Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Daniil Trifonov discography/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Daniil Trifonov discography[edit]

Daniil Trifonov discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Zingarese (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discography of a Grammy Award-winning young pianist, Daniil Trifonov. I believe that it meets the featured list criteria and is very thorough and informative. Compared to Lang Lang discography, a FL, this article has a more engaging lead and is more detailed. Thank you for your consideration, Zingarese (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question - are the performances listed under "contributions" the exact same performances as appear on the earlier album? We don't normally include tracks which have been "re-used" on compilation albums in a discography (at least not in the pop/rock field)........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Yes, indeed. The reason why I included them is that Lang Lang discography also did... I'm happy to remove the "contributions" from Trifonov's article if it is well-established policy not to include them. Zingarese (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Lang Lang discography, the "contributions" there are what I would expect them to be - instances where he performed new music but it was on an album that was not credited to him. In the case of Trifonov the listed contributions seem to be instances where his record label put one of his already-released performances onto a compilation album (the equivalent of a pop singer having one of their singles put on a Now That's What I Call Music album or similar). I would not include these. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the Schumann and Brahms that is not the case, but the others, yes. That's my bad. I think I will remove the contributions from Trifonov's article. Zingarese (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Almost ready to support, but one last question - why are the refs in a smaller font size (or is it just my ageing eyes?).........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was a missing {{refend}} tag, which I've now added. That's my bad! Zingarese (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Taking all the above into account I am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions:

  • The article should start with {{As of}} – doesn't seem likely the "seven studio albums, three live albums, one video release, and one compilation" would be the end of the pianist's recording career, and without the {{As of}} the list could be soon outdated.
  • The list's layout, in particular the layout of its tables, seems quite problematic, at least on my screen. I'd suggest two tables (and only those two):
    • One table focussing on Recordings (separate columns for recording date, title of the work, number of movements–i.e. tracks–, composer (the composition's number in the composer's works catalogue can be included in this column), studio/live/video, recording venue, orchestra/conductor accompanying the pianist, ... ending in a last column that indicates in which album(s) the recording is included)
    • Another table focussing on Releases (Title of the album, type–CD/DVD/...–, when released, by whom, unique identification of the release –e.g. publisher's code or EAN–, accolades like chartings and other prizes)
  • I'd like somewhat more prose on reception.
  • Avoid editorialising (and other WP:WTW issues), e.g. "considerable" in "...received considerable critical acclaim..." – the nature of the acclaim is an interpretation: either such interpretation can be referenced to reliable sources, or, if such wording can't be sourced reliably, press reviews should be referenced individually, leaving it to the reader of the Wikipedia article whether or not that amounts to "considerable" (without using that word in Wikipedia's prose).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis Schonken: Thank you for your suggestions. As for the {{As of}}; most discography articles do not include it, even for artists who still have active recording careers (see WP:FL; Artist discographies). I will be sure to update the article when new releases arrive! :-) Also, after I nominated this article, User:EditorE added peak chart positions in the table; while a tremendously positive addition, it made the tables severely unreadible on smaller screens. I simply moved those to a separate table, and now, after some other tweaks, the tables are now very legible! I also removed the first sentence from the last paragraph outright (it's somewhat subjective in any case) and did some tweaking on the remainder. Please let me know what you think! Zingarese talk · contribs 20:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Daniil Trifonov discography#Compilations is a sortable table with a single entry. Doesn't make sense. Daniil Trifonov discography#Video releases is a sortable table with a single entry. Doesn't make sense. Daniil Trifonov discography#Live albums is a sortable table with three entries: to me this doesn't make much sense either. In Daniil Trifonov discography#Studio albums the table has seven entries, but since the bulk of the content is in unsortable columns one has to wonder whether the sortable table format makes any sense here too. For those four sections I'd drop the table format altogether (if the two-table suggestion I made above finds no approval).
Re. "I also removed the first sentence from the last paragraph outright" – OK, but this clashes with my "I'd like somewhat more prose on reception" suggestion. I suggested more prose on that topic, not less. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  1. The colon in the first sentence should be a semicolon.
  2. The first CD, with music performed live in recitals in Italy, was released by Decca in April, followed by a double CD with performances from the 16th Chopin International Piano Competition in Warsaw (where he won the third prize), and finally, in July, a studio recording which included, like the previous release, Chopin's Piano Concerto No. 1. – this is a very long sentence with a high number of commas. Readability would be improved by rephrasing.
  3. In February 2013, Trifonov signed an exclusive recording contract with Deutsche Grammophon (DG): the first release under that contract was a live recording from a recital he had given in Carnegie Hall that month. would be better as two sentences.
  4. Other recitals and chamber music concerts were recorded at festivals such as those of Verbier and of Lockenhaus, resulting in webcasts, and a few works, including Mieczysław Weinberg's Sonatina in a performance with Gidon Kremer, being issued on other labels, courtesy of DG. – again, this is a very long sentence with a high number of commas.
  5. This CD was issued mid-2015, a few months before a double DVD with two films directed by Christopher Nupen was released: a documentary, in which Trifonov performed parts of his own Piano Concerto in E-flat minor, and one of his recitals interspersed with interviews. – this would probably be better as a few shorter sentences.
  6. Trifonov's 2016 album for DG, a double CD of the complete piano études by Franz Liszt, was a major success: it reached the number one position in the Specialist Classical Albums Chart in the United Kingdom in October 2016, was designated one of "The Best Classical Music Recordings of 2016" by The New York Times, and won the 2018 Grammy Award for Best Classical Instrumental Solo. – again, a very long sentence that would benefit from being split up into shorter sentences.
  7. I feel terrible for saying this as the restructuring must have taken a lot of work, but I think the first table ("Daniil Trifonov recordings") should be removed. A list of every performance recorded is a poor fit for a discography. Basically, it's the difference between Led Zeppelin discography and List of songs recorded by Led Zeppelin (which I'll note are both WP:Featured lists).
  8. As for the table structure for the actual releases, I would suggest basing it either on this old revision of the list or on the structure of the WP:Featured list Vladimir Horowitz discography.

