Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Tchaikovsky and the Five/archive1

1c/2c

From Fifelfoo originally, Fifelfoo (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

1c:

• Who authored "Glinka, Mikhail Ivanovich" ; ""Five, the [Moguchaya kuchka; Mighty Handful]"" ; ""Cui, César [Kyui, Tsezar Antonovich]"" ; ""Glazunov, Alexander Konstantinovich,"". I suspect this is a 2c issue where you've conflated the article author with the work's editors. Unsigned articles within Tertiary sources aren't HQRS, please list the author of the specific article rather than just editors (see your source: Frolova-Walker for an example of how to do it right).

• See below. Jonyungk (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Unable to locate cited material, lack of article title in footnotes, "Brown, Malcolm Hamrick, ed. Julie Anne Sadie and Rhian Samuel, The Norton/Grove Dictionary of Women Composers (New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1995), 391." Also please note your editor problem is there too. Is it Brown Sadie and Samuel eds., or are some the article authors?

• The authors were listed, last name first, before "ed."; the editor's name followed. This was according to the Chicago Manual of Style. Per your suggestion, however, I have removed the editor name from the source names you have mentioned. Jonyungk (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • You may be misusing Chicago, Please see Chicago: Chapter or other part of a book For works contained in other works for Chicago your refs should have been Authorname, "Chapter or Article." In Title of entire work / book / encyclopedia ed. Editorname. Easily fixed. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Apparently not, "Brown, Malcolm Hamrick, ed. Julie Anne Sadie and Rhian Samuel, The Norton/Grove Dictionary of Women Composers (New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1995), 391." You appear to mean (author of the article), "Article name," in The Norton/Grove... (editor name/s) ed. (New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1995), 391. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Sorry about that—I amended the entry in the bibliography but forgot to change the footnote itself. The footnote now reads, "Brown, Malcolm Hamrick, "Rimskaya-Korsakova, Nadezhda". In The Norton/Grove Dictionary of Women Composers (New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1995), ed. Julie Anne Sadie and Rhian Samuel, 391." Jonyungk (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• What work is this primary source contained in or quoted from "Letter to Balakirev, September 25, 1885."?

• Brown, David, Tchaikovsky: The Years of Wandering, 1878–1885, 304. I've revised the footnote to include Brown. Jonyungk (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have extensively checked your quoted quotes, two issues emerge:
  1. I am concerned that this is overuse of primary sources representing a synthesised (OR) view of the importance of specific utterances in the archival materials. Which monographs, chapters or articles drove your narrative and your turn to such extensive quoting of primary sources: ie, who said it was important what he thought about Fred or Sue, which lead you to quote from a letter about Fred or Sue? The fact that they're quotes from a variety of works makes me believe that there may be over emphasis or deviation from the standard secondary accounts. Please convince me otherwise with explanation. Your specific use of the quotes is fine (its photographic, representing the texture of his opinion, rather than driving colour), my concern is about which quotes you selected to use, and if that selection is substantiated by the consensus academic narrative of the importance of his opinions.

     The opinions expressed in the article are echoed in Brown, Figes, Holden, Maes and Warrack, and many of the opinions in these sources coincide. The letters quoted are from those sources. Brown in particular is considered an authority on Tchaikovsky's life and works, seconded by Holden and Warrack; Figes holds a similar authority in terms of Russian cultural history, as does Maes on musicology. Sources were quoted either to illustrate a point or if an opinion or fact would have been stated so closely to the original source that there would have been a question of copyright violation and are appropriately cited. Jonyungk (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

     Very happy with this response! Fifelfoo (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

  2. All other quoted quotes are from primaries, this is a quoted quote from a secondary, "^ Ridenour, Nationals, Modernism and Personal Rivalry, 32, as quoted in Maes, 35." Please locate the secondary from ILL and make sure that Maes didn't miscontextualise, or limit your reference to Maes himself and note in the body text, something like "Maes' opinion of Ridenour's thoughts on..."

     The same quote appears verbatim in Brown and Holden. Jonyungk (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

     The quote also appears in Holden, but I have rewritten the passage in question to incorporate the material in the main text. Since the sentence with the quote in it sounded slightly awkward, this effectively kills two birds with one stone. Jonyungk (talk) 03:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

2c: Misspelt, "Norris and Neff, New Gorve (2001), 6:772–774."

• Corrected. Thanks for pointing this out. Jonyungk (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)