Talk:Scaramouche (Milhaud)/GA1

GA Review

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

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.

---

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 13:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this, looks well cited and written already! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Wikilink Exposition Internationale des Arts et Techniques dans la Vie Moderne a second time under "History", since the first time is in the lead. Wikilink Raymond Deiss in the infobox and under "History" Cut In his 1999 master's thesis under "Structure and music" and replace it with Stone's title (e.g. Musicologist Jason Stone suggests..., if that is his occupation) Wikilink "Rio de Janeiro" Replace in his 2019 doctoral thesis, Hyejeong... with Musicologist Hyejeong Seong asserts... Wikilink Benny Goodman under "Arrangements" Wikilink transposing to Transposition (music) Wikilink Radio Paris Orchestra to Orchestre philharmonique de Radio France Wikilink Nazi censorship of works by Jewish individuals to Degenerate music, or possibly Censorship in Nazi Germany Wikilink pseudonym under "Performances" The prose is all good now.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The references in the "Recordings" table should be in their own column, as opposed to adjacent to the name of the recording. No issues with mos standards.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There's an issue with the inline citations. The following citations need to be fixed: Ref 6 (James 1997) needs publisher and clarification (is it a book? a thesis?) Ref 10 (Buja 2022) needs publisher Ref 21 (Robison 1967) should be lowercase per MOS:ALLCAPS Ref 24 (Elizabeth 2006) needs publisher Ref 29 needs the author to be fixed (Jr isn't his last name) and it needs a date Ref 32 needs date Refs 51, 53, 55 need to be properly formatted into web citations to match the other web citations Secondly, the following citations should be reformatted into sfns, with the sources themselves under a new "Sources" section. This is because the citations need specific page number(s) as opposed to a general range of pages that encompasses a variety of facts. Ref 2 (Van Regenmorter 2009) Ref 6 (James 1997) Ref 12 (Milhaud 1998) Ref 14 (Maher 2016) Ref 15 (Hinson 2001) Ref 16 (Dallin 1982) Ref 17 (Palmer 1972) Ref 18 (Seong 2019) Ref 19 (Stone 1999) Ref 20 (McFarland 2009) Ref 21 (Robison 1967) Ref 23 (Clark 1999) Ref 29 (Votta Jr.) Ref 33 (Kelly 2013) Ref 36 (Simeone 2000) Ref 44 (Milhaud & Breitrose 1970) Ref 48 (Etheridge 2008) Now, the sources section needs to be alphabetized by last name (see Claude Debussy)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The following sources from AllMusic need to be replaced, as it's not reliable per WP:ALLMUSIC: Refs 4, 9, 53, 55 Most sources are from thesises, books, or journals; other citations are good. I'll note that the four AllMusic citations pull information from descriptions, so they're good too.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The article is very well-cited; no original research is visible.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows a high copyvio score for this site, but it just caught a large blockquote from Milhaud's autobiography. No copyvios and plagiarism visible.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses everything an article about a composition should address, including sections about performances and recordings.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays focused throughout; the "Structure and music" section nicely summarizes some of the themes and techniques used throughout.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias visible
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No recent edit wars
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are tagged with PD or LoC tags.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	In my opinion, you should replace the image of Milhaud with this restored one. Also, the image of the Ecole Normale could be increased in size a bit. I realize this isn't part of GA criteria, but just a small nit of mine Images are relevant and properly captioned.
	7. Overall assessment.	Waiting on the above things to be addressed Schminnte. Otherwise, it's a well developed article! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I think I have addressed most of the points apart from 2a part 2, which will take a little longer. As I have not implemented some changes, I will now say why:

• Ref 6 (James) has been changed to cite paper. Unfortunately, that is the most information I can glean from the paper.
• Refs 51 and 55 are not cite webs. They are cite magazine and cite news respectively, so I don't think I should format them as cite web. I have improved the information though.
• Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, AllMusic IS reliable, as long as you don't use the sidebar. I didn't use the sidebar, so I don't think I need to replace those citations.
• Almost forgot, the Radio Paris and Radio France orchestras are different entities, hence no wikilink

The other points have been addressed, and I will fix the other sources later. Thanks for taking on the review @MyCatIsAChonk! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Edited 20:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

(Is it your job to strike answered suggestions or mine? It's my first GAN, so I have no idea.) Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte: Thanks for clarifying those things for me (I was unaware of the AllMusic policy, so this is good knowledge for the future)! I've struck through what was completed; and in my experience, the reviewer strikes through, but you could leave a comment beneath each thing with " Done" or something like that if you wanted to. Best of luck with the refs! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'll get cracking on those sources tomorrow. I drafted up a sources list, so it shouldn't take too much time... fingers crossed. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk, I believe I have addressed the remaining issues. Please see the implemented changes. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte: Thanks for your quick fixes! There's one last thing to be addressed- the sources list needs to be alphabetized. Once that's done, you're good to go for GA! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk, I have alphabetised the list and changed the formatting of the refs section (I think it looks better). Thanks for your help. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 10:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte: Wonderful, this article is good for GA! Congratulations! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2023 (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.