Talk:Maria Radner/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jacedc (talk · contribs) 15:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be happy to review this article. Below I'll add a check list according to the good article criteria, and if anything doesn't pass muster, I'll add a notes section detailing why I don't feel the article meets the criteria (if that is the case).

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

(other than prose issues)

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References layout:

Citations to reliable sources:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Stable?

No edit wars, content disputes, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

As far as I can tell

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

No images are given in-article.

Overall:

Pass or Fail: On hold until other questions on this article's talk page are addressed and resolved. Jacedc (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Jacedc (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

She was considered to be an extremely talented interpreter of Richard Wagner's music. A statement of this nature can cause POV concerns as just raw, plain text, so if a book, website, etc. said that she was considered an extremely talented interpreter, then that source needs to be quoted and a reference needs to be added to it.

Done --Wuerzele (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possessing the "rare pitch of a true alto", The comma needs to go inside the closing quotation mark in this case.

Not done per MOS:LQ Where the quotation is a single word or fragment, terminal punctuation should be placed outside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuerzele (talk • contribs) 22:35, 9 April 2015

Ahh, that's right. I was unaware that was a fragment until I read the full quote further down in the article. Okay, good enough for me. Jacedc (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possessing the "rare pitch of a true alto", even though it's in the lead, a reference needs to be added to it since it's a direct quote. (I'm pretty sure anyway, though I could be wrong on this.)

Not done because quoted in body, see below, or do you want me to add "Vorarlberger Neue Tageszeitung, 20 August 2008" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuerzele (talk • contribs) 22:35, 9 April 2015

Hmm, well I thought direct quotes needed to always be referenced no matter where they are in the article. However, an argument could be made that since it's in the body as well it doesn't need a citation per WP:LEAD. I'll leave this up to you guys. Jacedc (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will copy the ref to the lead. It's good practise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then this is

Done Thanks! Jacedc (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Direct quotes always need to be referenced wherever they are, including in the lead. It's one of the exceptions to the avoidance of citations in the lead, the other being contentious material, which may need to be sourced there as well as in the body. No article should be listed as a GA while an unsourced quote still exists. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After her first audition he told her "I will get you to the opera". Full stop needs to go inside the closing quotation mark in this case.

Done per MOS:LQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuerzele (talk • contribs) 22:35, 9 April 2015

Not because it was no fun, but her salary as a young soloist was nothing like enough. This is a POV sentence, so if the writer got it from a direct source, that source needs to be quoted then referenced with a citation.

Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuerzele (talk • contribs) 22:35, 9 April 2015

She studied German language for one semester and quit. This should read "She studied the German language" or "She studied German." Also I would suggest saying "then quit" instead of "and quit", because using "and" makes it sound as if she studied German and quit for one semester.

Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuerzele (talk • contribs) 22:35, 9 April 2015

She started training in import export business and had best grades at the vocational school, but did not feel right. Two things wrong with this: "Import export" should either have a hyphen or a slash between the two words (e.g. "import-export" or "import/export", though I personally prefer the slash.) Additionally, "but did not feel right" should be directly quoted from the source from which it was acquired because it's a POV sentence.

Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuerzele (talk • contribs) 22:35, 9 April 2015

The whole second paragraph of § "Early life and education (1981–2008)" needs dates attributed to all the facts. You jump from she did this to she did that then to she then did this without indicating when she did these events and in what order she did them.

Not done because unknown, I did the best I could with what's published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuerzele (talk • contribs) 22:35, 9 April 2015

Hmm, really? That might indicate some notability concerns, then. I see there's already a notability debate on the talk page. That might be a cause for this article to fail GA nom. I probably should have checked that before reviewing the article. Jacedc (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the notability concerns you will see that of course she is notable but would not have an article yet (!) without her untimely death, - but probably in summer after her planned Bayreuth debut. - I write about many singers, - believe me: a part is more important than when precisely it was performed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her voice teacher was Michaela Krämer who judged her to be mezzosoprano. I would say "vocal teacher" instead of "voice teacher", but that's just me.

Not done as voice teacher is the correct term — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuerzele (talk • contribs) 22:35, 9 April 2015

In 2003 Radners mother died after a long illness. A comma should go after 2003.

Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuerzele (talk • contribs) 22:35, 9 April 2015

What struck me seeing this is that "Radners" should be "Radner's". Since the review has concluded, I've added the missing apostrophe myself. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In 2003 Radners mother died after a long illness. Since this is a death date, is there any possibility of an exact date? (E.g. Month Day, Year?)

Not done because unknown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuerzele (talk • contribs) 22:35, 9 April 2015

Right. Unfortunate. The same as the missing dates I mentioned above. Jacedc (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and as possessing the "rare pitch of a true alto, having an impressive charisma and great musicality" (Vorarlberger Neue Tageszeitung, 20 August 2008).^[9] Two references for this, but one in one format and one in the other? I would suggest changing these to the same formats, whichever style you choose to use.

