Wikipedia

Talk:Orchestral Works by Tomas Svoboda/GA1

< Talk:Orchestral Works by Tomas Svoboda
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Another Believer in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago32 comments2 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 05:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC) I will review this article. Montanabw(talk) 05:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Note: I am a wikicup participant.
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
  1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
  2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
  2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Fair use rationale good, other images proper free licenses
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Would like captions to be tweaked to remove parenthetical commentary, date of concert hall image is not really relevant unless it looks very different now. Marimba image is kind of an artsy shot if goal is to show what a marimba is, I'd rather see it replaced tossed and DePriest image moved up to more prominence, though caption on DePriest is a bit wordy, maybe chop a bit.
  7. Overall assessment.
Comments
I have a few things that will need to be tweaked, will add to list as I review. Post here if you've fixed things or have further questions about my review. Montanabw(talk) 23:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • "Further reading" section needs to go AFTER references, not before.
  • So, get rid of the reference that verifies existence of the Further reading material? Otherwise, the Reference information will not display properly. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • Hmmm, first question is if you actually have access to or read that source, if so, I don't fret about proving it exists. Otherwise, I'm not that worried about proving it exists, though I can see the wisdom of having that second link. I think your problem was making one a ref of the other. That is a very weird glitch. I broke them apart. There might be a template for adding a ref inside another ref. I'll see if we can figure out the tech. I see what you were trying to do and why, but the MOS seems to want it otherwise. Feel free to revert my changes, I'll look at this. --MTBW
  Resolved

--Another Believer (Talk) 15:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

  • There is a footnote in the lede, but I believe the same material is referenced in the body text, so you probably don't need it

OK, now some style comments:

Background and composition section
  • First paragraph, I'd move first sentence .. Start this with the brief overview of Svoboda's background and maybe expand a wee bit on why the Oregon Symphony cares about him, then use the original first sentence of what the album contains to begin the second paragraph--MTBW
  • I think it is first and foremost important to address the subject of the article, which is the album. The first sentence includes the name of the album, the featured composer, and the three featured works. In terms of flow, I think it is appropriate to mention the featured composer then provide a bit of information about his background. See comment below in addition ("Works subsection"). --Another Believer (Talk) 15:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Who is Mary Ausplund Tooze - obviously wealthy, am curious as to why she cared and why she was the patron of this, just a wee bit of expansion would be interesting. I Googled her and looks like you could source to a good obit and her foundation's web site to add a sentence or so explaining that she was a "longtime Portland arts philanthropist" and yada yada yada...  ;-) --MTBW
  • This is confusing: " Wendy Leher (DePriest), Pavlina Honcova-Summers (Svoboda) and Henry Hillman (DePonte)" Usually this structure indicates a woman's maiden name, what do these parentheses mean in this context? (There's a guy in the mix)? You may need to expand this section a bit, it's kind of confusing to me as it sits. --MTBW
  • Thanks. The parentheses were my attempt at identifying which subjects were photographed by which photographers. I went ahead and removed the three subjects and just credited the three photographers. I don't think the added detail is necessary. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Works subsection
  • Consider how to emphasize each of the three works separately. I would be OK with using the title of each work as the first word and either bulleting or boldly italicizing each of the three to make them stand out. Normally, I'm not a fan of bolding other than the first line of the lede, but here your options are to create a level four header, bulleting or bolding. Because Concerto for Marimba and Orchestra consists of multiple paragraphs and an indented quotation, bulleting may not be suitable, but somehow, I'd like to have the reader's eye be able to pick out when you begin to discuss each work. --MTBW
  • I am always hesitant to disagree with a reviewer, especially because I appreciate their time and assistance, but I don't think I've ever seen bold text apart from the subject in the lead paragraph, and to me, the focus of the article should be on the album itself and not the individual works. The first sentence of the "Background and composition" section clearly states the name of the album and the three works included. In the works section, the three works are separated with their own paragraphs. I don't think bold text or subsections are necessary. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • Fair point, I think you are actually correct there, (reviewers mess up tpp, LOL) follow up comments below --MTBW
  • You may want to figure out a way to link to Oregon Symphony discography and discuss that the album was their 12th (or so) and that DePriest had conducted all of them to that date?? --MTBW
Reception and broadcasts section
  • Personally, I'd put the paragraph about the Grammy award first, then the critical reception and all the negative reviews. Can you link to any positive reviews? Didn't see a positive one - yet there had to be, as a Grammy nomination is a pretty big deal! I'd also maybe move the marimba photo to illustrate this section; its current location led me to think "why a marimba?" when I first read the article, and only with the Grammy award for the musician does it make sense, maybe tweak the caption to this end also. --MTBW
  • Also note in the GA review chart above that I recommended moving up the image of DePriest, I'd move it here. I also suggest you add a sentence or so to the "background" section above that says that he's the conductor; probably in the paragraph where you are discussing the excutive producer, etc. I think that matters, eh? I looked at his article, and he's kind of a big deal, definitely worth expanding a wee bit about him, maybe especially worth seeing if he personally had anything to say about the project? (i.e. why they chose it besides the composer being a local guy and the local rich lady wanting them to do it...?) I'd explain why he chose this project - and I note the album came out the year he retired - any connection there?  ;-) --MTBW
  • I went ahead and moved the image of DePriest. Good idea. Because of this, I am leaving the marimba image in the Works section, which I think is more appropriate anyway given the paragraphs about the marimba concerto. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Overall, you have a good foundation, but I'd like to see a bit of expansion as noted above. As it sits, the list of orchestra personnel takes up more screen inches than the article text; the list is needed, but for GA, I want a bit more narrative. I'm starting to care about this album, but I want more reasons to believe - make the people and the work "come alive" for me a bit more. Montanabw(talk) 02:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your time and great suggestions. Some responses:
  • I removed the year from the first caption before even reading your request, so we are clearly in agreement there. I moved the DePriest image up, and kept the marimba image in the Works section, in the part about the marimba concerto. This is good because it illustrates the featured instrument. I do realize that the Personnel section appears large relative to the article body, but that is just the byproduct of having an orchestra roster of nearly 75 musicians. The same could be said of the other GA classical music album articles that I have written. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • I did add DePriest to the "Background and composition" section, but I don't think it is necessary to try to force "Oregon Symphony discography" into the prose in any way. It is not often you see this done within articles about albums. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Ideally, the article would have an image of Svoboda, perhaps in the Track listing section. Unfortunately, no image yet, but I think the three used are appropriate. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Adding a bit about Tooze was a great idea. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

