Wikipedia:Peer review/Frédéric Chopin/archive2

Frédéric Chopin

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would welcome opinions on what it might need to take it up to FA status. Although it has been subject to some alarums and excursions in the past it has now been stable for quite some while, and it could now be appropriate to make any further revisions to take it to the next step. The subject is listed as a level 3 vital article so it would be right to make is as good as we can. I will be very interested in all (constructive) comments.

Thanks, Smerus (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, Smerus, I'm a bit busy at the moment, but should have some time after the weekend. I'm looking forward to reading the article, which certainly looks in good shape. Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie. I'll add comments as I read the article; I doubt I'll be able to get far tonight. I am not particularly knowledgeable about classical music so I'm afraid I won't be much help as a subject matter expert.

• "Chopin and his family now lived in a building adjacent to the Kazimierz Palace": you're in past tense up to this point.
• "in May 1825 performed on this instrument part of a concerto by Moscheles and his own improvisation": I think this phrasing could be improved. Was the improvisation a separate piece of music from the Moscheles concerto?
• "Here the parents continued running their boarding house for male students; Chopin lived here until he left Warsaw in 1830." The repetition of "here" is a little clumsy.
• "In September 1828 Chopin had visited Berlin with a family friend": why "had"?
• Any reason not to link James Fenimore Cooper?
• You say Chopin never named an instrumental work beyond genre and number, but then say he did name the Funeral March. Isn't this a contradiction?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for these comments. I believe I have now dealt with them all in the article; in the case of Cooper, I deleted the whole sentence, since the (apparently single) meeting had no consequences for either party - and Chopin of course met very many people in Paris, few of whom were relevant to his story. The 'had' for the 1828 visit I have retained, because is I think appropriate for reasons of continuity, as the narrative goes back briefly in time here. --Smerus (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

All the above fixes look good. A couple more:

• "which contain lengthy and scholarly explanations": perhaps "both of which" or "each of which"?
• I use a wide, though not unusually wide, computer screen, and as a result the quote from Rosen about rubato appears to the right of the image of the Schirmer edition of op. 62 no. 1. This means that the indent of the quote is not visible. It might be better to move the "Form and harmony" illustration to the right edge of the article; move the "Title, opus numbers and editions" illustration to the left edge, and move the two "Chopin's technique and performance style" illustrations to the right edge. That would allow the quote indent to be seen.
• 'Warsaw "urbanised" versions': I think '"urbanised" Warsaw versions' might be a bit more natural.
• "Chopin's music was also utilised in the 1909 ballet Chopiniana, choreographed by Michel Fokine, using orchestrations by Alexander Glazunov": "utilised" is a bit polysyllabic here. How about: "Chopin's music was also used in the 1909 ballet Chopiniana, choreographed by Michel Fokine, and orchestrated by Alexander Glazunov"?
• "Further orchestrations were commissioned from Stravinsky, Anatoly Lyadov, Sergei Taneyev and Nikolai Tcherepnin, by Sergei Diaghilev for later productions (using the title Les Sylphides)": Two questions here. First, did Diaghilev commission all these orchestrations? If so, I would use some form of parenthesizing punctuation for the list of composers -- perhaps em dashes before "from" and after "Tcherepnin". Second, it took me a second to work out the meaning of the final comment about Les Sylphides. How about "for later productions of the ballet under the title Les Sylphides", which I think more directly connects this to the earlier reference?
• Is the number of YouTube videos worth including? And does the reference to Chopin in Autumn Sonata really belong here? I think both might be cut. I'm also doubtful about the mention of the recent documentaries.

That's everything I can see. The article is in very good shape, and I look forward to seeing it at FAC. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks again for these further helpful comments. I have adopted all of them, except as regards the YouTube figures. I feel that these are a convenient way of giving 'citeable' evidence of Chopin's continuing popularity, (particulalry as they are in fact cited by the leading Chopin organization), so I'm inclined to leave the comment as it is. Best, --Smerus (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  Fair enough re the YouTube numbers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

Sorry for the delay in getting to this. I've not yet finished reading through, but here are my comments to the end of the "Final years" section. In general this reads as an excellent summary account of this major composer's life, and my comments are in the main minor nitpickings or suggestions.

