Talk:The Wood Nymph/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Concertmusic (talk · contribs) 20:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

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.

---

Opening statement

I am grabbing this article for a GA review. I hope to get this review done by next week, or possibly earlier if time permits. It will be done in stages, where I will post edits to this page with my signature and time stamp to indicate updates.

Generally, I will try to indicate a suggested edit by saying "I would", versus an edit that should be made, where I will say "please add" or the like. After reading through the article several times (and I always read it more than once before I ever agree to do a GA review), this article is an informative and enjoyable read, and I learned quite a bit already.

As I usually do, I will make detailed comments below, and will explain any high-level GA-specific points in the Assessment section. Also as usual, I will make numerous comments that may improve the article in my opinion, but are not strictly necessary to pass the GA review. Please feel free to take them or leave them. Anything that must be updated to meet the GA criteria will be highlighted as such.

Comments

• General punctuation comment: I would add a few commas to perfect the punctuation of the article. I am happy to do that myself as part of this review - please just let me know if you are okay with that course of action. I will therefore not point out all instances of where commas are needed.

 Done NPalgan2 (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• Quotation comment: I and finding ambiguous material on whether the quotation you use in the 2nd paragraph ("caught Finland, and the musical world, by surprise") should be cited there, or whether the citation in the body of the article suffices. Maybe you have come across reliable on that note. I will not suggest any changes, and hope that I am incorrect.

• Per WP:LEADCITE, quotations in the lead need to be cited: The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Great catch - thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

 DoneNPalgan2 (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• CE: I have now stared at phrase "sixty year disappearance" or several minutes, and nothing better has come to mind without rephrasing that part. It does appear somewhat awkward to me, however, so I think a rephrasing may be in order. How about something like this: "Despite having been lost for sixty years, the tone poem's thematic material..."?

 DoneNPalgan2 (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Composition

• CE: 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: I think the word "admittedly" is both superfluous, and introduces a possible element of issues with neutrality, or of stating an opinion that is not supported with a reference. I would drop the word altogether.

 DoneNPalgan2 (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• CE: 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: There appears to be a word missing at the end of this sentence. If my guess is correct, it is the word underlined and added: "...out of music Sibelius had planned but never realized for a verismo opera." Please review and correct.

 DoneNPalgan2 (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Reference request: 1st paragraph: I believe that the first instance of Reference 1 should be at the end of the block quote, rather than at the end of that paragraph. This is especially true if Reference 1 supports the entire first paragraph AND the block quote - in which case you also have the option of using it in both places, but it certainly needs to be at the end of the block quote. Please review and advise.

 DoneNPalgan2 (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC) (but not by me)

• Question: I noticed that in Reference 3, Barnett states that the tone poem is Op. 16. What do you make of this statement in Barnett? Is there any need to address that discrepancy?

* Spring Song is Op.16. I think that the discrepancy is just a slip of the finger, doesn't need addressing as all other sources and the article itself say op.15 and this should be quicky obvious to any reader who notices it. NPalgan2 (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Performances

• Picture question: Why did you choose this particular picture? I have no real issue with it, but at the very least, the caption does need to be more descriptive as to why, or in what context, that picture is located here.

* I have changed several of the pictures to make them more relevant to the text. The forest picture I deleted for reason given in edit summary. NPalgan2 (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• CE: 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: I would add "with" into this sentence, as shown underlined: "The tone poem premiered on 17 April 1895, at the Great Hall of the University of Helsinki, with Sibelius himself conducting the Helsinki Orchestral Society".

 Done Triplecaña (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Reference question: 1st paragraph: Reference 4 by Anderson appears to support just the item about the 1936 performance. Since Reference 4 breaks up the paragraph from a referencing perspective, Reference 2 should be kept where it is at the end of the paragraph, but also be added at the end of the sentence prior to the use of Reference 4.

• CE: Typo: 2nd paragraph: Please correct "Lahti Symphony Orchestraon".

 Done Triplecaña (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Reference link suggestion: This link [1] could be used for the Tumelty reference (Reference 5).

 Done Triplecaña (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Structure

• Reference question: Reference 2 at the end of paragraph 1: By the use of the quotes, it appears that you are quoting directly from Kurki. However, the text does not use the term "changing atmospheres", but describes the "different atmospheres" being created. I therefore think that the direct quote must be used, or you can rephrase the text and drop the quotation indicator.

* I decided to drop the last clause and cite Goss p. 204-206 to cite that each of the four poem's four sections correspond to a musical one and vice versa. NPalgan2 (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Reference request: Are the the structure of the four sections supported by any reference that is available?

 DoneNPalgan2 (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Picture question: As you did in The Oceanides, please add more descriptive language to show why your are including the nordic forest picture here. The same goes for the Lenoir picture, even though at least it clearly refers to nymph, but it could still use a bit more descriptive text.

• See above. NPalgan2 (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Reception

• Reference request: Reference 15 should also be shown at the end of the block quote in this section.

 Done Triplecaña (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Autobiographical details

• Reference request: Reference 20 should also be shown at the end of the block quote in this section.

 Done Triplecaña (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

End of comments to date

I hope to add more comments later today, and certainly on Friday. Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary

This article is in great shape, and just needs the minor attention itemized above. Please review and leave me any comments of your own to consider, and I will monitor this closely over the next few days. Thank you - I enjoyed reviewing this article very much! --Concertmusic (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The note with the GAN says that the review will be wrapped up in early May per nom and reviewer, but now both sides haven't edited since April. Not sure how we should proceed on this one? Someone did step in and make fixes so I'd lean towards passing. Wizardman 00:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd lean toward not listing: the edits were to one section, and the majority of the requested fixes have not been done. Furthermore, Concertmusic said I hope to add more comments later today, and certainly on Friday.... and never came back. (Also was prepared to failed it around March 31, but removed that note a couple of weeks later and went with the May proposal.) It can be renominated if the nominator ever does return. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Still no edits by either after a week so I'll close this. if the nom wants to re-nom and the reviewer wants to jump back in and continue where they left off that's fine. Wizardman 22:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.