Talk:Zwei Gesänge, Op. 1 (Schoenberg)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) 18:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 16:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi Gerda, I'll be taking this review, for the ongoing GA backlog drive and the WikiCup. Please consider signing up for either, if you want. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review! I'm in hospital (visiting), in the mid of New Year's greetings, and with three recent-deaths-articles and two more seasonal Bach cantatas waiting, so with limited time. The article was written with MONTENSEM who is perhaps less busy. After the round of greetings, I'll take a quick look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch,
fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. 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):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
General comments
[edit]- There is an existing [citation needed] tag in note f); I have added another at the beginning of the lead, and midway through the "Influences" section where the verification is uncertain.
- I got rid of one in the text section (which may have been the result of a split in paragraphs). I can't access the Adorno which I think is the source for the "influences". I have no time to look into the publications of other pieces (note f) right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems to be the only outstanding issue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- hopefully resolved now, not the most ideal solution but no time to dig into publisher histories, and on a cursory dig, it appears that the Dreililien catalogue had a circuitous route to UE (and others?), possibly through other publishers (eg Birnbach?) MONTENSEM (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems to be the only outstanding issue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I got rid of one in the text section (which may have been the result of a split in paragraphs). I can't access the Adorno which I think is the source for the "influences". I have no time to look into the publications of other pieces (note f) right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would say that a few sections, such as "Premiere", "Publication and dedication", and "Recordings and later performances", fall afoul of MOS:OVERSECTION. Try merging them, perhaps as something like "Performances and publication"?
- Too tired to think about that tonight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I tried a new order of topics, - what do you think. MONTENSEM changed the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looks good, on both counts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Specific comments
[edit]- MOS:BOLDTITLE advises that the title should come first in the lead's first sentence, if possible; I see no reason why the attribution to Schoenberg cannot be made at the end of the first sentence, instead of the beginning.
- The reason is that Schoenberg is known (as a composer), while the German title may be Chinese to people not reading German; for them it could also be a novel or a play (or a place or a piece of furniture ...). Schoenberg's name early is also a warning that these are not any typical simple songs. - Unfortunately there's no good translation of "Gesänge", while "songs" is normally the word for "Lieder"; - "Gesänge" carrying the meaning of "upscale" singing. --GA
- Before reading this article, if you had asked me who Arnold Schoenberg was, I would have said a politician. I will probably say the same if you ask me in six months. By contrast, a title translated as "Two Songs" is quite obvious. If an aim of the article is to "warn that these are not any typical simple songs", the warning can come at the end of the first sentence too.
- I changed it. ---GA
- Before reading this article, if you had asked me who Arnold Schoenberg was, I would have said a politician. I will probably say the same if you ask me in six months. By contrast, a title translated as "Two Songs" is quite obvious. If an aim of the article is to "warn that these are not any typical simple songs", the warning can come at the end of the first sentence too.
- The reason is that Schoenberg is known (as a composer), while the German title may be Chinese to people not reading German; for them it could also be a novel or a play (or a place or a piece of furniture ...). Schoenberg's name early is also a warning that these are not any typical simple songs. - Unfortunately there's no good translation of "Gesänge", while "songs" is normally the word for "Lieder"; - "Gesänge" carrying the meaning of "upscale" singing. --GA
- "Each song sets a poem of Karl Michael von Levetzow." is presumably missing a "to music" at the end? Same in the "Text" subsection.
- Explain "missing", please. Once we know it's a composition, isn't "to music" redundant? --GA
- That is an archaic usage; modern English uses a preoposition. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know what a preoposition is. - I rephrased it, please check. ---GA
- That is an archaic usage; modern English uses a preoposition. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Explain "missing", please. Once we know it's a composition, isn't "to music" redundant? --GA
- " whose music was traditionally opposed" is a little confusing, perhaps "whose music was traditionally contrasted"?
- It's hard to say short (and I didn't write it): in the 19th century, there was Wagner and the Wagnerians on one side, and Brahms and his followers on the other side, and it seemed clear that you could be only one one of the sides. But Schönberg was influenced by both, like a fusion of elements that don't go together. "contrasted" seems too harmless. Would you perhaps have a better idea how to phrase that? --GA
- "at odds", "in conflict", etc. You may find a thesaurus helpful, as I will not know the precise tone you want to convey. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- MONTENSEM wrote that and will hopefully find a fix. I commented it out until then, getting to the "limits of the Lied genre" sooner. ---GA
- "at odds", "in conflict", etc. You may find a thesaurus helpful, as I will not know the precise tone you want to convey. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's hard to say short (and I didn't write it): in the 19th century, there was Wagner and the Wagnerians on one side, and Brahms and his followers on the other side, and it seemed clear that you could be only one one of the sides. But Schönberg was influenced by both, like a fusion of elements that don't go together. "contrasted" seems too harmless. Would you perhaps have a better idea how to phrase that? --GA
- Is probably worth saying what Gurre-Lieder is—from context, I assumed it was a genre, not a work. Per MOS:EGG, we don't want to people to have to click on links to understand a sentence. Same in the "Genre" section.
