Talk:American premieres of Dmitri Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7
American premieres of Dmitri Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: September 21, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from American premieres of Dmitri Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 August 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Did you know nomination
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- ... that news coverage preceding the American premieres of Dmitri Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 was described as a "great fever of war-hysterical publicity"? Source: "The thickest aura and the loudest Babel—a true international Babel this time, in many tongues—have surrounded the Seventh ('Leningrad') Symphony, ever since the composer's autograph score was microfilmed and flown to New York by way of Teheran and Cairo in a great fever of war-hysterical publicity, for performance under Arturo Toscanini." ("Shostakovich and Us" by Richard Taruskin in Shostakovich in Context, p. 17)
- ALT1: ... that years after premiering Dmitri Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 in the US, Arturo Toscanini asked if he had really learned and conducted "such junk"? Source: "Years later, while listening to his NBC performance of [Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7], Toscanini allegedly asked, 'Did I really learn and conduct such junk?'" (Arturo Toscanini: The NBC Years by Mortimer H. Frank, p. 66)
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Catherine de Parthenay
- Comment:
QPQ coming soon.I got a few more ALTs too...
Created by CurryTime7-24 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/American premieres of Dmitri Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: - Not done
Overall: @CurryTime7-24: Good article. Waiting on a QPQ. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Some more ALTs, just in case:
- ALT2: ... that after the American broadcast premiere of Dmitri Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7, the New York Daily News called one of the work's themes a "crazy little tune" akin to Fats Waller's "Ain't Misbehavin'"? Source: [1]
- ALT3: ... that on the day of the American broadcast premiere of Dmitri Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 in 1942, Louella Parsons reported that a film adaptation of the work was being considered? Source: [2]
- Onegreatjoke? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
GA Review
The following discussion 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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:American premieres of Dmitri Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 00:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
A fascinating article, and I appreciate its origin story- will review soon! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- CurryTime7-24, some concerns below- I'll read through it entirely when you're done- fantastic work so far! Also, ref 5 is broken. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- My hands are full at the moment, so please give me until September 10 (PDT) to answer your concerns in detail and to start the article clean-up. Thank you as always! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)]
- My hands are full at the moment, so please give me until September 10 (
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. |
Prose is clear and free of typos | |
1b. it complies with the list incorporation .
|
No lists, fiction, or words to watch; layout is appropriate, lead is well-written | |
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 .
|
Refs are placed in a proper 'References' section | |
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). | Sources consist of reliable books and newspaper articles; all good here | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Don't see a need for a spotcheck (would be hard anyway since many are offline); article is well-cited and verifiable, no OR visible | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig shows no violations, quote use is appropriate | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Addresses DSCH's perception pre-Seventh, the press coverage of the Seventh, the premiere and battle over it, and the overall reception; all good | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Stays focused throughout | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No bias visible | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No edit warring | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as audio :
| ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
Images are properly tagged | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions .
|
Images are relevant and properly captioned | |
7. Overall assessment. |
- Thank you for your patience! I'll be editing according to your review in a bit, but wanted clarification on a few points. A number of sections of the review are rated "don't know"; specifically dealing with the sections on prose quality, adherence to the MOS, no OR, and whether or not the article is sufficiently broad, neutral, and on-topic. However, there is no explanation as to why these are rated as such. May I please have explanations so I can fix these problems? Thank you again! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry for not answering this concern previously: my reason for the inconsistency in image sizes is for concern with how text looks in desktop and mobile views. I experimented with different sizes and placements prior to the final versions, but found these caused the article text to be distorted. However, I can resize them in a consistent manner if you believe this to be better. Please let me know! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- @CurryTime7-24, no worries- those are unmarked because I haven't assesed them yet. I was waiting until the blockquote issue was fixed to thoroughly read the prose, in which I'd look at 1, 2c, and 3-4 MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- I see you've fixed it now, thanks- I'll look through it soon! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- @CurryTime7-24, done with the review. Comments on the prose are in the table- very good work on the prose! I made some small phrasing/comma changes, hope you don't mind- if you oppose any, don't hesitate to revert and discuss! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- @WP:WHENNOTCITE: "... quotations and controversial statements, particularly if about living persons, should be supported by citations even in the lead." MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)]
- @CurryTime7-24, just waiting on lead citations :) MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'll be back to continue tomorrow (PDT)! Thank you for being patient. :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Just one more day, please. Work is keeping me extra busy, but I promise to return tomorrow in the afternoon (PDT) and finally get this thing to the finish line! Thank you as always!! :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- No concern over the timetable for this, I don't quite believe in cutting off GA reviews due to time (within reason, of course, and you've been entirely reasonable) MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- Just one more day, please. Work is keeping me extra busy, but I promise to return tomorrow in the afternoon (PDT) and finally get this thing to the finish line! Thank you as always!! :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'll be back to continue tomorrow (PDT)! Thank you for being patient. :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- @CurryTime7-24, just waiting on lead citations :) MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- @
- @CurryTime7-24, done with the review. Comments on the prose are in the table- very good work on the prose! I made some small phrasing/comma changes, hope you don't mind- if you oppose any, don't hesitate to revert and discuss! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- I see you've fixed it now, thanks- I'll look through it soon! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- @CurryTime7-24, no worries- those are unmarked because I haven't assesed them yet. I was waiting until the blockquote issue was fixed to thoroughly read the prose, in which I'd look at 1, 2c, and 3-4 MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry for not answering this concern previously: my reason for the inconsistency in image sizes is for concern with how text looks in desktop and mobile views. I experimented with different sizes and placements prior to the final versions, but found these caused the article text to be distorted. However, I can resize them in a consistent manner if you believe this to be better. Please let me know! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- @MyCatIsAChonk Thank you so much for being patient. I really appreciate it. Was not trying to slack off with this GA nomination, but my real-life duties have been piling on as of late. So about the lead citations: are these necessary if they are cited within the article body? My understanding, which might be wrong, is that as long as the material is cited in the body, it does not also need one in the lead. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. Thank you again! :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- @WP:WHENNOTCITE: "... quotations and controversial statements, particularly if about living persons, should be supported by citations even in the lead." Thus, citations must be added for all quotes, regardless of their place in the article. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)]
- Got it! Thank you. Let me fix this in a few... —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- I rewrote the lead and removed all quotes. Let me know what you think! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- All good now- ready for promotion MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- I rewrote the lead and removed all quotes. Let me know what you think! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Got it! Thank you. Let me fix this in a few... —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- @