Talk:Stabat Mater (Dvořák)

Stabat Mater (Dvořák) was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 30, 2020). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Classical music: Compositions This article is supported by Compositions task force.

This article was created or improved during WikiProject Europe's "European 10,000 Challenge", which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help out!

Contrary to what implied in the article, it seems Simrock did publish a full score in 1881. 2604:6000:B484:AF00:98DE:51BC:3DC4:FFD3 (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to check English grammar. Any help is welcome

I've made a very few edits to the English. I think "the same forces for all performers" means "the same forces [as the first movement]".

But someone needs to check the normal performance time - it is quoted as 90 minutes and 85 minutes. Maybe just say '85-90 minutes'? PhilUK (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The movement recalls themes from the first movement and is set for the same forces of all performers. It ends with an uplifting fugue in a major key on the word "Amen"." I do not understand "the same forces for all performers". That is not in the Houston ref. Listening to the video, I would not call the upward progressions in the strings a "fugue", as Houston says. I also commented out "of considerable complexity" (also not in Houston and doesn't seem to apply here). Can someone comment? Jmar67 (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced to the score itself, or listen to any concert and recording. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is from the book? I did listen to it and don't agree with the description given. Jmar67 (talk) 11:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Stabat Mater (Dvořák)/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) 15:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Planning to review this article within the next few days. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for reviewing! I'm on vacation for the rest of the week, so offline for most of the time, and at the place where I stay, no (stable) connection in the room. Please don't be surprised about little response, - I'll listen eventually. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Back home, I thank for thorough reviewing. I'll make changes in the articles, and will comment in the upper section of the review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First reading

Criteria

@

• Crit. 2a: U2
• Crit. 2b: U1, U2, U3, U4
• Crit. 2c: U1, U2
• Crit. 4: U2, U3

... which would require "large numbers of {{

• implement the suggestions at Crit. 2a U1 and "Room for improvement" (RfI) RfI1
• check the remainder of the article and references, and correct similar issues, if any, before I resume my detailed review (within two weeks or so)

Let that not stop you from addressing other issues in the mean while, but the "sourcing"-related issues seem most urgent. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: do you need more time to handle sourcing-related issues? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: yes.

Longer answer: Perhaps I am too spontaneous, but I am driven by things that need more immediate attention. On Thurday, I heard of a 100th birthday, and expanded Maria, Königin des Friedens, then Franz Mazura died, and expanding took most of yesterday. same day Gudrun Pausewang died which will take some of today. I am also behind regarding requests for help and reviews due for DYK nomination. I just did one for Jean Delumeau, making minor edits to the article (such as introducing the interlanguage template) and telling the author to take them as examples. I do hope to get to this later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue writing my report next Thursday or Friday (originally I had planned Monday or Tuesday). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the expansion. This is the first of several GA reviews that I am told that a section other than the list of the criteria was not meant for interleaving comments. Some, such as Talk:Clara Schumann/GA1, don't even close that section. I'll do the following: copy your comments from below to the talk, and interleave comments because I believe in dialogue. I resumed working on Monteverdi's Vespers today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpts of remaining concerns 27 January, and replies

• (references, currently #1: name="Döge") "Döge, Klaus. "Antonín Dvořák (1841–1904) / Stabat mater Op. 58 / Urtext edited by Klaus Döge (solos,ch,orch) duration: 86'". breitkopf.com.
  WP:CITEHOW
  )

  I'll think about the "Preface" and "cite book" --GA

  N – not resolved (yet). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (references, currently #5: name="Dvořák") ""Antonín Dvořák (1841–1904) / Stabat mater Op. 58 / Urtext edited by Klaus Döge (solos,ch,orch) duration: 86'". antonin-dvorak.cz. Retrieved 8 October 2019.": "title" parameter of the cite template does not correspond with the title of that web page: in fact, nothing of that web page has content or titles remotely relating to "Urtext edited by Klaus Döge (solos,ch,orch) duration: 86'" (
  WP:CITEWEB
  )

  sorry, left title unchanged in copy, fixed --GA

  Y – OK. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (references, currently #2: name="Berná") "Berná, Lucie Harasim (September 2016). "Foreword to Antonín Dvořák (1841-1904) / Stabat Mater / op. 58" (PDF). Carus-Verlag. pp. 4–5. Retrieved 20 November 2019." – suggesting to convert the current {{cite web}} template to a {{cite book}}, for similar reasons as given above for the name="Dvořák" template.

  will think, as above --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  N – not resolved (yet). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (History section) "... was dedicated to František Hušpauer "as a souvenir to the friend of his young days."", referenced to Döge 2004: I could find no such information in that source. (see also suggestion above to give page numbers for this source, might be I just didn't find it; as such we seem to have an unresolved
  WP:V
  issue).