- Gurre-Lieder is such a gigantic and unique orchestral song cycle that classical music people tend to believe everybody knows that. I think it's clear from the context that it must be a later and larger Schoenberg composition. Which description would you want? Would it be relevant to the article topic? --GA
- If you reread my original comment, you will see that the context implies that it a genre, and that I would want a description of "what Gurre-Lieder is". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- We are in the lead about Zwei Gesänge, and I don't want to explain there what Gurre-Lieder is. I'd rather drop it. I commented it out until we may find a phrasing concise enough for the lead. In the prose I added some genre and rephrased, but feeling like adding "opera" to Carmen. ---GA
- If you reread my original comment, you will see that the context implies that it a genre, and that I would want a description of "what Gurre-Lieder is". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Gurre-Lieder is such a gigantic and unique orchestral song cycle that classical music people tend to believe everybody knows that. I think it's clear from the context that it must be a later and larger Schoenberg composition. Which description would you want? Would it be relevant to the article topic? --GA
- "In 1900, Eduard Gärtner and Alexander Zemlinsky (piano)" to a non-expert, the "(piano)" immediately begs the question of what Gärtner did.
- Singing - what else? (per the title of the pieces) --GA
- Yeah, fair. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Singing - what else? (per the title of the pieces) --GA
- Not entirely sure what note a) is getting at.
- How can it be worded that you'd understand immediately that he wasn't "Schoenberg" at the time (of this composition), but "Schönberg". His name wasn't Schoenberg until decades later, but became the common name which we decided to use but wanted at least some hint at that it isn't historically correct. --GA
- Ah I see. That's fine. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- How can it be worded that you'd understand immediately that he wasn't "Schoenberg" at the time (of this composition), but "Schönberg". His name wasn't Schoenberg until decades later, but became the common name which we decided to use but wanted at least some hint at that it isn't historically correct. --GA
- Nothing much to say about the rest of the article, except for, right at the end:
- "for Schoenberg's 150th anniversary" anniversary of what? birth? death?
- Don't you think that a reader getting past the first sentence will have gotten an idea of when the composer lived, or will know by the composition time that it can't have been of death? It doesn't even matter if birth or death, - what matters is that the composer is on people's mind in an anniversary year, more than in other years, and more of his works get performed including less-known works. - I had no idea of his Op. 1, not even that it was songs, and then these heavy-weight emotionally charged songs. (and instead of getting any of these surprise facts into a DYK hook we only got to that there was opposition, a no-surprise fact for a Schönberg composition.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, it's just how the English language works. I've added it for you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. (There may be many instances in other articles where you could add that for me.) ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi all, I made some changes per this feedback. I found myself really feeling like it was more idiomatic (not archaic) to say that the songs each set a poem without having to say "to music" at the end, but feel free to rephrase. ("[Based] on" or the bare "to" could also work. I don't feel strongly about it, but I will say that these don't feel as idiomatic in this context.) Gerda is correct about the Adorno citation; I usually prefer to cite at the end of every sentence now to be very clear and precise. I will fix that now. MONTENSEM (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I like your solution Gerda! MONTENSEM (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. (There may be many instances in other articles where you could add that for me.) ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, it's just how the English language works. I've added it for you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Don't you think that a reader getting past the first sentence will have gotten an idea of when the composer lived, or will know by the composition time that it can't have been of death? It doesn't even matter if birth or death, - what matters is that the composer is on people's mind in an anniversary year, more than in other years, and more of his works get performed including less-known works. - I had no idea of his Op. 1, not even that it was songs, and then these heavy-weight emotionally charged songs. (and instead of getting any of these surprise facts into a DYK hook we only got to that there was opposition, a no-surprise fact for a Schönberg composition.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Spotcheck
[edit]- Checked assorted sources, such as Musgrave 1979, Zemlinsky 1934, and most importantly, Gerlach 2022; all good there. Placing this on hold to allow the above issues to be fixed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2025 (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.