- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:53, 30 January 2010 [1].
- Nominator(s): Jonyungk (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article on the other great man of Russian classical music, after Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, who was a tremendous influence on his peers and followers. I am nominating this for featured article because, after careful research, much writing and an exhaustive peer review (and, in the last of which, thanks especially to Awadewit for her extensive commentary, which was extremely helpful), I believe it does justice to its subject and represents Wikipedia at its best in terms of bredth, scope and overall quality. Special thanks also to Ruhrfisch for his supplying the lead image, for his help in researching the other images, and for his commentary in the peer review. Jonyungk (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In refs but not notes: Figes, Volkov; Brown, "Wandering";
- In notes but not refs: Griffiths; Abraham "Slavonic";
- There are two "taruskin" sources, but three notes only refer to "taruskin" and a page no.
- • Ling.Nut 08:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for pointing these out. They have been corrected. Jonyungk (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks for alerting me to these links. Jonyungk (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Ruhrfisch - I was involved in the very extensive peer review and all of my (and the others') concerns raised there have been addressed. I also cropped the lead image from the larger portrait. I found a typo and corrected it just now. I think this meets all the criteria for a FA and is extremely well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed a few repeat links (The Five, etc), and chain links "Beethoven's" (9th symphony), where Beethoven will be linked at the top of the more specific 9th symphony article.
- Some of the images were unnecessarily small. Tony (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is there a ref for the second footnote (the one about Rubinstein)? The Ministry (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article has only improved since I last read it at peer review. Any issues I had regarding the sources and the images were resolved at the peer review. And might I say how interesting and brilliantly written this article is? I get engrossed each time I read it. Thanks so much, Jonyungk! Awadewit (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image review completed at peer review and verified again at FAC. Awadewit (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to support: I have some relatively minor (mainly prose) issues from my reading of the first few sections. I haven't read the rest yet, but it's obviously a deeply-researched and comprehensive composer biog. I am doing some routine copyedits and link-fixing as I go through.
Lead: Shouldn't the cited material be in the main body of the article, and cited there?
- It is cited there. I have removed citations from the lead section. Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Early life:
Name repetition - nerdish, I know, but I counted seven mentions of the name "Rimsky-Korsakov" in the first paragraph of this section, ten in the second paragraph and seven more in the third. Some of the repetitions are very close, e.g. "Rimsky-Korsakov later recalled (emphasis Rimsky-Korsakov)". The constant use of this already awkward name has an adverse effect on the prose; some imaginative rephrasing and judicious use of pronouns would make the section read much better.
- I have cut down use of the name and increased use of pronouns. Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ship image: there are two ships - which is Rimsky's?
- I clicked on the image and looked at it enlarged. There appears to be only one ship in the foreground of the photo, with a small boat alongside it. That ship is the Almaz. Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you are right! The small boat creates an illusion of two ships (to my bleary eye at least) Brianboulton (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mentored by Balakirev etc: In a quote we have "improvositations". No such word in English, should it be "improvisations"? The quote is a translation; if the source actually says "improvositations", then a {sic} should be added.
- Thanks for pointing this out. I have corrected the word. Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Professorship etc
R-K become professor while still serving in the navy. It would be better to mention this at the start of this section, or readers will wonder what became of his naval career.
- I have shifted copy to make this correction. Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...plus he served as Professor of Music Theory..." - inelegant. "and was serving as" would be much better.
- What about "and served as"? I was told in FAC, regarding another article, that "ing" constructions should be avoided. Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You say: "the navy created the post of Inspector of Naval Bands," but you need to add that R-K was appointed to it.
"The post came with a promotion..." Is this the band inspector post?
- Yes. This disctinction has been made in the text. Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"plus orchestrated original works and a number of works by other composers" - that inelegant "plus" again. This one can be replaced with a simple "and". There is another, later in the text, that also needs fixing.
This "plus" has been eliminatewd. I will keep an eye out for the other one as I go through the rest of the article. Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the later sections will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More
- Backlash section
Why was Rubinstein's faint praise thought "worse" than the outright condemnation of the nationalists?
- Because of Rubinstein's position as a composer opposed to The Five's music and philosophy; he was considered by R-K to be one of the heads, oif not the head, of the enemy camp when it came to Russian music. This is still lumpy, but I've rewritten the passage to read, "Worse still to Rimsky-Korsakov was the faint praise given by Anton Rubinstein because of Rubinstein's position as a composer opposed to the nationalists' music and philosophy." Jonyungk (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"he became intermittently paralyzed creatively..." This does not read well (verb sandwiched by adverbs). Suggested rephrase: "from time to time he suffered from creative paralysis."