Lead: in the absence of an infobox (I concur), the first lead para should be a little more informative, at least to the extent of stating that Chopin's medium was the piano, that he was an acclaimed performer as well as composer, and that all his compositions feature the instrument. These details occur later in the lead, but I believe should be prominent in the opening description of the subject.

Childhood:

• naming: in "Childhood" sections, use of first name generally reads better. He was not really "Chopin" at that point.
• Is a gallery of childhood homes really necessary? One image might do: otherwise its a lot of prominence for minor background details

Education:

• Misplaced semicolon after "locales". Preferably this should be a full stop, followed by: "In 1824 and 1825 he was at..."
• "is now a small museum" is not time-specific. Suggest "became a small museum in ..."

Travel:

• I'm curious to know how young Chopin was so well-connected – meeting "celebrities" like Mendelssohn on his first Berlin visit, guest of the prince on his second?
• "For the Prince" - capitalisation not required
• La ci darem is not really a "theme" from the opera. Variations on an aria, or an air, perhaps?
• You use British date format, but mixed with AmEng spellings, e.g. "favorable", "traveled" etc

Paris

• For the "Chopin at 25" image and other portraits, I think "upright= 0.6" is too small. I enlarged the Elsner image to 0.8 which I think is better - perhaps you'd consider raising all the portraits similarly.
• Ref 39 should be repositioned at end of paragraph
• The comment "The list of musicians who took part in some of his concerts provides an indication of the richness of Parisian artistic life during this period" - reads rather like editorial comment/analysis and should be reworded in NPOV terms
• Mendelssohn overlinked here

George Sand:

• I'm not sure about her real name as stated here. She called herself "Amantine-Lucile-Aurore Dupin".
• "In June 1837 Chopin had made..." Why the past perfect form? (I noted s few other examples in my read-through)

Final years:

• After quite profuse detail of Chopin's life up to up to 1839, the period 1839-45 is rather sparsely covered, just the odd line or two. Is there no more material for these years, or did he just do very little?
• I'm curious to know when/how Sand acquired a fiancé?
• "underway": I don't think this word exists – I can't find it in any of the dictionaries that I use ( though my OED is a little outdated). It may be one of those words that's crept into usage via journalism, but I don't think it really counts as excellent prose
• "invited by Jane Stirling to visit Scotland, staying at Calder House" → "...where he stayed at Calder House"

I'll try to cover the rest as soon as possible. Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC) Włodzimierz Krzyżanowski Włodzimierz Krzyżanowski≤ --Smerus (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Once again thanks for these helpful comments. I think I have now dealt with them, except for two. As regards 1839-1845, I need to review this carefully, so will revert. As regards "The list of musicians who took part in some of his concerts provides an indication of the richness of Parisian artistic life during this period" - I cannot really think this is controversial, or risks NPOV or OR; it is an opinion expressed by most (or maybe all) writers on ther Parisian music scene of the time, and I certainly don't know of any contrary opinion. Whilst we should certainly caution ourselves as editors against promoting doubtful or contested opinions, I can't make myself feel that this comes under such categories. But I am susceptible, as always, to the opinions of others if they agree with you! Re the past perfect - I sometime use this when I am taking up a thread after referring to an event out of sequence; probably a doubtful habit, but anyway I agree unnecessary/inappropriate in this instance. Best, --Smerus (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

More comments

Death and funeral

• "his unfinished piano method": what does this mean?
• Unnecessary "In fact...". I'd also avoid close repetition of "many"
• Are we to assume that Lefébure-Wély played the Preludes on the organ?
• There are some stylistic oddities in the prose, e.g. "Also played were..."; "walked Chopin's sister", etc. At least you don't say "Played at the graveside was...", but do you see my point?
• Five thousand in words, and 200 in numerals, in the same paragraph
• Since there is a linked memorials article, I see no justification for three monument images (in addition to the death masks). Maybe just keep the masks to avoid overcrowding with images.

Music

• Hatnote: I don't think the many articles listed as "main" are in fact the main articles. Surely, this is the main article, providing an general view of Chopin's music, while those listed are daughter articles? Suggest replace "Main" template with "Further information".

Overview

• I think the links on "polonaises" and "waltzes" should go to the dance articles, rather than to the Chopin versions, since the dance articles explain to the unaware reader what the dances are.