  You may have seen that this text was already in the version I found. Your comment helped me to find the source, [1] [2] [3] (mirrored), of which the whole section was a copy, copyright-vio I believe, so changed. --GA

  N & unacceptable answer:

  • Re. "You may have seen that this text was already in the version I found" – as if that makes any difference: you check what is in the article *before* submitting a GAC, and not leave it to the GAC reviewer to sort it out. In fact your implicit admittance that you didn't thoroughly check the article before submitting the GAC would be, in itself, enough reason to stop the procedure as making everybody waste time by writing comments on this page instead of using that time more efficiently for improving the article.
  • Re. "... the source, [4] ..." – absolute nonsense: that page was never used as a source for the Wikipedia article (read that page entirely, and you'll see that I'm right). I think your biggest error in the matter is that you removed the legitimate references (including the one for this content), supplanting them by references that didn't cover the content, here. This also should, in itself, be enough reason to abort the GAC procedure, returning to a version prior to when this damage was done. What you also did, in contravention of
    WP:CITEVAR
    , was changing the two-step referencing system (i.e., the references in a references list referring in a second step to sources in a sources list) to a one-step system, thus further obscuring the role of the Bärenreiter source. Until you had no clue yourself any more what damage you had done, and then "finding" a so-called source which under no circumstances can have been the source for that content. Messing with legitimate references like that is not only disrepectful for the work others have done before you, it also considerably lowers the quality of the article, and is thus harmful for Wikipedia's reputation.

  --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (History section) "However, Dvořák had to postpone the orchestration of the work due to other obligations" no such reasons for a delay of the orchestration given in the indicated source, i.e. antonin-dvorak.cz

  same --GA

  N – unresolved and/or unacceptable answer per above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (History topic) Positioning of Dvořák's Stabat Mater within the era of Romantic music ("Romantic" not even mentioned once in the article), and w.r.t. comparable treatments of standard Christian texts by composers of that era needs at least to be sketched.

  later perhaps --GA

  N – not resolved (yet). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (Reception topic) More systematic treatment of early performances needed, and of how Dvořák's Stabat Mater contributed to his rise in fame.

  same --GA

  N – not resolved (yet). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (History topic) Comparison with a few very significant Stabat Mater settings outside of the era of Romantic music (illustrating by comparison e.g. relative duration and breadth of scoring) might be useful.

  same --GA

  N – not resolved (yet). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (History section) "He began the composition of Stabat Mater in 1875, six months after the death of his daughter, Josefa, who was only two days old", referenced to Dotsey 2018 and Vaughan 2005: Döge 2004 doubts the causality (death of daughter → composition of Stabat Mater), and www.antonin-dvorak.cz has a nuanced version (explaining both the "traditional" view of the causality, and the more up-to-date view doubting that causality): suggesting to rewrite the sentence so that it conforms to Wikipedia's core content policies, which would be nearest to the "nuanced view" of antonin-dvorak.cz

  taken but not today --GA

  N – not resolved (yet). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (History section) "Stabat Mater is Dvořák's first work on a religious theme", referenced to Berná 2016: (1) not exactly what Berná says (this author mentions "the group of sacred works on Latin texts composed by Dvořák", which includes four compositions with opus numbers, and of these four the Stabat Mater is the first: nowhere said or inferred that that work "is Dvořák's first work on a religious theme"); (2) Döge 2004 names two sacred compositions on a Latin text which were written by Dvořák before his Stabat Mater. (apart from the misrepresentation of the content of the Berná 2016 source this is also a
  WP:BALASPS
  issue)

  I added a qualifier "major", and reference to the early works will be useful --GA

  Y – not fully resolved yet: whether the earlier religious compositions were "major" or not is unknown because they are lost: a composition going lost does not necessarily mean it is "minor", nor is that what the sources say. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (History section) "The sketch was written between 19 February and 7 May 1876, ...", referenced to Döge 2004: (1) Döge 2004 does not describe this first version of Dvořák's Stabat Mater as a sketch; (2) antonin-dvorak.cz says about that first version that "it may still be regarded as a fully-fledged composition", which is something else than a "
  WP:BALASPS
  issue)

  no, this also a "earlier version copy" problem, - now "first version" instead of "sketch" --GA

  N – unresolved and unacceptable answer (see also above). The Bärenreiter source does in fact call it a "sketch", but that was obscured while you had removed that source. Thus, insufficient coverage of the main aspects, and a

