Talk:Piano Sonata No. 2 (Shostakovich)/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Passed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 00:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know this nom existed! I found it, of all places, on the talk page of the nominator of todays TFA- was looking for an old DYK hook and found your comment on the last GA review. How disappointing- happy to pick it back up! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CurryTime7-24, excellent work, just a few comments below. I'm currently reading Fay's biography, and it's a fantastic book- truly a fascinating figure. Very nice work on this article! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! As fine as Fay is, it wasn't until I learned Russian that I realized her bio is basically a gloss of Sofia Khentova's two-volume biography from the mid-80s. Simon Morrison is currently at work on a biography. My hope is that he accomplishes for Shostakovich in English what Alan Walker did for Liszt, Henry-Louis de La Grange did for Mahler, and Stephen Walsh did for Stravinsky. Fingers crossed! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know that about the book- I'll say, I'm impressed you know Russian and drew that comparison! This article is good to go for GA- great work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.	~~Add Template:Use American English or otherwise appropriate~~ Watch out for false titles- particularly looking at Critic and friend Ivan Sollertinsky... and the following sentence But in early 1973, he told pianist and composer... - false title, and I'd replace "But" with "Regardless" or "Nonetheless"- makes it sound more encyclopedic Musicologist David Haas likened it to a waltz,[13] while musicologist and pianist Sofia Moshevich said the movement... - false titles Donald Ogden Stewart was master of ceremonies... - missing "the" before master? ~~Remove wl from critical~~ Prose is clear and free of typos
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No fiction, words to watch, or lists- lead is well-written. No MOS violations present.
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.	Refs are placed in a proper "References" section.
	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).	~~Is classicstoday.com reliable?~~ All citations are to reliable sources; most books, but some are reliable websites too
	2c. it contains no original research.	I don't see a need for a spotcheck- besides, most sources are offline, so I can confidently AGF. Article is well-cited, especially in the "Music" section- no OR visible.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses the background, music, premieres, and reception- all good.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	In my opinion, the reception section is quite overdetailed. Most of it is quoting critics at the time and then mentioning other critics who concur, but it all boils down to, "Some loved it, some thought it was meh". This could be summarized in two quotes and concurrent critics could be listed afterwards. I believe dividing reception between the USSR and US makes sense, but I think some of the reviews could be pruned. Of course, there very well may be justification for the many reviews- always open to discussion! Great work on the trimming- article stays focused 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 edit warring.
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.	Images are properly PD tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	~~I don't see how the photo of Zhdanov is very relevant if his doctrine is only mentioned in one sentence~~ Images are relevant and properly captioned
	7. Overall assessment.

Thank you so much for taking on this GA review! Sorry for my delayed reply. Been a busy week! Will reply to you in detail later tonight (PDT), after which I'll begin responding to your individual concerns and suggestions for the article. Thank you again! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again for the delay. Looking over your review now and will respond in detail imminently. Thank you for your patience! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re. 2b: To my knowledge, Classics Today is considered reliable for recording reviews. Jed Distler, the writer of this review, is an authority on piano performance and history. He has written for various publications, including Gramophone, as well as liner notes for various reissues of historical recordings (particularly for Sony Classical). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just made some edits based on your review. Please let me know what you think and if any further adjustments are needed! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.