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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 15:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review the article.

Review

Lead section/infobox

• Link chamber music; movements

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• around is redundant (and not included in the infobox)

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead section is imo over-concise. Bearing in mind that the lead section should “stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies” I would double it in size to ensure the following points are included:

1. Strauss was later embarrassed by its stylistic similarity to Brahms

2. The piece won a competition when Strauss submitted it the year it was composed

3. the composer playing the piano part during the premiere

4. the Piano Quartet never rivalled the success of the Cello Sonata (1883) or the Violin Sonata (1887), Strauss cherished the piece and programmed it regularly until the 1920s

•  Done. I'm hesitant to include that Strauss was embarrassed, because that seems to be the opinion by one of the sources. intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Op.; TrV in the infobox

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1 Background

• Link chamber music; Piano quartet; Berliner Tonkünstlerverein (Deutscher Tonkünstlerverband); marks (Mark (currency)); Munich

   Done. It seems that the Deutscher Tonkünstlerverband is not the same organisation as the Berliner Tonkünstlerverein. intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Piano Quartet – the text in the main article should be independent of the lead section, so amend this to 'The Piano Quartet by Richard Strauss' (linked)

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• just 20 – why just?

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Amend 1885–86 to '1885–1886'

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• his piano quartets in G minor and in C minor – it might be helpful for readers if the date for these were included, so show how soon before Strauss’s work they were composed

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The links to in G minor and C minor do not lead where you expect them to.

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This suggests; presumably sound editorial, you could perhaps add who suggested it, and who presumed.

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• period goes after the brackets

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• the Duke – is not capitalized (twice)

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• the completion - what completion?

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The premiere – it’s pedantic, but I would amend to 'The premiere of the piano quartet'

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2 Structure

• approximately is redundant

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2.1 Allegro

• Link triplets (Tuplet)

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• notes that should read 'noted that', as the author is not alive

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2.2 Scherzo. Presto

• Link variations (Variation (music))

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comma after playful scherzo? (minor point)

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Could pounding octave drops be rephrased?

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• composed a year later – I would amend to 'composed in 1886' (which is what the source says, and is more accurate)

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2.3 Andante

• Link F minor; C minor; syncopated (Syncopation)

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to mention who Hans von Bülow was in the text

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• elegiac – relating to an elegy, or melancholic? Readers might not know

Hm, that's what the source says. Perhaps both? intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but I wasn't clear on which meaning the word had. Minor point. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• thirty – 30 (minor point)

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2.4 Finale. Vivace

• more Schumann than Brahms seems to be missing a word

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3 Reception and legacy

• Link Tonkünstlerverband (German Wikipedia), use this
• Music critic Arthur Johnstone of the Manchester Guardian wrote could be amended to 'The Manchester Guardian reported that' (as the journalist is not noteworthy)

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• the Piano Quartet – 'his Piano Quartet' sounds better imo

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• highly successful - why highly?

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "definitely not an obliging or ingratiating piece". - it’s not clear what Strauss was implying here, could this be clarified?

  This is tricky. Strauss wrote "durchaus kein gefälliges und einschmeichelndes Stück" and the Jost translation is quite literal. I'm not sure how this can be clarified further.

@Intforce: Why not quote Strauss in German (with the translation included as well)? That way he gets the blame for saying something a bit incomprehensible, and it doesn't look like bad editing. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 22 May 1886, - no comma? (minor point)

I've reworded it a bit, hopefully it is more clear now. intforce (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• also performed – why also?

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In a report, seems redundant. Ditto rather

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing after the 1920s? Readers might be interested to know if the piece is still in the repertoire

  Sadly I couldn't find any reliable sources for this. It seems that the work is performed rather infrequently, Presto Music lists only 13 professional recordings. intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be tempted to include the recordings tally, just so it looks as if an effort has been made to fill the gap. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a recordings section. Given the number of recent recordings, it seems like the work is being performed more and more now, but that of course would be OR. intforce (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More comments to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4 References

• Link Kennedy; Richard Pohl

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Notes and Sources sections should be level 3 titles (MOS:HEADINGS)

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace the url in Gilliam (1997) with the link from Google Books (this)

   Done intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• How do you know Earshot is a reliable source to use to verify the text?

   Done Replaced intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (not GA) The sources are not formatted in a consistent way, let me know if you want comment about this. Also, I would collapse the Richard Strauss template (change the template to ((Richard Strauss|state=collapsed)))

  Sorry, what is the issue with the formatting? intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no issue with the references as far as GAN is concerned, but if you want to make them consistent and fully informative, then:

• Ref 1 (Gilliam & Youmans) Link Oxford University Press / Amend Gilliam, Bryan to 'Gilliam, Bryan Randolph'
• Ref 2 (Jost) Link Peter Jost from the German Wikipedia (((ill|Peter Jost |de)))
• Ref 3 (Gilliam) The OCLC is not required
• Ref 4 (Böhmer) Add a retrieval date
• Ref 5 (Kennedy) To be consistent with the other references, the title should be 'Piano Quartet in C minor, Op 13' / Add a retrieval date
• Ref 6 (Bromberger) Expand the linked LA Phil to its full name
• Ref 7 (Steinitzer) Add OCLC=477858487 / Link Schuster & Loeffler from the German Wikipedia (((ill| Schuster & Loeffler |de))) / Amend author, as his name was Max Steinitzer (see this)
• Ref 8 ("Theater, Musik, Konzerte etc".) Replace citation with <ref>((cite news |title=Theater, Musik, Konzerte etc. |url=https://dfg-viewer.de/show/?set%5Bmets%5D=https://content.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/zefys/SNP27112366-18860525-0-0-0-0.xml |work=[[Vossische Zeitung]] |issue=239 |date=25 May 1886 |location=Berlin |pages=3((ndash))4 |language=de))</ref>
• Ref 9 (Pohl) Replace citation with <ref>((Cite magazine|last=Pohl |first=Richard |author-link=Richard Pohl |date= 14 July1887 |title=Die 24. Tonkünstler-Versammlung des Allgemeinen deutschen Musikvereins zu Cöln|trans-title= |url=https://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno?aid=muw&datum=18870714&seite=6&zoom=33 |pages=354((ndash))355 |language=de |magazine=((ill|Musikalisches Wochenblatt |de)) |location=  Leipzig |publisher= Siegel  |volume=18 | issue= 29 ))</ref>
• Ref 10 (Johnstone) Add url=https://archive.org/details/musicalcriticism00johniala/page/n9/mode/2up / Add via=Internet Archive / Link Manchester University Press / Add oclc=1049669158

If you don't use the above this time, if you want I can help put them in after the article passes GA. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

No serious issues here. I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 12 January to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I hope to have addressed the issues. intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's close to GA, or there already, just a few points to complete. Great work! Amitchell125 (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passing

Passing now, congratulations on producing a great little article. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]