Form and harmony

• " held by Temperley": as this is his first mention he should be properly introduced. Incidently, he becomes "Nicholas Temperley" in the next para
• The "Nicholas Temperley" sentence is very convoluted: "Nicholas Temperley explains that in these works, based on an extended 'departure and return' form, and with "immense variety of mood, thematic material and structural detail", "the more the middle section is extended, and the further it departs in key, mood and theme, from the opening idea, the more important and dramatic is the reprise when it at last comes." I really think that this point needs to be made by paraphrase rather than by a series of direct quotes.
• Do we need "basically"?
• "folky" of "folksy"? The latter seems more idiomatic.
• "The Préludes, many of which are very brief, some of them consisting of simple statements and developments of a single theme or figure, were described by Schumann as "the beginnings of studies" - could do with some attention. "Many of" and "some of" in close proximity is awkward. I'd try and simplify.
• "as Kenneth Hamilton has noted in a recording by Ferruccio Busoni of 1922" - I'm not sure what this is referring to. A recording of what, by Busoni?
• The quote beginning ""used the sonata..." is far too much direct quotation, and I suspect not easily understood by a general reader. Much prècis/simplification advised.
• In general, comments such as "worthy of Brahms" should be attributed, not just cited.
• Last paragraph also contains a lengthy unattributed quotation.

Just a few sections to go... Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I have now covered these issues, except for the memorials, and Lefébure-Wély. The problem here seems to me that figures such as Chopin are entitled to have their tomb in their article. Chopin as it happens has two tombs, and both of them are rather interesting. But there's no room for them in the body of the text in this section (which is where they were when I first started tinkering with the article an aeon ago) without generating unacceptable clutter - which is why I went originally for the option of a gallery. But two pictures aren't really ewnough for a gallery, which is why I added the statue (for which I agree there is the least justification). One possibility might be to put the tombs right at the end of the article, where there are presently no illustrations. As regards Lefébure-Wély, the Revue et gazette is unclear about exactly what he played (only that he was the organist, and that the preludes were played - but this doesn't preclude someone else being involved in the latter), so it's probably best left as it is. Best, --Smerus (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Final comments

Titles, opus numbers and editions

• It seems to me that this section would be better placed before, rather than after, "Form and Harmony"

Chopin's technique and performance style

• MOS disapproves general of the subject's nametechnique and performance style appearing in section titles; thus this should be "Technique and performance style". This actually makes more sense, since the section is not only about Chopin's individual technique as a pianist, but also the general technique required to perform his music.
• The two music MS illustrations may be understood by a techically well-equipped reader. I doubt they make much sense to the general reader, who is or should be the main target for this article.

Polish heritage in Chopin's music

• Again, for MOS reasons, "Polish heritage" preferred.
• Quote box, at 200 or so words, too long – virtually a mini-essay! A shorter quote from this text would be acceptable; otherwise, if the text is deemed essential to the article, then it should be paraphrased and included in the main body.
• "The influential biography..." I'm sure it was, but editorial judgements should be avoided.
• Fr the same reason, one needs to be careful in the use of "However". Sometimes it is OK as a way of maintaining prose flow; when it appears at the start of a paragraph, it seems less "neutral". I don't think the second paragraph would lose anything by beginning: "Some modern commentators..."
• "adverts" rather than "refers" seems a little stilted.

Reception and influence

• "his lack of Byronic flamboyance [and] his aristocratic reclusiveness make him exceptional" should be attributed
• The last sentence of the first paragraph lacks a citation
• "His qualities as a pianist" → "Chopin's qualities as a pianist..." (new paragraph)
• "folk-music" - dehyphenate
• "one worthy successor" – whose phrase?
• "have been assessed as influenced by Chopin's use of national modes and idioms" – somewhat inelegant. Perhaps "are regarded by critics as having been influenced by..." etc?
• "Further orchestrations..." → "Other orchestrations..."?

Recordings

• Ref 165: link is dead.

