Talk:The Oceanides/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 20:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More in the next day or so. Tim riley talk 20:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an impressive piece of work, resourcefully written to be useful to the lay person and the trained musician alike. A few suggestions that you might like to ponder:

• "However"
  • This is a maddeningly invasive word which sneaks its way into one's prose whenever it can; it should almost always be evicted. There are six "howevers" in the present text, all but one of which (see below) could advantageously be deleted, leaving the meaning clear and the prose less cluttered.

All eliminated, save the one you permitted Sgvrfjs (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• WP:OVERLINK
  • Duplicate links to: Norfolk Music Festival, Yale University, Fifth Symphony, Fourth Symphony, Second Symphony, Pohjola's Daughter, glissandi, Osmo Vänskä, The Bard, The Swan of Tuonela, Osmo Vänskä again, and Lahti Symphony Orchestra.

Eliminated all the duplicate page links you identified, as well as a couple of others I found that were not mentioned. Apologies on the overlinking; I had thought it was okay to link an item again in each new section. I have retained the duplicate links for Stenhammar, Kajanus, Debussy, Sibelius, La mer, and Parker, all of which are associated with the image captions and which were added by another editor, not me. If you'd like these to be removed as well, I am happy to do so. Sgvrfjs (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Lead
  • "often translated to English as Nymphs of the Waves or Spirits of the Waves" – often? I can't say I've ever run across those translations in fifty years or so of concert-going in England.
  • "As such" – I'd lose these two words, which don't seem to me to add anything to the meaning.

Made three changes to the lead: 1) changed 'often' to 'occasionally' (note: the addition to the article of information about the English translation of Aallottaret was in collaboration with Ipigott, who asked me to find sources on the English translation since we disagreed on what it is usually translated as (if it is even translated at all). I have set up the phrase in the lead to page jump to the subsection 1.1.3 where the sources can be found.); 2) rearranged the clauses in the 'which refers to the nymphs...' sentence; 3) changed 'as such' to 'thus' (admittedly a different transition, but I feel it needs one). Please let me know if not an acceptable fix. Sgvrfjs (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)"

• Final version
  • The block quote from Kilpeläinen is 123 words long. As there are no special turns of phrase in it I think it would be better to summarise its content in your own words. Our job as Wikipedia editors is to say what experts have said but not generally to replicate how they said it.

Reworked the Kilpeläinen block quote into a paraphrased two sentences in text. Please let me know if this is sufficient. Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• • Is the opinion that the wave-crash is "arguably the work's most stunning section" Barnett's or yours?

It might be mine; I need to check. I think it might also be the opinion of Rickards and Tawaststjerna, so if push comes to shove, I can find a citation for this opinion in another source. Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Tim riley talk 20:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• • "Neither the suite or the Yale version of the tone poem were performed" – should be "…was performed".

Nice catch! Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• European premiere
  • "self-isolate" – perhaps put this into plain words as "isolate himself"?

Changed to 'isolate' Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Other notable performances
  • "Kajanus praised Sibelius in glowing, if somewhat melodramatic, terms" – WP:EDITORIAL: I'd lose the last six words.

Fixed, along with the editorializing on Hurwitz. Sgvrfjs (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Reception
  • "The influential Swedish critic Wilhelm Peterson-Berger" – you are trying to cram too much into one 82-word sentence for it to be comfortable reading. I suggest you either recast the text as two sentences or (perhaps better) make the list of P-B's savagings an explanatory footnote. (If you go on to peer review/FAC I shall be suggesting several more statements that would, in my opinion, be better as explanatory footnotes, but that's for another day.)
  • The blockquote from Gray is 124 words long. I don't propose to object to it at GAN level, but if you are thinking of going on to peer review and FAC I'd advise paraphrasing most of it, perhaps keeping "timid and conventional" and "effects of sonority hitherto unknown" as direct quotes.
  • "Somewhat stridently" – WP:EDITORIAL
  • The Hurwitz block quote, weighing in at 137 words, could be paraphrased in at most two sentences. Hurwitz is frankly rather wordy here, but there is no reason why we should follow his example.