My main issue with the article at this time is that I think it fails WP:FLCR 4 by being structured in a way which I feel impedes navigability and readability severely. To put it bluntly, I disagree entirely with Francis Schonken's opinions on the layout (except for the part about sortability being unnecessary) and think it was way better the way it was before those changes were made. Another big issue is that the WP:LEAD contains a lot of very long sentences filled with punctuation marks (some of which are used incorrectly). Understanding the intended meaning consequently gets unnecessarily difficult, making the reading experience rather frustrating. TompaDompa (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: thank you for your comments; @Francis Schonken: would you mind commenting? --Zingarese talk · contribs 19:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are currently blocked, so I don't think they can. TompaDompa (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; didn't notice that. Would I be able to earn your support if I reverted the table structure for the releases to what it was before, removed the "recordings" table (& possibly merge it to a separate new article), and fixed the intro? Zingarese talk · contribs 20:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. TompaDompa (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Zingarese do you intend to return to this nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: I don’t believe I have ever “left” it? —Zingarese talk · contribs 19:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well you've made about four edits in the last two weeks, so I was just checking. Plus you didn't respond to TompaDompa. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I really haven't made many edits here lately at all... real life has gotten in the way! I believe I have addressed all of TompaDompa's concerns; when I get the chance, I may add two (or three?) compilations featuring Trifonov back to the article (which I had removed to restore the table to original format).This article is fine with or without them, but I feel it's not too bad of an idea to include them. --Zingarese talk · contribs 20:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you have. Support TompaDompa (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the more detailed layout; and commented out the collapse above which suggested this was somehow solved. It isn't. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Francis Schonken: What is not solved? Pinging TompaDompa as well if they dont mind commenting Zingarese talk · contribs 02:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They've been blocked again. I still support this. TompaDompa (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment – Haven't reviewed this one in detail, but the Compilations table probably doesn't need to be sortable yet, as it currently has only one entry. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "set off with a focus on" is a bit verbose for me, "initially focussed" perhaps.
  • Ref 2 appears not to verify all the claims about the competition and him coming third.
    • The back cover of the album in the ref state (in Polish) that the music was recorded live at the Competition. Zingarese talk · contribs 20:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decca is piped to a redirect.
    •  Fixed
  • "homage of" I would normally say "homage to".
  • I'm mildly confused that TompaDompa would support this when the main article is so very small indeed. What makes this not a clear-cut 3b violation while lists such as List of international goals scored by Radamel Falcao are of concern to TompaDompa?
    • Sorry, but I do not see how this violates 3b at all. This is a very substantial article, with almost half of the albums winning notable awards including Grammys, and would be much too long for the main article. One of the reasons why the main article can be perceived as small is because it certainly needs updating and expanding. I invite TompaDompa to comment. Zingarese talk · contribs 20:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the point is that some users have been recently attempting to strongly reinforce 3b, and this is a case in point, the main article is not much more than a stub so merging this information in would be no problem at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The explanation is that when I did my initial review, the discography was so long that it would not have been reasonable to include it in the main article (even though the main article is indeed short). When the discography was restructured and thus got a lot shorter, it did not occur to me to reassess it from a WP:FLCR 3(b) perspective. I have now taken a second look at the length of the main article and the length and depth of the discography (which roughly corresponds to the tables and the WP:LEAD, respectively). In doing so, I tried copying the tables from the discography to the main article to preview how it would look if the pages were merged. I came to the conclusion that the current length might not necessarily make it unreasonable to merge the pages, but I think the depth is such that it would be inappropriate to include it on the main article (see my related comments on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Capital Bra discography/archive1). I have to admit that I'm not certain that I would have reached the same conclusion if this were the first time I assessed this list (as opposed to a reassessment). TompaDompa (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, that's not particularly convincing, it seems to imply that you're applying different standards of 3b to different lists/articles, which is a pity. As the main article is so slight, in my opinion this is far more a 3b violation than some of those you have opposed, yet you actually support this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Rambling Man, sorry but I have to vehemently disagree with your view. Minus the tables, this article is pretty lengthy with over 3,000 characters of prose (more so than the featured lists Lang Lang discography and Kronos Quartet discography). In addition, please take a look at those FL's vs. their main articles, as well as Oregon Symphony discography vs. Oregon Symphony. I share TompaDompa's view that the depth of this discography is such that it would not be suitable to include it on the main article.. Zingarese talk · contribs 15:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are welcome to "vehemently disagree" with me. My main issue is that we have a reviewer applying different interpretations of 3b to different lists here, and that is of concern. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • (edit conflict × 2) I'm not sure what it is you think implies that I'm applying different standards – would you care to elaborate? I'm certainly not doing so intentionally. TompaDompa (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Your position seems to be that if a main article is very small indeed, and a forked article is quite large, that the forked article is just fine. If the main article is quite large then the forked article suddenly becomes not a reasonable fork. For instance, if we reduced the main Radamel Falcao article to a couple of paragraphs, then the list of international goals would be fine in your eyes for a standalone list. However, because the main Falcao article is very substantial, you think the list should be incorporated within it. Very odd to me, and not what 3b was ever designed for. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I think you're reading more into my words than I ever said or intended. I didn't say I thought List of international goals scored by Radamel Falcao should be merged with Radamel Falcao – I said I had concerns about WP:FLCR 3(b) (if my choice of words made it come off as unreserved agreement with the editor who said it didn't pass, I apologize for not making myself clear). I consciously avoided either supporting or opposing the nomination because I was on the fence about whether it passed. I also specifically avoided commenting on Talk:Radamel Falcao#Merge tag for the same reason – I didn't think the pages should be merged, I was undecided about whether they reasonably could.
                      Perhaps my reading of WP:FLCR 3(b) is more literal than the one that was intended when the criteria were formulated – I take it to mean that there are three categories of lists: (1) lists that should be merged with a main article, (2) lists for which both merging and keeping separate would be valid options, and (3) lists that should be kept separate from the main article. In my reading, only category (3) would qualify for WP:Featured list status, but perhaps the original intention was either that category (2) should also qualify or that there is no category (2). I just now took a look at the talk page archives for the WP:Featured list criteria, and I see that the phrasing, interpretation, and implementation of 3(b) has been controversial for nigh on a decade now (and I see that my reading of it has been criticized as well as advocated long before I started reviewing WP:FLCs). I thank you for raising the issue of what the purpose of WP:FLCR 3(b) is, and I will keep this in mind with future nominations. TompaDompa (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tables need row and col scopes per MOS:ACCESS.
    •  Fixed
  • Are the release dates global or do they relate to release in one or more specific territories?
    • Global
  • "Trio élégiaque No. 1 /" why the slash?
    •  Fixed
  • " Warsaw Philharmonic Orchestra" is that the " Warsaw National Philharmonic Orchestra"?
    • Yes; both names are used to refer to the orchestra although the former is more common
  • "Peak chart positions" all the hyphens should be en-dashes (per your own key).
    • Already  Fixed
  • As noted, compilation table need not be sortable.
    •  Fixed
  • Peak chart position table doesn't sort correctly.
    •  Fixed
  • "US Classical" is piped to a redirect.
    • Don't see the problem; the redirect goes directly to the part of the page about US Classical
  • Avoid spaced hyphens in the ref titles, use spaced en-dashes instead.
    •  Fixed
  • Ref 7 is missing access date.
    •  Fixed

