Wikipedia

Talk:On Guard for Peace/GA1

< Talk:On Guard for Peace
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Mike Christie in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago51 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 14:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sources are reliable.

  • File:Sergey Prokofyev.jpg is tagged on Commons as public domain in Russia, but the photographer died in 1974 as far as I can tell. I can tag it for removal from Commons, but you could move it to en-wiki if you think there's justification for fair use. I don't think there is, myself; this is an article about a work, not the composer.
    Either way is fine with me. It is possible that the photograph qualifies for public domain use as it may have been "an information report (including photo report), which was created by an employee of TASS, ROSTA, or KarelfinTAG as part of that person's official duties between July 10, 1925[3] and January 1, 1953, provided that it was first released in the stated period or was not released until August 3, 1993", but I personally do not know. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
    The parent image here, has already been nominated for deletion, so it may disappear at any time. I'll strike this point as if it's deleted it's moot and if it's not it can stay. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • The paragraph in the subsection "Premiere and Soviet appraisals" starting "In 1951 ...", including the following quote, is unsourced.
    Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • The paragraph in the subsection "21st century appraisals" starting "Reviewing a live 2003 performance ...", and the following quote, is unsourced.
    Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • "By 1947, the number of distinctions and prizes he earned were hitherto unmatched in the history of Soviet music": I think "hitherto" is redundant here.
    Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • "The opera outraged Stalin for reasons that remain undetermined." It's a minor point for this article, but our article on The Great Friendship seems quite definite about the reasons for Stalin's ire.
    The editors of that article rely extensively on Solomon Volkov's debunked Testimony. Even if the book were really by Shostakovich, he was not involved at all in the decision-making that led to the campaign against the opera. Oddly enough, Frolova-Walker is also used as source material for that article, but she makes clear on page 223 that "we lack documentary evidence for the cause of Stalin's anger that night at the Bolshoi". She then states that "oblique evidence" exists, but that these only permit one to "assess the probabilities" (emphasis mine). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Fair enough; just wanted to make sure it wasn't an omission. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • "to prepare and carry out an investigation into the opera": can we make this just "to investigate the opera", foc concision?
    Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • "One cannot keep an artist from creating. [T]he music will live in his soul ...". Per MOS:CONFORM there's no need for the "[T]" here, which is ugly for the reader. However, an ellipsis seems to be needed anyway, so perhaps "One cannot keep an artist from creating ... the music will live in his soul"?
    Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • I think the three paragraph quote from Prokofiev in the "Origin" subsection falls foul of WP:NFCCEG, which specifies "brief" quotations. I think this needs to be cut by at least half to meet the non-free content requirements. Perhaps paraphrase the first two paragraphs and then quote the third?
    Let me work on that in the next day or so. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • "Simon Morrison incorrectly states that Prokofiev's release date was April 20, 1950. In her diary entry for that same date, Mira Mendelson wrote that she picked up Prokofiev and "went straight to Barvikha" on April 3." This is confusingly phrased, since "that same date" makes the reader think that Mendelson picked up Prokofiev on April 20. I think what is meant is that Mendelson wrote the entry about April 3 on April 20. If so I'd suggest "Simon Morrison incorrectly states that Prokofiev's release date was April 20, 1950, but Mira Mendelson's diary entry for April 20 records that she had picked up Prokofiev on April 3, and gone to Barvikha on that day." And perhaps move the note to the end of the sentence so that the reader understands that the reference to Barvikha is evidence that Morrison is wrong.
    Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • "Fadeyev then notified Sergey Balasanian ... to approve the commission of an oratorio from Prokofiev": I don't think "notified" can be the verb you want here. "Told"?
    You're right. Fixed that. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • The long paragraph quoted in "Finding a librettist" I think needs to be cut -- you have a few block quotes and I think that raises the bar on justifying each one. I'm also not clear who is saying this -- the cite is to Morrison, but it seems to be Ehrenburg speaking? Is this a set of quoted fragments of the libretto?
    Yes, Morrison quoted from the original libretto there. His cited source is the document itself, which is preserved in the archives of the Russian State Archive of Literature and Art. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
    OK; I'll leave this unstruck till you've worked through reducing the use of quotes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Cut the Ehrenburg blockquote! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Most of the "Music" section is unsourced. Are all performances likely to use identical orchestras? I'm not knowledgeable about classical music but I think I recall that there is often some variation, so how can we be so definite about the number of woodwinds and brass?
    Yes, although the size of the strings and chorus may vary. The instrumentation is listed in the published score and in the Prokofiev work catalog by Sikorski, which is his authorized publisher. I forgot to cite that, so thank you for letting me know. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Instrumentation is now cited and I've updated other references with the new Prokofiev work catalog from Boosey & Hawkes. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • "He praised both Prokofiev and Marshak for the "original fashion" they treated the central theme of world peace": suggest "He praised both Prokofiev and Marshak for the originality of their treatment of the central theme of world peace"; it's a little clumsy as written and we have so many quotes we should take the opportunity to cut one.
    I revised the sentence, but would you prefer I drop the Nestyev quote? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
    The revision works. I don't want any particular quote cut; it's just the overall number of them that I think is an issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • "Vladimir Kruzhkov [ru] from Agitprop disagreed": you link "Agitprop" to the concept, but it reads as though you intended to link to an organization.
    Unfortunately, Wikipedia has no article yet specifically about the Soviet organization known as Agitprop. I tried doing an interwiki link, but it seems to pull back to the same English article. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Then I'd suggest redlinking to [[Agitprop (Soviet organization)|Agitprop]]. I don't think we should leave the link as it is now, to an unhelpful article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • "According to David G. Tompkins": why do we need to call out his opinion? And the reader should know who he is (an academic, a biographer ...).
    Off the top of my head, I don't recall his importance in Prokofiev studies. Will pull down the book later today to check. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • "a confidant, cynical man of the world": surely a typo for "confident", and if so MOS:TYPOFIX allows us to silently correct it.
    Done! Thanks for catching that. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • 'A reader replying to The Independent called the oratorio "unspeakably awful."' I don't think we can justify mentioning this without a secondary source; a random letter writer is no different than a blog poster.
    You're right. I've cut their letter. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • The quotes in "21st century appraisals" are too extensive. You might find WP:RECEPTION useful; can we do more summarizing and organizing of these opinions, and less quoting?
    Thank you. Please let me go over this in the next couple of days. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
    I've trimmed down the section, removing the blockquotes and Schmelz altogether (who simply repeated what was stated by others). Please let me know if you can suggest any further improvements for that section. Stepping away from my desk for a couple hours, so I may not reply immediately. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
    That looks fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