That concludes the review. I'll add any further comment on your responses when you've looked at these final issues. I have enjoyed reading the article very much, and I know a lot more about Chopin than I did before. Brianboulton (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Brian, thanks again for your detailed review. I have I think dealt with these final comments, except as follows. The quote box I have trimmed a bit; but as it is an important statment by the most significant Polish composer after Chopin, and because it addresses (I think admirably) an issue (the Polishness of C's music) which has led in the past to some contention one amongst editors, I would be strongly in favour of letting it remain as it presently is. The MS/published music illustrations: whilst the lay reader may not be able to interpret the details, s/he will I think be made aware by these of the very great care and detail that C. took over his manuscripts to define as well as he could his intentions, and on this basis I would defend their retention. Heaven forfend we should dumb down for readers, and by the same token we can mildly essay to extend their horizons - "a man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?", as my favourite poet asks. I have also redone some of the layout as regards your eaalier comments (e.g. re the memorials). I am still thinking of the biographical 'gap' you pinpointed - in the meantime User:Dr. Blofeld has added some good coverage on Liszt, but it may need a bit more. I await your further commentswith interest. Best, --Smerus (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I think we can fill in some gaps in the bio section. The musicality sections though look almost flawless to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

"Włodzimierz Krzyżanowski"

An editor has added to the article a note on Włodzimierz Krzyżanowski which seems to me to be WP:UNDUE for this article - it might be more relevant, perhaps, in Nicolas Chopin, if anywhere. There is no evidence that F Chopin ever met this character, or even knew of his existence (or vice versa). Opinions welcome.--Smerus (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The information is barely relevant to Chopin's life; possibly worth a mention in an expansive biography, but it doesn't merit this space in an encyclopedia article. Either reduce to a brief sentence, or delete. Brianboulton (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Brian. There's so much to say about Chopin more interesting than a cousin who did those things. Preferably remove entirely. --Stfg (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld comments

Giving it a read now. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I really think you need a sentence at least right at the beginning of the lede which really states that he is often cited as one of the greatest composers of all time and the best known of the romantic composers. Rather than saying "widely considered" which is generally not advisable, you could find a quote from somebody xxx in xxx refers to Chopin as the one of history's great composers etc.. I just think for somebody as prominent as Chopin to not mentioning anything like that is a massive understatement. I've moved one statement up and add the conservatory quote which at least covers this better now. I still think it needs something like Cited by xxx as one of the greatest composers but naturally we don't want to overblow it, but it is Chopin. I'll be editing this if it's OK. Once done I may try to add additional material from google books to ensure it's entirely as comprehensive as it can be but it's already clearly very well researched and you've done a terrific job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on the 0.6 set upright images. They look too small and subdued. I'd rather see the images set at normal default unless the image is excessively tall that it needs an "upright". 0.8 is OK, but I think 0.6 looks too small. I'm not too bothered though, I can see why you prefer them smaller!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking about a cite in the lede. But I try to avoid quotes there (I think this is an MOS issue). Let me ponder.--Smerus (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure it really is an issue. I've seen quotes about greatness in numerous GA and FA articles to avoid it sounding like POV. In fact one of my reviewers advised it in one article. Peter Sellers which I contributed to has the quote "the greatest comic genius this country has produced since Charles Chaplin." I'm happy with the current description, perhaps Brian or somebody could state their opinion of it. I really think for somebody like Chopin you need it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Stfg comments

I may be a bit slow on this. Feel free to time me out if you need to.

Lead

• "A child prodigy, Chopin was born in ...": He wasn't born a child prodigy. If one must use this syntax (it has become a bit of a Wikipedia cliché) then "A child prodigy" would be more apt to start the next sentence.
• "At the age of 21 he settled in Paris, obtaining French citizenship in 1835. During the remaining 18 years of his life, ...": Of course those 18 years are from age 21, but the way the sentence is written it could be read as from 1835. Suggest replacing "remaining" with "last".
• Engagement to, not engagement with. (See item I.2.d in the OED entry).
• "A brief and unhappy visit with Sand to Majorca in 1838–39 ..." I believe American English says visit with someone in the same sense as British English would say visit someone, or even pay a visit to someone. So this word order may create a garden path sentence for American readers. I suggest "A brief and unhappy visit to Majorca with Sand in 1838–39 ...".
• End of 2nd paragraph and start of 3rd: Four sentences in a row are actually eight, split by semi-colons. I know I bang on about this and am sorry (sort of) but it does get very wearing. Only the one after "demanding" is useful. Even that one isn't essential.
• "His keyboard style, which is highly individual, is often technically demanding" would be less choppy as "His keyboard style is highly individual and often technically demanding".
• "... J.S. Bach, Mozart and Schubert, whom he particularly admired". Did he admire all of them, or just Schubert? I suggest "...all of whom".
• The scare quotes for superstars should be double quotes, per MOS.
• Is "amours" a bit fancy? Love life?

