Talk:Die Forelle/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to reviewing this article. I'll begin with some initial comments sometime within the next 24-36 hours after a few readings and confirming some of the citations, etc. Thanks! --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

  • No probs: removed. Thanks for taking the time to pick this one up. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Die Forelle"
by Franz Schubert
KeyD-flat major
CatalogueD. 550
GenreLied
Textby Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart
LanguageGerman
Composed1817 (1817)
Scoringsolo voice and piano
  • Doesn't reflect on the GA review...but have you considered using an infobox?--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thought passed my mind, but I'm not a fan of them in a lot of circumstances: in this case most(?) of Schubert's other lieder don't carry the IB, so I happily went for the consistent approach here. - SchroCat (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not a fan of them, either, but sometimes even I have been observed being convinced to break with consistency. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, everyone has their own opinion of IBs and their pluses and minuses: I just don't think that in this instance the article would be improved by such an addition. - SchroCat (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll slowly start doing a copyedit through the next day or so. I tend to not bother a nominator with small things I can fix easily (Why waste time writing about a comma that I could attend to). I should be away most of tomorrow afternoon (work), so likely won't be able to get back to this until Thursday at the earliest.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • "In doing so, he opened the song for either male or female singers." - there has to be a better way to say this...one doesn't come to mind.

New reviewer[edit]

Hey SchroCat, Henry's withdrawing from his GA reviews, so unless anybody gets here first, I'll step in on this one. Oddly, my dryer plays this tune every time a load is done; it took us a year to figure out what it even was. It may be a few days before I can post comments, though, so if anybody else wants to review this before I get a chance, you're welcome to. Anyway, thanks for your work on this, and sorry for the inconvenience of the swap. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can at least start in tonight after all. Initial comments below. So far this looks good, but I've noted a few issues I'd like your thoughts on. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Lied" is capitalized in lead but not in body; should be made consistent
  • What's the source of the translation of the poem? If it was translated by one of the cited authors (Wigmore or Kramer), the translation may need to be removed for copyright reasons; this would be too extensive a quotation to claim fair use, I think.
  • I'll check, but I think Kramer. I'll make it slightly clearer, as well as use 2 or 3 different sources, which should break the issue of a copyright violation. I'll see if I can find a pre-1928 translation, which would be even better. - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the original and translation are from both sources. The translation is an amalgamation of both (they are fairly close) except where there is one discrepancy. I'll keep looking for a pre-1928 version, but as this version is an amalgam of both sources, it should be ok. - SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a classic example of the strophic song with Abgesang ... after-strain'." -- I'm a little lost here. Is the apostrophe after after-strain meant to be mark a quotation within a quotation? If so, it looks like half is missing. Is after-strain a translation of Abgesang?
  • "The draft is undated, although is from 1817" -- this is a little disorienting. Possibly rewrite "but is known to be from" or "has been dated to" or some such explanatory transition?
  • "Just as, in my haste, I was going to send the thing, I rather sleepily took up the ink-well and poured it calmly over it. What a disaster!" -- this should presumably be in quotation marks
  • "This version has "a five-bar piano prelude"." -- the 1820, the 1821, or are these the same?
  • ""the vividness of the imagery," -- where does this quotation close? -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Khazar, many thanks for picking this one up: it's much appreciated. I'm a bit ties up today with some family stuff, but will addesss the remaining points shortly, hopefully within 48 hours. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick responses! Here's another minor action point for you-- *"File:Schubert - Schumann-Heink - Die Forelle (1929).ogg" -- needs tag for US copyright status (though should be fine). -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the file and tagged it for deletion from Commons. I've also sorted the text, leaving only the removed verse. - SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the deletion request as URAA doesn't apply – see Commons:File talk:Schubert - Schumann-Heink - Die Forelle (1929).ogg.
The subject of this article is Schubert's setting, not Schubart's text. So I don't understand why the complete text of Schubert's Lied is removed while leaving a stanza which is not part of it. There can't be any copyright concerns about a totally artless translation which lacks any metre or rhyme, something which Google could have done. I suggest to restore it.
On the other hand, the provided external link to Harper's Magazine is still useful for its discussion of the works and their background, and it gave me the idea that this picture of a young angler might be used in this article, too. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

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. Let me get a second opinion about the poem translation issue.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
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).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Yes, though the theory of the Harper's source (in EL) that the song is political rather than sexual is interesting and might be worth adding in the future.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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. see note above about .ogg file
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass as GA
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Die_Forelle/GA1&oldid=967071148"