Jump to content

Talk:Piano Quartet (Strauss)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

[edit]

Lead section/infobox

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

1 Background

[edit]

2 Structure

[edit]

2.1 Allegro

[edit]

2.2 Scherzo. Presto

[edit]

2.3 Andante

[edit]
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]

2.4 Finale. Vivace

[edit]

3 Reception and legacy

[edit]
  • 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]
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

[edit]
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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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