CurryTime7-24, just checking to see if you're still planning on working on this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I am! Sorry, I did not see this review. Let me go over it and reply in detail when I get back home in about an hour. Thank you! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Spotchecks -- footnote numbers refer to this version. I don't have access to these sources; can you quote the text that supports these citations?

  • FN 20 cites "Prokofiev's doctors warned him against taking on any more work, but he persisted as he hoped his proposal for an oratorio would result in a paid official commission from the Committee on Arts Affairs."
    • 20: "Although Prokofiev’s doctors advised him against taking on any new projects, he decided that a vocal work on the theme of world peace might interest the Committee..." (Morrison 2009, p. 315) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • FN 51 cites "Prokofiev attended the premiere alone because his wife was ill; she stayed at home where she listened to the broadcast of the performance with her father."
    • 51: «Сережа слушал в Большом зале ораторию «На страже мира» под управлением С.А. Самосуда. Я не смогла пойти из-за плохого самочувствия и слушала с папой дома по радио». ("Seryozha went to the Great Hall [the House of Unions' Hall of Columns] to hear the oratorio On Guard for Peace conducted by S. A. Samosud. I wasn't able to go since I was feeling unwell and I stayed home to hear it with Pops on the radio.") (Mendelson-Prokofieva 2012, p. 488) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • FNs 42 & 43 cite "A private performance in September at the headquarters for the Radio Committee resulted in Atovmyan, Balasanyan, Samosud, and Klavdiy Ptitsa, the choirmaster for the Chorus of the USSR All-Union Radio, joining to request further alterations to the choral parts in order to mitigate the difficulty of their harmonies. To their surprise, Prokofiev yielded without dispute."
    • 42: "Even with a boy soprano, children's choruses, and lyrical homage to peace, Prokofiev and his interlocutors worried that the oratorio might not be accessible enough for the authorities. Following a late September run-through of the score at the offices of the Radio Committee, Atovmyan, Balasanyan, Samosud, and the choral director Klavdiy Ptitsa enjoined the composer to rewrite the choral parts and the concluding movement to moderate the difficulties supposedly posed by the harmonic writing." (Morrison 2009, p. 365) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
    • 43: «После первого прослушивания, состоявшегося в Комитете Радиоинформации в присутствии С. Самосуда, С.А. Баласаняна, Н. Чаплыгина, Данилевича, к нам на Николину Гору приезжали Самосуд, Баласанян и хормейстер Птица с просьбой о внесении ряда переделок в партию хора, так как они находили, что партия слишком трудна для хора с точки зрения гармонии и модуляций. Сережа удивил приехавших не только мягким согласием на эти переделки. С. Самосуду было особенно приятно, что сделал он это быстро, тут же изменил в требуемых местах гармонии и модуляции». ("After the first play-through—held at the Radio Information Committee in the presence of S. Samosud, S. Balasanyan, N. Chaplygin, and Danilevich—Samosud, Balasanyan, and choirmaster Ptitsa came to Nikolina Gora requesting some changes in the choral part, as they found it too difficult for the choir in terms of harmony and modulation. Seryozha surprised the visitors not only by gently agreeing to these rearrangements.") (Mendelson-Prokofieva 2012, p. 479) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • FN 38 cites "Together with the musicologist Pavel Lamm, a mutual friend, Prokofiev helped to boost Myaskovsky's morale and tended to his dacha while he was gone."

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've struck the four above, but because one was an error, I'm going to ask for one more:

  • FN 28 cites "Prokofiev seriously considered the offer, at one point expressing the hope that the film score could provide the basis for a future opera. The film's depictions of Mikhail Glinka's professional failures led Prokofiev to reflect on the neglect of his own operas; he ultimately declined Aleksandrov's offer." Can you quote the source for this?

Other than this, there are just the two unstruck bullet points at the top of this review left to address. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Toward the end of his stay in the hospital ... and with his thoughts turning back to full-time work, Prokofiev received an invitation from the director [Grigori] Aleksandrov to write original music for a biographical film about Glinka. ... The project appealed to Prokofiev because it would allow him to merge his musical method—and his entire legacy—with that of his distinguished predecessor. He sought, in other words, to provide a context for his career that would have nothing to do with his catastrophic run-ins with the Committee on Arts Affairs and everything to do with the history of Russian culture. He even imagined writing an opera 'based on the material of the film,' though he quickly, and prudently, banished the thought. 'Certain episodes' in Aleksandrov’s screenplay 'enthralled him,' Mira recalled. 'Others (the descriptions of Glinka’s disappointments and the failure of Ruslan and Lyudmila) he found exceedingly painful.' Disheartened by the lack of performances of his own operas, Prokofiev decided against working on the film." (Morrison 2009, pp. 358–359) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
That works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I will address the remaining bullet-points tonight and tomorrow (PDT). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Got held up with something else that I had been stalling on, but will return to address the issues brought up in your review later today. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Changes look good; passing. Congratulations on a fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:On_Guard_for_Peace/GA1&oldid=1153132963"