More to come. --Stfg (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've adopted all these recommendations.--Smerus (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Childhood

• "generally more accepted" is a bit strange. Perhaps one of: generally accepted, usually accepted or more widely accepted?
• "a pupil of Nicolas Chopin". Nicolas has already been introduced and referred to as just Nicolas, so better now continue with just Nicolas.
• "It quickly became apparent ...". The two ands in this sentence make it rather breathless, and the deployment of name and pronouns is illogical. I suggest: "It quickly became apparent that Fryderyk was a child prodigy: by the age of seven he had begun giving public concerts, and in 1817 he composed ...".
• Full stop after Constantine. That semicolon is pointless. (Um, no pun intended:)

More to come. --Stfg (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed and adopted all - even though it meant inserting a colon :-} (item 3).--Smerus (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hehe, I'm so ashamed of it ;)

Education

• "and in May 1825 performed on this instrument his own improvisation, and part of a concerto by Moscheles" seems a bit awkward (and the comma is out of place). I suggest "and on this instrument in May 1825 he performed his own improvisation and part of a concerto by Moscheles".
• "resulted in his being asked to give" -> "led to a request for" ?
• is "missives" a bit artificial? It probably does no harm to have a common word like letters twice.
• "the self-styled "Szafarnia Courier" letters" -> "which he called the "Szafarnia Courier" letters" maybe?
• "Konstancja Gładkowska; in letters to Woyciechowski, he indicated which of his works, and even which of their passages, were influenced by his fascination with her". Truly fascinating. Would it be worth identifying which works, perhaps even which passages?

--Stfg (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

done, thanks.--Smerus (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Travel and domestic success

• "In September 1828 Chopin had visited Berlin with a family friend": I understand the reason you gave in reply to Mike Christie, but the "had" is a bit lacking in context at the start of the new section, and it jars for me too. Another solution to the stepping back in time would be: *"In September 1828, while still a student, Chopin had visited Berlin with a family friend". Just a possibility.

Paris

• "tried, without success, to establish" -> "tried unsuccessfully to establish" would avoid chopping it up with commas.
• "he proposed to Maria; her mother Countess Wodzińska approved in principle" -> "he proposed to Maria, whose mother Countess Wodzińska approved in principle". (Less staccato).

--Stfg (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

agreed and adopted all, thanks, --Smerus (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Franz Liszt: all good.

George Sand

• " by early 1837 Maria Wodzińska's mother had made it clear to Chopin in correspondence that a marriage with her daughter was unlikely to proceed.[61]" Your source, Chopin's correspondence, seems impeccable, but the article Maria Wodzińska states that "her father objected to the match because of Chopin's poor health", citing this source, which says: "Dans une lettre du mois de juin 1837, Maria Wodzińska fait comprendre à Chopin qu'il n'y aura pas de mariage. Il semble que le père y soit opposé." According to this account, it is Maria who tells Chopin, not her mother. Is there any way to clarify this?
• " made an incognito visit to London" -> "visited London incognito", perhaps?
• "quiet but productive days" -> "quiet, productive days" as the two attributes aren't really in contrast.
• I made a few tweaks directly in this section. Please feel free to undo any you dislike.

--Stfg (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

All fine by me. Re Wodzińska, the source I have (Sydow's Collection of the letters, quite scholarly) says Maria's last note to Chopin was just to say thanks for the album he sent her (mentioned in article, notes 53 and 61). I find no trace of another letter, and as the website cited in the French article gives no sources, I wouldn't rate it as in any way reliable.--Smerus (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's reasonable. --Stfg (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Decline

• "invitation by his friend Charles Alkan" -> "invitation from Alkan". Invitations are from. Alkan has ben introduced earlier and the friendship is discussed later. It's a side issue at this point.
• "Charles Hallé, visiting Chopin, found him ..." -> "Charles Hallé visited Chopin and found him ..." (less staccato)

Tour of England and Scotland

• "with the Revolution of 1848 taking place in Paris": some reviewers dislike this "with plus -ing" construction. Could avoid the issue with something like "during the Revolution of 1848 in Paris".
• "Prince Albert; the Prince, who was himself a talented musician, ..." -> "Prince Albert. The prince, himself a talented musician, ..." ;)
• An FA review may want consistency in use of metric/imperial measures. Here we have "45 kg (99 pounds)", whereas in the George Sand section she was "under five feet".