Hurwitz block quote reworked into paragraph form, using smaller direct quotes and paraphrasing. Sgvrfjs (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Relation to The Bard
  • "is none other than the tone poem" – why the "none other than"?
  • The closing paragraph of this section should be backed up with proper citations or deleted. If retained, "Absent any new information" should be "In the absence of any new information" or something like that. The "however" here is all right, if you keep the sentence, as it is pointing up a genuine "but" point.

Removed both the unnecessary 'is none other than' and the unsourced 'absent any new information' paragraph. Sgvrfjs (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Discography
  • "has been only moderately recorded relative to…" – ambiguous. To make it clear that you are talking about quantity rather than quality I'd make this something like "has received fewer recordings than…"
  • "The first recording of The Oceanides occurred" – I don't think recordings occur, as if spontaneously: I think they are made.
  • "leading the BBC Symphony Orchestra" – to avoid confusing British readers you might make this "conducting the BBC Symphony Orchestra". (In British usage "leading" an orchestra means being the concertmaster/principal first violin.)

First of all, all changes you have recommended here have been made. More importantly, I noticed that (at least on my computer) the discography recordings table no longer displays after your edit. Thank you for you help on this, but does this mean you are of the opinion that the table should not display? Otherwise, being not the best at table code, I could use help getting it back up and running. Sgvrfjs (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)"

Good grief! The vanished table was the result of Firefox interfering with existing code when I edited. (It does that sometimes, but I failed to spot it on this occasion.) Gerda has most kindly put all to rights, for which I am greatly obliged. Tim riley talk 19:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please consider these points, and we can then take the review forward. At your service if you have any questions. – Tim riley talk 17:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

We progress admirably. Everything above is now entirely satisfactory for GA. The resurrected (renewed apoologies!) discography table needs attention. You could either stop it being sortable, or you could make the conductors sortable by surname (rather than, as at present, by given name, which really won't do.) For GA an unsortable table will be perfectly adequate. If you want to go further then you'll need to add the necessary coding to sort by surname. I'm not the one to help you with this, being chronically inept with tables, but Gerda may be able to help, and if she can't I know a very friendly editor who is a whizz in this department. And that, I think, will do for GA. I look forward to cutting the ribbon very soon. Tim riley talk 20:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I could help, sortable by surname now, ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Bless you, Gerda! I even (temporarily) forgive you for your morbid addiction to info-boxes. You have been a tower of strength in this article and its GAN. Tim riley talk 21:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Gerda once again comes through with shinning colors! Thanks! And looking at your code, I can now apply this to the discography sortable table for The Wood Nymph and the En saga (in my sandbox at present). Sgvrfjs (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Once I feel involved and temporarily forgiven, one more: do we need the record numbers in the table? For me, the label with a link to the WP article would be enough. The numbers could go to footnotes, if wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

ps: how about adding "|state=collapsed" to the template on the orchestral works, which is impressive leaning towards overwhelming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Tim. Thanks for looking through things. I am still willing to edit the Gray and especially the Hurwitz block quotes, but just haven't gotten to it yet. Also, I am more than willing to place items you think should be notes in a notes section, NOW, rather than later. Might you want to tell me which should be demoted to footnote status? Thanks. Sgvrfjs (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)"

By all means. I'll reread tomorrow with that specifically in mind, and reply either here or, more probably, on the article talk page as the matter doesn't directly bear on the GA review. To give you an idea of my own approach to footnoting interesting, relevant but not central information, you might have a look at Maurice Ravel. I try to keep the main text strictly focused on the essential narrative, consigning anything secondary to footnotes. I must emphasise that this is only my personal approach. There are superb editors who rarely resort to explanatory footnotes at all: we all have to find our own best way, and it isn't a case of one-size-fits-all. – Tim riley talk 21:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

As above, I'll offer further suggestions on the drafting on the talk page. For now it's my task to pronounce on whether the article as it stands is of GA quality. I have no doubt at all that it is, and therefore:

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:

A fine piece of work: permit me to congratulate you. I'll return to the prose and possible refinements when time allows. Tim riley talk 20:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)