  WP:BALASPS issue sticking out like a sore thumb, only further deteriorated by removing the content as you did. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• (History section) "It contained seven movements, the later 1–4 and 8–10", referenced to Berná 2016: Döge 2004 doubts this, see also endnote 9 p. 8 of Döge's Preface. (
  WP:BALASPS) --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  PS: according to Döge's 9th endnote the manuscript of the early version of Dvořák's Stabat Mater is inaccessible, even to researchers: this may also explain somewhat contradictory information in antonin-dvorak.cz ("fully-fledged composition" vs. "he added another three movements (nos. 5-7)"), which may mean that my first-reading suggestion, i.e. "unclear whether Dvořák in his first version only set part of the text, or that he repositioned the text to the notes to make possible to write three more movements?", can possibly not be clarified with what is available in reliable sources – nonetheless suggesting to explain the situation, based on available reliable sources.

  yes, nice to point the contradiction out, but again not today. --GA

  N – unresolved and/or unacceptable answer per above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

End of notes to self, more after sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary 28 Jan: Francis, I fixed some problems, but am unable to do the more creative work (comparisons, reception) on this topic, today and for weeks to come. Without much ado, you can fail the GA. You might, however, point out what needs to be done to avoid false information, opposed to additional information that would be nice to have, and may come in the future. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "Without much ado, you can fail the GA." – will do so. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By criteria report

1. Well-written

Unacceptable (rewrite needed for GA):

1. (infobox) "solists" (spelling) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Y – resolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. (lead section) "... performance ... established his international recognition ..." (unclear phrasing) --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   N – unresolved (rephrasing in lead not much better, and moving the questionable phrasing alsewhere does of course also not resolve the matter). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3. (lead section) "... It has been regarded as one of his three most popular works ..." (
   WP:WEASEL – especially as only a single source is given in support further down in the article; see also further comments below) --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   N – essentially unresolved, despite a rephrasing that has occurred in the mean while. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. (lead section) "... is performed and recorded frequently" (weasel wording – what is "frequently"? – see also below regarding this statement not being sufficiently referenced to reliable sources) --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   N – unresolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5. (History section) "He began the composition of Stabat Mater ... old. Stabat Mater is Dvořák's ..." (poor phrasing without an article or "his" or "Dvořák's" preceding "Stabat Mater": see similar remark about phrasing in Evaluation section below) --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   N – unresolved (at least not handled systematically). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6. (History section) "He chose the work, unusually for him, without a commission" (
   WP:CONFUSE because of the multiple meanings of "commission": although the source for this statement also uses "commission" the context of the phrasing there is clear which meaning of the word is intended) --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   N – unresolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7. (Evaluation section) "Stabat Mater is regarded as one of Dvořák's ..." (as similar phrase in lead, see above; also: specific for this phrasing: "Stabat Mater" without preceding definite article or "Dvořák's ..." seems poor phrasing, should be something like "Dvořák's Stabat Mater is regarded as one of his...") --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   N – unresolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Room for improvement (rewrite suggested):

Unacceptable (rewrite needed for GA):

1. (lead sentence) " (originally Op. 28),^[1] B. 71" (
   WP:LEADSENTENCE; Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure; Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Opus numbers and catalog numbers) --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   N – incorrectly handled: the catalogue number should of course be mentioned somewhere in the article. As if there are only two options: propping it all in the lead sentence or not mention it at all, really, does everything need to be spelled out? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. (lead sentence) "[[religious music|sacred]] [[cantata]]" (
   WP:SEAOFBLUE – whether "sacred cantata" is an appropriate qualifier for the composition is another topic: see below). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   N – inappropriately handled. The Bärenreiter source does in fact call it a sacred cantata, thus removing it is not an appropriate solution. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Room for improvement (rewrite suggested):

1. (lead section vs infobox content) – Lead sentence has: "..., for soloists, choir and orchestra, ..."; infobox has: "Vocal  SATB choir and solists" (about the typo in that one, see above) and "Instrumental  Orchestra · organ". Doesn't match very well: I'd suggest a better match between the two, e.g.,
   → Lead sentence: "..., for vocal soloists, choir and symphonic orchestra, ..."
   → Infobox: "Vocal  soloists and choir" and "Instrumental  symphonic orchestra"
   ... and leave further descriptions like "organ" and type of choir to the body of the article. (regarding one of my preliminary remarks: "symphony orchestra" seems correct too, but I gather that is rather American English: maybe it would be a good idea to add {{Use American English}} or {{Use British English}}, and similar templates for date formats, to the lead, and let the symphony/symphonic choice depend on that preference). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   N – not fully handled. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. (lead section) Suggesting to expand the lead section a bit:
   MOS:LEADLENGTH seems to suggest rather two paragraphs than one: e.g. a first paragraph summarizing key characteristics of the composition, and some of its genesis history, followed by a second paragraph about reception topics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Y suggestion followed – but the current two-paragraph lead section has still many problems. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable (rewrite needed for GA):

