Talk:La fille aux cheveux de lin/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Prism (talk · contribs) 22:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"It is the eighth piece in the composer's first book of Préludes, written between late 1909 and early 1910" What exactly was written during that period of time? The book or La fille?

The book. The piece itself was completed on 15–16 January 1910, which I just added to the main body. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this lead could be further expanded so it offers a general view on all of the article's sections.

Expanded. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background and influence

"The title of the piece" → "The title "La fille aux cheveux de lin"

Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The image of a girl with flaxen-coloured hair has been utilized in fine art as a symbol of innocence and naivety." Since the success of this piece or before it was even created?

Not sure, as the source cannot be accessed anymore. However, I think it was before the piece was created, which is what gave Debussy the inspiration.

"deviated from his style at the time" How? Describe (just a bit) "his style at the time".

Well, it's basically the opposite of everything I wrote down (instead of technical and harmonic simplicity and traditional, his style at the time was complex and modern/progressive). Do I still need to write down direct antonyms as a description? The description I gave above is extremely simplistic, and would require me to go into more depth (which, I think, would be more relevant to Debussy's own article). —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Debussy had previously utilized the title for a mélodie he wrote from 1882 to 1884.[5] However, it does not feature any similarities to the 1910 prelude" Apart from the lead, readers don't know yet that it was released in 1910. You should remove the date

I've added the exact date of completion to the "History" section. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"and merely has a "distant familial relationship" with the prelude at most" According to whom?

Added attribution to author and journal. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The song, which is one of his earlier works and remains unpublished, was dedicated to Marie-Blanche Vasnier.[6] She had an affair with Debussy at the time, and he dedicated most of the compositions he wrote from 1880 to 1884 to her.[7] The vocal parts at the beginning and end of the art song were influenced by Vasnier's "coloratura soprano voice" Is this about the prelude or La fille? If it's about the former, then all of this is irrelevant to the article.

Removed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History

La Fille → La fille

Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"with the Richmond Times-Dispatch [...]" mention the name of the journalist

Added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Musical analysis

La Fille → La fille

Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"which is uncharacteristic of Debussy's music of this kind" of this kind leaves me confused, is it referring to his preludes?

Yes; while the two quoted words are specifically contrasting it with the 2 other preludes that were mentioned in the previous sentence, the uncharacteristic "of this kind" refers to all his preludes. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"sandwiched" seems colloquial

You're right. Replaced with "situated". —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hal Leonard Corporation can be wikilinked

Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UF School of Music shouldn't be italicized (it isn't printed media). University of Florida can be linked

I'm using the "work=" parameter; it's pre-programmed to appear in italics, so this cannot be changed. Linking done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ivory Classics shouldn't be italicized either

Once again, I can't change this, as this is how the "work=" parameter operates. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19th-Century Music should be wikilinked (to this)

Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Debussy.fr and Classic FM should not be italicized. Depending on what region the website is referring to, Classic FM can be wikilinked

See above for "work=" parameter. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Times-Dispatch's publisher is missing (Berkshire Hathaway); the name of the newspaper should be wikilinked

That's not necessary. Per my recently-passed FLs (Premier League Golden Boot and 10 RBI in one game), the newspaper name itself suffices. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude, but I don't believe "References" falls under any of the good article criteria listed. And MOS Layout says "[e]ditors may use any citation method they choose." —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While "References" aren't part of the good article criteria, other guidelines state that websites shouldn't be italicized. I fixed the |work= issue, which you can avoid by using |publisher= for all non-printed media (except for news sites and online magazines), in the following way: Website. Publisher. pedro | talk 17:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which guidelines state this? I'd be very interested to know, since this has never been an issue for me in my past GANs and FLCs (all which have been passed within the last two years; most recent one passed 4 days ago). Also, I've added back the "work=" parameter, because I feel that using a period to separate the different parameters just isn't correct formatting. One organization for each parameter. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles. Parentheses aren't used for website references either. pedro | talk 17:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MOS Titles only applies to titles within the body of prose in the article. The titles used inside citations are a completely different animal. The instructions in the cite web template override MOS, which says to "not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work".—Bloom6132 (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

|work=Name of website is still an acceptable option, though. pedro | talk 20:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I hope I'm not being too strict or anything, as this is my first GAN review of a classical music article. One question: do you know how to read sheet music? pedro | talk 22:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! You weren't strict at all. Apart from the "References" section, all the other concerns are legit. And yes, I can read sheet music. I have an Associate of the Trinity College London (ATCL) recital diploma in piano performance, so if you need help with anything, feel free to ping me on my talkpage or email me. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great! By the way, I'm not passing it to GA yet because some issues are yet to be responded. pedro | talk 17:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, understand. Going to address those other issues soon. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I was secretly hoping that a "musical expert" (or someone who was extremely passionate at editing music articles) would pick up my GAN. Looks like my wish came true. Keep up the great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment! :) pedro | talk 18:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to insist on the references, but I reccomend you do change |work=(website) to |work=Website, especially if you want to go to FAC with this article. Congrats on another GA pedro | talk 18:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million! Unfortunately, I don't think I have enough references or time to take this to FAC. But being able to work on my first music article and have it promoted to GA was truly an inspirational experience for me. Thank you Pedro for making it possible! —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! pedro | talk 22:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]