Talk:Carl Nielsen/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 13:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More in a day or so. Tim riley talk 13:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing much here to delay us. A few minor points you may like to consider, but nothing to stand in the way of promotion:

• Passim
  • "Opus" or "Op."? We have five of the former and seven of the latter. It would be as well to standardise on one or the other. (The latter would be my vote, if anyone is interested.)
  • "—ized" or "—ised" in the main text? We have both. ("—ised" for me, but to each his own).

 Done

• Lead
  • "under conductor Johan Svendsen" – a pity to disfigure a good article in BrEng with a false title, but it's your call.

 Done

• Studies and early career
  • "But, in the opinion of David Fanning" – blue-link notwithstanding I'd add a word or two to put Fanning into context: "But, in the opinion of the critic David Fanning" or some such.

 Done

• Orchestral music
  • "Do we really need a blue link to the sun?

 Done

• Reception
  • "Unlike his contemporary, the Finn Jean Sibelius, Nielsen's reputation" – I think this could do with "that of" before contemporary.

 Done

• • "28 February 1912, the Third Symphony (Espansiva) was in the repertoire of the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra in Amsterdam" – oh, no it wasn't. The orchestra was not "Royal" until the 1980s.

 Done

• • WP:OVERLINK – do capital cities of major countries (Amsterdam, Stockholm and Helsinki) need to be linked?
  • "In 1988 Nielsen's diaries and his letters…" – two "first times" in one sentence

 Done

• • "Writing in the New Yorker Magazine" – not keen on this: isn't it The New Yorker magazine?
  • In the same sentence, shouldn't "that only now are" be "that only now were"?

 Done

• Legacy
  • I'm a bit iffy about some of the "wills" in this section. I'm sure you'll keep it up to date, but WP:DATED is still a concern here. Where possible it would be preferable to say rather than the prediction "y will happen in 2015" the documented fact that "in x it was announced that y would happen in 2015".

 Done

• References
  • Ref 65 looks a bit odd.

    This is indeed a bit odd. It's because I've taken it not directly from the Carl Nielsen Edition (as the article was not accessible outside Denmark) but from a preliminary write-up actially headed Preface.

    I've now clarified that ref, which is to Niels Krabbe's Preface in Carl Nielsen's Voice by Anne Marie Reynolds. (The other preface mentioned also needed to be handled a bit specially). --Mirokado (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Ref 76 wants a page number
    • I don't think so. It refers to the entire book.
      • I see! Fine! Tim riley talk 14:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

That's all from me. Nothing to frighten the horses. I've made a few minor corrections to what I take to be typos, but please check them to see you're happy. Over to you, before we formally cut the ribbon. Tim riley talk 13:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Tim!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work and all the encouragement. I agree with everything you suggest and will now make the changes.--Ipigott (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Concluding review

When I last looked at this article, only a couple of weeks ago, it seemed to me to be there or thereabouts for GA, but since then it has been splendidly transformed. No fewer than three editors have worked on it to get it to it undoubted GA standard, and IMO, a good deal higher: it seems to me to be knocking at the door of FAC. Be that as it may, for present purposes it plainly meets all the GA criteria. I don't feel it necessary to wait till the very minor tweaks agreed above are all in place, so:

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:

On to FAC, I hope, though I see you have an anniversary DKY to achieve first. Please keep me posted. Glad to lend any hand that may be wanted. Tim riley talk 14:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Tim, for spotting all the above. All very useful comments. We are indeed hoping to bring the article to FA later in the year when we will no doubt be able to benefit from the celebration performances and reactions to them.--Ipigott (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)