1. (references, currently #1: name="Döge") "Döge, Klaus. "Antonín Dvořák (1841–1904) / Stabat mater Op. 58 / Urtext edited by Klaus Döge (solos,ch,orch) duration: 86'". breitkopf.com.
   WP:CITEHOW) --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   N – unresolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. (references, currently #5: name="Dvořák") ""Antonín Dvořák (1841–1904) / Stabat mater Op. 58 / Urtext edited by Klaus Döge (solos,ch,orch) duration: 86'". antonin-dvorak.cz. Retrieved 8 October 2019.": "title" parameter of the cite template does not correspond with the title of that web page: in fact, nothing of that web page has content or titles remotely relating to "Urtext edited by Klaus Döge (solos,ch,orch) duration: 86'" (
   WP:CITEWEB) --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Y – resolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Room for improvement (rewrite suggested):

1. (references, currently #2: name="Berná") "Berná, Lucie Harasim (September 2016). "Foreword to Antonín Dvořák (1841-1904) / Stabat Mater / op. 58" (PDF). Carus-Verlag. pp. 4–5. Retrieved 20 November 2019." – suggesting to convert the current {{cite web}} template to a {{cite book}}, for similar reasons as given above for the name="Dvořák" template. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   N – unresolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable (rewrite needed for GA):

1. (lead section) "... premiered in Prague and soon also performed in Budapest and London ..." (
   WP:RS). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Y – resolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. (lead section; Evaluation section) "It has been regarded as one of his three most popular works"; "Stabat Mater is regarded as one of Dvořák's most popular works, along with his
   WP:REDFLAG big time, which means that this requires "multiple high-quality sources" to keep this in the article. The editor of the score of the Stabat Mater is in this matter also not the most "independent" source: if that is the only source the statement has to go. I include, i.e. hidden in order not to break "by criteria" layout, an ordered list of most popular works by Dvořák according to number of commercially available recordings at the www.arkivmusic.com website
   , which is only a very approximate approach to popularity too, but clear enough to say categorically that Dvořák's Stabat Mater is certainly *not* "one of his three most popular works")

   "Most popular" approached via number of commercial recordings available at www.arkivmusic.com (Dvořák's Stabat Mater comes 24th in this approach):

   1. New World Symphony: 205 recordings ([5])
   2. Cello Concerto Op. 104: 115 recordings ([6])
   3. Symphony No. 8: 110 recordings ([7])
   4. Humoresque Op. 101 No. 7: 101 recordings ([8])
   5. Zigeunermelodie Op. 55 No. 4: 86 recordings ([9])
   6. Carnival Overture: 80 recordings ([10])
   7. Rusalka's "Song to the moon": at least 75 recordings ([11])
   8. Violin Concerto: 68 recordings ([12])
   9. Symphony No. 7: 64 recordings ([13])
   10. American string quartet: 62 recordings ([14])
   11. Silent Woods, Op. 5 No. 5: 61 recordings ([15])
   12. Dumky trio: 60 recordings ([16])
   13. Most popular of the Slavonic Dances (Op. 46 No. 1): 52 recordings ([17])
   14. Serenade for Strings: 51 recordings ([18])
   15. Piano Quintet No. 2: 45 recordings ([19])
   16. Symphony No. 6: 44 recordings ([20])
   17. Romantic Pieces Op. 75: 41 recordings ([21])
   18. Piano Trio No. 3: 41 recordings ([22])
   19. Romance for Violin and Orchestra: 39 recordings ([23])
   20. Sonatina Op. 100: 35 recordings ([24])
   21. Serenade for Winds: 34 recordings ([25])
   22. Scherzo capriccioso Op. 66: 33 recordings ([26])
   23. Piano Concerto: 32 recordings ([27])
   24. Stabat Mater: 29 recordings ([28])

   --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   N – unresolved (see also above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3. (lead section; Recordings section) "... is performed and recorded frequently" (
   WP:V: only one performance outside recordings is apparent in the remainder of the article, i.e. the Wiesbaden image; ten referenced recordings, + one unreferenced (Engerer), also do not really demonstrate "frequent" recordings with reliable sources) --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   N – unresolved (see also above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. (History section) "... was dedicated to František Hušpauer "as a souvenir to the friend of his young days."", referenced to Döge 2004: I could find no such information in that source. (see also suggestion above to give page numbers for this source, might be I just didn't find it; as such we seem to have an unresolved
   WP:V issue). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   N – unresolved (see also above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Room for improvement (rewrite suggested):