As you can see, I have made improvements to the article based on your feedback, but I have also argued against some of your suggestions. I believe all comments have at least received a response, so please let me know your thoughts or which concerns need to be addressed further. Thank you, again, for your contributions to this article. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

  • Nice work and I like your improvements. I noticed that Svoboda has a web site, does it contain any links to favorable reviews? I can give a nod to keeping reviews ahead of awards, but it seems rather bizarre that the album garnered ONLY negative reviews when one of the performers won a grammy. I'm wondering if there are any corners yet to look into on this. that's probably the one thing that still has me shaking my head a bit. Thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 06:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • Thank you. Here is the entry on Svoboda's website. No links to reviews provided. The album's entry at Albany Records merely offers the review "This is definitely a worthy program..." by American Record Guide, which is hardly usable. The orchestra's discography page does not link to reviews either. I am unable to find other sources, reviews or otherwise, to incorporate into the article by "googling" variations to "Orchestral Works", "Tomas Svoboda", "Oregon Symphony Svoboda", etc. Mostly just websites that sell classical music albums. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • That first paragraph of the background section is still klunky, I see what you mean about wanting to have the album highlighted, but you discuss the album, then Svoboda's background, then go back to the album again. Perhaps you can come up with a more elegant solution than I can, but I'm highlighting a spot where I "tripped" when I was reading. Montanabw(talk) 06:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • What about now? I switched the 2nd and 3rd sentences. The paragraph now details the album, including when it was released and who is featured, then establishes Svobod's relation and notability within Oregon, followed by his credentials. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • You are probably right that bolding body text really isn't kosher with the MOS... but the problem with the Works section remains that it is hard to pick out where you shift gears to discuss each of the three pieces; perhaps just starting the second paragraph with Concerto for Marimba and Orchestra instead of the introductory clause will help. (And I'm not a classical formatting geek,but shouldn't Symphony No. 1 also be italicized?? ) I'lll confess some of this is just layout and design colliding with middle-aged eyes. Montanabw(talk) 06:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • I also wonder if there is a better image of a marimba, the one included is pretty, but also pretty artsy - showing just a portion of the instrument, be nice to have something a bit more educational for those who may not be able to tell the difference between a marimba and a xylophone! (LOL!) I don't suppose there are any free images of the Oregon symphony itself or something, perhaps out of Flickr? If you can't improve this, it's not a deal-breaker, just a small hiccup. Montanabw(talk) 06:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • I'd add a wee bit more to the lead: "...Selected tracks from the album have been broadcast by classical music radio stations..." is left hanging, perhaps add "... throughout the United States." or something to that effect. 06:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Overall, it's better and close to passing, I'd just ask you to take one more search for reviews and images, a small copyedit run, and then I should be able to bless this with the green circle!

@Another Believer:. I'd say that your copyedits are done, if you can't find more reviews, I do believe you have searched diligently. These issues will be a problem if you ever take this article to FAC, but you aren't at this time, so I see no reason not to promote to GA. I do think you should change out the marimba photo, but again, what is in there meets GA criteria. Good work! Montanabw(talk) 00:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much for your time and assistance, Montanabw. You made this article better. Much appreciated. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orchestral_Works_by_Tomas_Svoboda/GA1&oldid=1083528697"