- Belyayev circle
Is the description of Belyayev as a "capitalist" relevant?
- Yes, not just because of his financial means but also because he and other capitalists who supported the arts in Russia tended to support the nationalist rather then more cosmopolitan artists, who were supported by the nobility. I have fleshed this out to explain but don't want to overdetail. Jonyungk (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence: "The Russian Symphony Concerts were just one of several avenues through which Belyayev worked to aid Russian composers, and for which Rimsky-Korsakov wrote that he was asked for advice and guidance." There is disjunction between the two clauses (or I am reading it wrongly). Can you clarify?
- How about this: "Rimsky-Korsakov wrote that he was asked for advice and guidance not just on the Russian Symphony Concerts, but on several other projects through which Belyayev aided Russian composers." Jonyungk (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but do we need to say "wrote that he"? Why not just: "R-K was asked for advice etc"?
- I can live with "R-K was asked for advice etc." Thought I was told in peer review it needed to be attributed, but if you don't think it needs so, that's fine with me. Jonyungk (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think, since Rimsky is the subject of the article, you needn't make the direct attribution. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glinka was somewhat casually brought into the last section, without fanfare. Now he is Mihail Glinka, linked and with dates. Perhaps this formal introduction should be in the earlier section?
"Saint Petersburg" - previously we had "St. Petersburg"
- I already caught the "St. Petersburg" and changed it. The term should now read "Saint Petersburg" throughout the article. Jonyungk (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Increased contact with Tchaikowsky: Does Modest's simile really describe what you term "friction"
- I'm open to using another word. How would you describe it? Detente, perhaps? Jonyungk (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"detente" means the relaxing of tension, the opposite of what Modest wished to convey. Howvever, "tension" would fit very nicely. Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Later years
"Another death, ironically,..." Whose opinion is "ironically"? If from the source, needs to be clarified to avoid POV feel.
- Meant that it was ironic that a death caused a creative renewal. The word "ironically" has been removed. Jonyungk (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"300 additional students" - I don't think "additional" is necessary here.
What is a "kichkist"?
- A typo—it now reads "kuchkist" and is explained as "(after kuchka, the shortened Russian term for The Five)". Jonyungk (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will try and wrap up tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concluding comments
Opera: The first sentence, cited to Abraham, needs to be attributed in the text.
- Orchestral works
The words "in other words" are unnecessary as an intro to what follows
"these three compositions" - the preceding text has been so complex that I had lost sight of which three compositions. Could we be reminded?
Likewise (next paragraph) "in this category " - needs clarifying as to which category
Smaller-scaled works: Being really nit-picky, the word "latter" only applies to the second of two. In this case the wording should be "last-named".
Editing the works of the five: Attribution problems in the second paragraph. Declarative statements such as "While Rimsky-Korsakov's efforts in this regard are laudable, they are also at times controversial" need to be specifically attributed in the text. Same applies to "Still more debatable..." at the start of he third paragraph.
- These statements are now attributed. Jonyungk (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Folklore and pantheism: Perhaps the link for pantheism could be moved up and piped to pantheistic.
Publications: "They provide remarkable insights into his life and work." Source? POV?
That concludes my comments. I look forward to fully supporting when these are addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: All concerns adequately addressed. An impressive, well-prepared and well-written piece of work. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well written and well sourced article. Ruslik_Zero 19:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I just don't understand the point of (emphsasis Rimsky-Korsakov). Could you please explain that to me? The article meets all the criteria and shows the incredible amount of hours spent on it: they were really worth! OboeCrack (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (emphasis Rimsky-Korsakov) means that Rimsky-Korsakov was the one who placed part of a quote in italics, thus emphasizing it. Thanks for your support. Jonyungk (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment is "coupterpoint" correct? It looks like "counterpoint", but I didn't change it 'cause it's within quotation marks... and would it be OK if we changed all instances of "(emphasis Rimsky-Korsakov)" to "[emphasis Rimsky-Korsakov's]"? In particular, I think the use of square brackets is generally preferred over parentheses in this case. The possessive is less important. • Ling.Nut 12:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for catching this. It should actually be "counterpoint"—unfortunately, my fingers don't cooperate as well in the spelling department than they used to. As to square brackets, the rule usually is to use them within a quote and to use parentheses outside thw quote. I have no problem with using square brackets but that also means a couple of quote marks will have to be moved. Jonyungk (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have moved "(emphasis Rimsky-Korsakov)" inside the quotes and changed the parentheses to square brackets. Jonyungk (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.