Unacceptable (rewrite needed for GA):

1. (lead sentence) "sacred cantata" qualifier unreferenced, meaning nor referenced in the lead nor elsewhere in the article; probably also rather "oratorio" than "extended sacred cantata", e.g. [29] (
   WP:REDFLAG) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   N – unresolved (see also above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. (History section) "However, Dvořák had to postpone the orchestration of the work due to other obligations" no such reasons for a delay of the orchestration given in the indicated source, i.e. antonin-dvorak.cz (
   WP:OR) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   N – unresolved and/or inappropriately handled. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Room for improvement (rewrite suggested):

Unacceptable (rewrite needed for GA):

Room for improvement (rewrite suggested):

Unacceptable (rewrite needed for GA):

1. (History topic) Positioning of Dvořák's Stabat Mater within the era of
   WP:SCOPE; Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   N – unresolved (see also above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. (Reception topic) More systematic treatment of early performances needed, and of how Dvořák's Stabat Mater contributed to his rise in fame. (
   WP:SCOPE; Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   N – unresolved (see also above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Room for improvement (rewrite suggested):

1. (History topic) Comparison with a few very significant Stabat Mater settings outside of the era of Romantic music (illustrating by comparison e.g. relative duration and breadth of scoring) might be useful. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   N – unresolved (see also above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable (rewrite needed for GA):

Room for improvement (rewrite suggested):

Unacceptable (rewrite needed for GA):

1. (History section) "He began the composition of Stabat Mater in 1875, six months after the death of his daughter, Josefa, who was only two days old", referenced to Dotsey 2018 and Vaughan 2005: Döge 2004 doubts the causality (death of daughter → composition of Stabat Mater), and www.antonin-dvorak.cz has a nuanced version (explaining both the "traditional" view of the causality, and the more up-to-date view doubting that causality): suggesting to rewrite the sentence so that it conforms to Wikipedia's core content policies, which would be nearest to the "nuanced view" of antonin-dvorak.cz (
   WP:BALASPS) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   N – unresolved (see also above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. (History section) "Stabat Mater is Dvořák's first work on a religious theme", referenced to Berná 2016: (1) not exactly what Berná says (this author mentions "the group of sacred works on Latin texts composed by Dvořák", which includes four compositions with opus numbers, and of these four the Stabat Mater is the first: nowhere said or inferred that that work "is Dvořák's first work on a religious theme"); (2) Döge 2004 names two sacred compositions on a Latin text which were written by Dvořák before his Stabat Mater. (apart from the misrepresentation of the content of the Berná 2016 source this is also a
   WP:BALASPS issue) --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   N – not completely resolved (see also above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3. (History section) "The sketch was written between 19 February and 7 May 1876, ...", referenced to Döge 2004: (1) Döge 2004 does not describe this first version of Dvořák's Stabat Mater as a sketch; (2) antonin-dvorak.cz says about that first version that "it may still be regarded as a fully-fledged composition", which is something else than a "
   WP:BALASPS issue) --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   N – unresolved (see also above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. (History section) "It contained seven movements, the later 1–4 and 8–10", referenced to Berná 2016: Döge 2004 doubts this, see also endnote 9 p. 8 of Döge's Preface. (
   WP:BALASPS) --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
   PS: according to Döge's 9th endnote the manuscript of the early version of Dvořák's Stabat Mater is inaccessible, even to researchers: this may also explain somewhat contradictory information in antonin-dvorak.cz ("fully-fledged composition" vs. "he added another three movements (nos. 5-7)"), which may mean that my first-reading suggestion, i.e. "unclear whether Dvořák in his first version only set part of the text, or that he repositioned the text to the notes to make possible to write three more movements?", can possibly not be clarified with what is available in reliable sources – nonetheless suggesting to explain the situation, based on available reliable sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   N – unresolved (see also above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Room for improvement (rewrite suggested):

Unacceptable (rewrite needed for GA):

1. (lead image) "Title page of the score" (
   WP:IMAGECAPTION) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Y – resolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity: the analysis above remains an only partially finished job – that is: many other issues are apparent, but are not further detailed here, while the whole procedure has become extremely counterproductive. The energy can be put to much better use elsewhere, e.g. by improving the article. The article was far from ready for a GAC (next time: also check what others have written before you instead of using the lame excuse that it was there before you started to get it ready for GAC; and check the references they used instead of just deleting these references and replacing them by references that don't cover the content). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]