Death and funeral

• "in the amount of five thousand francs" -> "amounting to 5000 francs". ("in the amount of" is legalese).
• "Ludwika took with her, in an urn, Chopin's heart, preserved in alcohol." -> "Ludwika took Chopin's heart with her in an urn, preserved in alcohol."

--Stfg (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

agreed and done. Have changed the urn sentence a bit. Also have added cm. equivalent to the 'five feet'.--Smerus (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the urn sentence quite works. The problem is that "Ludwika took with her Chopin's heart", by reversing the normal order of direct and indirect objects, gives it a decidedly foreign accent. The problem may be that it's difficult to include "with her" in a sentence with so many phrases, without presenting her as being either in an urn or preserved in alcohol. Perhaps we could do without the "with her" if we move Poland like this: "Ludwika took Chopin's heart, preserved in alcohol, back to Poland in an urn.[110][n 9] She also took a collection ...". What do you think? --Stfg (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup!--Smerus (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Overview, Titles, opus numbers and editions: all good

Form and harmony

• Who said "improvisation is designed for an audience ..."?
• "Chopin himself was quoted ...": is "himself" needed?
• Here we have concerti, elsewhere concertos.
• "Temperley explains ...": loaded word. See WP:CLAIM.
• " 'departure and return' form": if this is a term that Temperley uses, it should be in double quotes. If not, then it isn't the standard name of a musical form, and it's ambiguous: does it mean arch form or something else? What are Temperley's exact words here? (The part that's quoted implies simply ternary form, but ...).

Getting tired, will continue this section tomorrow. By the way, it has a lot of instances of italicizing generic titles. Also, the article as a whole is inconsistent over capitalizing these, For example, we have both Preludes and preludes (I think such should be lower case when talking about the genre, upper case when mentioning Op. 28 specifically) and we have both op. and Op. (should be upper). I hope to finish tomorrow. --Stfg (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

All agreed. I am also concerned re capitalization and italicization, would be glad to agree rules for these. Btw I notice that the 'form and harmony' section also needs brief coverage of polonaise and nocturne to complete overview of FC's composition types. Will try to add this tomorrow.--Smerus (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's MOS:MUSIC#Capitalization. In the Form and harmony section I've applied what I understand that to be saying, but haven't done anything elsewhere. --Stfg (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Smerus: I see you've reversed what I did there, but this is inconsistent with other parts of the article, including the lede. I'll leave capitalization alone from now on, but have you checked out MOS:MUSIC? I think it's pretty clear that when we're naming a genre, rather than a specific work, then we use lower case. So: Chopin's Études, Op. 10, but Chopin's études. Or am I misreading it? --Stfg (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Form and harmony (continued)

• folksy is too colloquial, even in scare quotes (which should be double quotes per MOS). Just folk will probably do, without scare quotes.

--Stfg (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Technique and performance style: lots of things, but all very minor, so I've copy edited directly (diff). Feel free to change anything you dislike. --Stfg (talk) 11:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Polish heritage: all good.

Reception and influence

• "The Institute site also lists nearly 1,500 performances of works of Chopin on YouTube as of January 2014." Is this really notable?

Recordings: all good. Chopin in literature, stage, film and television: all good.

That's all. Although these comments are numerous, almost all of them are merely tweaks to the prose. The content itself is very well researched and engagingly presented. Surely worthy of FA. --Stfg (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

A 1000 thanks! Sorry about the capitalization - crossed lines on my part. I have sorted this out now, I think. As regards the list of 1500 works, see my comments to Brian Boulton - it's an attempt to give substance and citation for the assertion (in the lede) that C. remains a popular composer, but if there are any other suggestions I would be glad to recieve them.--Smerus (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure about the YouTube thing, but it's no big deal now, as it's the sort of thing that can be dealt with at the FAC stage, if anyone raises it. I'm content. --Stfg (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

To FA

Thanks to all. I've now put this up for FA. Best, Smerus (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC).