Talk:Konstantin Stanislavski/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 18:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am Reviewing this article for possible GA status. It is massive and will probably take me quite a while to work through. @DionysosProteus: be patient with my progress. Shearonink (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Shearonink (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:
I read through the whole article rather quickly and am now giving it a close & through read through - no spelling or grammar issues found. Shearonink (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
This will have to wait until I complete my thorough readthrough. Nothing yet though. Shearonink (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Ran the copyvio tool, all looks well. Shearonink (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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):
Is it neutral?
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:
Looked through the edit history, no edit wars spotted. Shearonink (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
I am concerned that many of the images are lacking complete world-wide public-domain etc information. For instance, File:Othello Production Plan Sketches by Stanislavski 1938.jpg and File:Bulgakov The Days of the Turbins 1926.jpg both state that the file is lacking a United States public domain tag. The images should probably be gone through to make sure that all the public domain tags are complete for usage worldwide. Shearonink (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These issues have been resolved. Shearonink (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Captions are fine. Shearonink (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to mention here that the images are very well-done and carefully selected. They do a great job of illustrating and illuminating the text. Shearonink (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Congratulations to everyone who stepped in to correct/adjust the few issues I found in this article. Even though it is very long, it was a joy to read. Shearonink (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Readthroughs

FYI: I am going to take this part of the Review very slowly and post any Criteria #1 - Prose/MOS issues in the order that I find them and as I find them, starting with the Lead section etc. Shearonink (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

Length is good. Summarizes the important points of the article. Shearonink (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overview of the system

Explains the Stanislavsky method very well, without becoming too esoteric. Shearonink (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Family background and early influences

Prose is good, grammar well-done, timeline is developed. I like the bringing together of Stanislavski's various influences, that his "method" didn't just spring up out of nothing.

There is a Dab-link that needs to be fixed in this section - the Alekseievs. If there isn't an article about his rich family, then the linkage doesn't really help the reader understand any more than just using the family name. Shearonink (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur work as an actor and director

The following sentences are somewhat confusing:

In 1893 Stanislavski first met the great realist novelist and playwright Leo Tolstoy, who became another important influence on him. The MAT would be his response to Tolstoy's demand for simplicity, directness, and accessibility in art. He described his production of Tolstoy's The Fruits of Enlightenment in February 1891 as his first fully independent directorial work.

I understand that this is about the timeline of Stanislavsky's development as an artist, but what they could be interpreted as stating is that this production of Tolstoy's "Fruits..." was done under the MAT aegis (and, of course, that is not so - at this time Stanislavski had just started his Society of Art and Literature, the MAT wasn't started until 1897).
And, this is just an aside: I do think it is hysterical that Stanislavsky is thought of as freeing actors to be fully human onstage etc and at this time he dictated every moment by every actor onstage....never knew that. Shearonink (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of the Moscow Art Theatre

No issues found in this section. Lays out the timeline and development of the MAT nicely. I like how Stanislavsky's privilege is a factor again - his family had enough money that Nemirovicb assumed KS would be able to fund the company himself. No "starving artists" here... Shearonink (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naturalism at the MAT

No problems found, nicely-written. Lays out the facts of the MAT's genesis in an easy-tounderstand fashion. Shearonink (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolism and the Theatre-Studio

From the text & content I am a little confused as to if the MAT was viable at this time. Was the Theatre-Studio an concurrent off-shoot or subsidiary to MAT or was it independent? Shearonink (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

European tour and artistic crisis

No issues found. Shearonink (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Productions as research into working methods

Ah, the first instance of "bits" or "beats"... No problems, all the refs check out, the Wikilinking seems fine, prose is well-done, no grammar issues. Shearonink (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naturalism at the MAT

The development of K.S.'s acting/directing theories is well-done throughout the article, especially this section, nicely-done on the throughline. Shearonink (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolism and the Theatre-Studio

It's interesting to go from the tightly-controlled naturalism of The Seagull in the previous section to the mannered stylism of the Maeterlinck plays. Shearonink (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

European tour and artistic crisis

I would first like to mention something I have noticed during this readthrough - the judicious use of Wikilinks throughout the article so far, unobtrusive but explanatory. Now...
To go from the acclaim of the tour - basically fleeing Russia because of the failed 1905 Revolution - to KS's artistic lows...this is like reading a novel. I know what happened next but what happens next? Shearonink (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Productions as research into working methods