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thank you very much for your review; I believe I have addressed everything. Please let me know if that is not the case or if you have any further questions or comments. Zingarese talk · contribs 16:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • Mixed date formats in the references.
    •  Fixed
  • Some SHOUTING in there too.
  • Also some spaced hyphens there which should be en-dashes.

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Fixed
  • Plus I'm still not sure about how this meets the 3b concerns that TompaDompa seems quite content with. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @The Rambling Man: Thank you for your comments. I do not concur with any notion that this list violates 3b. It would make little sense to merge this large article with the artist's article; it "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article". Take a look at the FLs Lang Lang discography, Oregon Symphony discography, Kronos Quartet discography, etc.. vs. their main articles, for example. If I had more time, I would expand Trifonov's article myself;it badly needs updating. @TompaDompa: Please comment Zingarese talk · contribs 04:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe I've said all I have to say in my comments from late September, above. TompaDompa (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, other stuff exists. I'm afraid I find the previous commentator's approach terribly inconsistent, actually voting against a list which was justifiably split from a main article, while voting for this, simply because the main article is very weak indeed. It's counter to what Wikipedia is about. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Director comment – @Zingarese: TRM's latest batch of comments has been up for a couple of weeks now without a response. This FLC has been going on for five months now and we can't leave it open indefinitely. Please respond to TRM as soon as possible, or I'm afraid we will eventually be forced to archive the FLC. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Daniil_Trifonov_discography/archive1&oldid=871717606"