source?
      • This image has ben removed. Jonyungk (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I found a source and added it to the Commons Image page and added the image back to the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Von Meck.jpg—once again, need information on PD in home country
      • This image is stored on Wikipedia (not Commons), and hence need only be PD in US (hence, the {{Do not move to Commons}} tag). Jappalang (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It appears I was somewhat wrong here in using the {{PD-US-1996}} tag. This sketch is a reproduction of an c. 1871 portrait in Russia. The portrait has been reproduced (pencil form) in 1871; hence that constitutes first publishing then. This sketch, a derivative work of the portrait, inherits the original's copyright; hence {{PD-1923}}. Now changed. Jappalang (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but there is one passage that presents minor issues for ensuring the text stands alone from the lead and can be understood by a lay reader. The passage is this:

In 1856, Balakirev and Stasov started gathering young composers through whom to spread ideas and gain a following.[26] Balakirev's first meeting with Cui came that year. Mussorgsky joined them in 1857, Rimsky-Korsakov in 1861, and Borodin in 1862.

Without reference to the lead, the reader has no idea who Stasov is. Then, we are introduced to Cui, about whom we have been told nothing in the body text and who, unlike Mussorgsky, R-S and perhaps Borodin, is unlikely to be a name familiar to a lay reader. Then, when the reader counts heads, s/he comes up with six, not Five - because it has not been explained who Stasov is and in particular that he is not a composer. There needs to be a little more detail here, including changing "Balakirev's first meeting with Cui came that year" to "First to meet with them that year was composer César Cui". The article seems otherwise a creditable piece of scholarship with outstanding prose and good linking. My reading of the above interchanges is that image issues have now been resolved to the satisfaction of one or more experienced image editors. Can someone disabuse me if they think otherwise? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You bring up a very good point. I have changed the passage in question to read, In 1856, Balakirev and critic Vladimir Stasov, who publically espoused a nationalist agenda for Russian arts, started gathering young composers through whom to spread ideas and gain a following.[26] First to meet with them that year was César Cui, an army officer who specialized in the science of fortifications. Modest Mussorgsky, a Preobrazhensky Lifeguard officer, joined them in 1857; Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, a naval officer, in 1861; and Alexander Borodin, a chemist, in 1862. Balakirev, Borodin, Cui, Mussorgsky and Rimsky-Korsakov composed in their spare time, and all five of them were young men in 1862, with Rimsky-Korsakov at just 18 the youngest and Borodin the oldest at 28.[27] Jonyungk (talk) 13:40, 8 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tchaikovsky_and_the_Five/archive1&oldid=1078807420"