No big problems in this section but in the quoted paragraph, just who was Stainislavski addressing when he said "The committee is wrong if it thinks..." Who was this committee? I feel like something was left out of the narrative at this point. Prose/styleMOS considerations are all fine. Shearonink (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Staging the classics

Last paragraph in this section is unsourced, otherwise no issues found. Shearonink (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Studios and the search for a 'system'

Keeping WP:MOST in mind, I am not sure that a header can have quote marks in it. Shearonink (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the First World War to the October Revolution

KS escaped being executed? ...Had no idea. And I especially like the inclusion of how KS had done so much prep work that it overwhelmed his performance. Shearonink (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutions of 1917 and the Civil War years

Shades of Dr Zhivago...being evicted from his mansion. Did get re-housed though. Shearonink (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MAT tour to the United States

I think this section needs a more complete header. This wasn't just a tour of the US, it was also a tour of Europe. The MAT company was on tour from September 1922 until May 1924.
Good job on explaining how the tour influenced acting/theatre in other countries. I see Lee Strasberg makes an appearance... Shearonink (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet productions

Oh dear, the heart attack... Other than that, not problems found. Shearonink (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A manual for actors

Such a shame that the three volumes never got their 'overview'. This section is fine. Shearonink (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Development of the Method of Physical Action

The warring camps of the American "Method" studios/schools... No issues found. Shearonink (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Political fortunes under Stalin

(No MOS/grammar/referencing problems.) And, well... at least he wasn't executed like Meyerhold. Shearonink (talk)

Final work at the Opera-Dramatic Studio

It's interesting, that the system of acting training that is most associated in American theatre and film with Strasberg and Adler, with Marlon Brando et al...in its final Russian/Soviet incarnation dealt with opera, a form that most people associate with theatrical artifice. Interesting ending. Shearonink (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

There are not any major problems with this article. It is well-researched and well-written. The matters that need to be adjusted or corrected before I can finish this Review are as follows:

Per 6A - Images' public domain status needs to be clear.
Amateur work as an actor and director - sentence need to be clarified.
Symbolism and the Theatre-Studio - MAT & Theatre-Studio relationship needs to be clarified.
Some minor header issues - are single quote marks permissible according to WP:MOS (Studios and the search for a 'system') & MAT tour to US needs to be more descriptive of the actual tour.

I am placing this Review On Hold pending corrections to the above issues. Shearonink (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of the nominator, I'll work on addressing status of the images, since that's an area I'm relatively versed in. --RL0919 (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The single-quoted 'system' appears to be a convention among the reliable sources that has been preserved (consistently) here. IOW, the quote marks aren't here used as scare quotes, to indicate a quotation, etc.; but are, rather, a part of the name. This is therefore not really the MOS' domain, and would anyway fall within the scope of WP:IAR. For a FAC I might question whether it would not be better to ignore the convention among the sources and simply use "Stanislavski's system", without the quote marks, here; but as best I can tell the issue is not actually in conflict with any policy or guideline. --Xover (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The image of Craig's design is, as best I can tell, simply not public domain (i.e. it is non-free), and must be removed from the article. Even if not made an issue of here, eventually someone would have opened a deletion discussion on Commons. It is possible it could be transwikied here (enwiki) and used under WP:NFCC, but my experience is that that's very rarely worth the effort. I am however loath to do something about this without input from DionysosProteus. The diagram of Stanislavski's system is probably public domain, but without provenance (pretty sure this is Stanislavski's own work, not DP's recreation), it's hard to be sure / tag it properly. --Xover (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Craig image is not PD and am going to initiate a deletion discussion on Commons. Unfortunately that will leave the relevant article section unillustrated, but that's not a requirement anyway. --RL0919 (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In "Amateur work as an actor and director" I've had a stab at the para in question. See if it's clearer now? --Xover (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the heading "MAT tour to the United States" to read "MAT tours in Europe and the United States" in an attempt to address that review point. That's also, I think, all the points raised by Shearonink, so have a look to see whether you think the changes sufficient? --Xover (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]