Not done because it is Vorarlberger Neue Tageszeitung, 19 and 20 August 2008 (not online) quoted in the online reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuerzele (talk • contribs) 22:35, 9 April 2015

Ahh right. That makes more sense. Thanks for clarifying. Jacedc (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She participated in a then new production of Parsifal under Lorin Maazel in Valencia, A hyphen should be placed between "then" and "new"

Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuerzele (talk • contribs) 22:35, 9 April 2015

Lastly, is there any chance of a "Personal life" section? In the § "Death" section, it mentions her husband and son, but it would have been nice to be acquainted with them before the death section (for instance, in what year did she get married? In what year was her son born?)

~~Not done~~ I wish, see my opinion on this talk page, but no published info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuerzele (talk • contribs) 22:35, 9 April 2015

Again, unfortunate, raises significant notability concerns. Jacedc (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think dates of wedding and child birth are private and have nothing to do with notability. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that depends. If privacy is the reason that these details were never published, then that's between those two parties. But, if those sources/that information do or could exist, then it absolutely needs to be added to an encyclopedia. Privacy of someone in the public eye who achieves notability enough to have a dedicated Wikipedia page is very, very rare to see. Jacedc (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacedc, I agree with you. If any source about her date of marriage or the birth date of her child, from a reliable source, should be added to the article, regardless if anybody thinks it's a "privacy infringement". She is deceased, so It will not hurt her to have these kind of details in the "Personal life" section. CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done "Personal life" section, incl. her sons age. Jacedc, fyi: she was likely not married, but i can only state this here, as this is my conclusion. FAZ, opernnetz, WAZ used the word 'Mann' which is ambiguous, can mean man or husband; Guardian, Stern and Bild called Sascha partner. plse note the different culture about this in Germany, as opposed to the USA, with "more relaxed" reporting about this detail.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Works for me. Jacedc (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final note: When I say something needs to be quoted, if the original source is in German, then simply translate it if possible.

Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuerzele (talk • contribs) 22:35, 9 April 2015

Good work on the article otherwise. Jacedc (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacedc - You're awesome! Thank you SO much. You address the issues right from the root, and explain in detail what paragraphs or sentences need fixing or referencing. I will be applying your suggestions to the article before the deadline, so this can become a GA article. Again, you rock! Thank you. Should I ping you when changes have been made, and when you can see if its ready for GA class? Thanks!!! CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's my pleasure. :) Thanks for the compliments. And yeah, as you address each point just put {{done}} below each of them and once they're all done I'll promote the article. :) Jacedc (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacedc, Thank you much for reviewing the article and your really good suggestions. I completely share your concerns and would like to check all of the 'not done' ones of. I just havent found the things that arent in the article, things I'd like to know myself. More material may surface over time. Almost all of her 'early life' is from a narrative/ essay published April 2, which I immediately incorporated. the first item I havent worked on because it will take me time to find in teh German media, I added it when DYK discussants found the lede too thin. I will fix this later. --Wuerzele (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sure thing. I hope more information surfaces, as this article can be viewed as incomplete or non-notable otherwise. That said, I won't concern myself with all of the notability stuff, but once all of the prose-related issues are addressed I'll wait to see how the notability debate plays out before passing or failing. That's dependent on the talk page debate. Kind regards, Jacedc (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you for your input! I feel much better about moving on with the review now that I know she's definitely notable. I'd still prefer a little bit more detailed content, as a good article is one where someone can find a decent amount of information, but that won't stop it being passed as long as it ultimately satisfies the good article criteria. Jacedc (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will look once more, but need sleep first, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, everything has been addressed here, but there are still some concerns that were brought up on this article's talk page, so I'm going to put this review on hold again until those issues are resolved. Let me know when they are, and I'll check the diff then pass the article. Jacedc (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good Jacedc. Let's try to get this passed as GA status before it's on the main page. CookieMonster755 (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacedc: the chronology was solved, the other questions (IPA etc) are not relevant to the GA criteria. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Great, then this article has now passed. Congratulations and good work. Jacedc (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! I am very proud of you Wuerzele for making the changes for this to become a GA article! Could have not done it without you, or Jacedc who assessed the article. Thank you everybody! CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this was listed as a GA prematurely. I've made some prose fixes and punctuation fixes in the "Voice education" section—a double period does stand out—and there are some others that look odd to my eye. For example, "so she took additional voice lessons with Jeannette Zaraou in Düsseldorf, later with mezzo-soprano Marga Schiml," could be smoothed out, and "At a Bayreuth singing competition named Cantilena in 2007, she won second place in the division 'concert' out of 120 vocalists from 19 countries" appears to again be her competing in a "Concert" category rather than an "Opera" category, but both halves of this sentence have reversed clauses, and are not up to GA prose standards. Both "Händel" and "Handel" appear a few lines apart (it's the same composer, so the name should be standardized), and the reviews of Solomon use two different date formats. Incidentally, while "voice lessons" is correction, "Vocal education" is to be preferred over "Voice education". I would like to recommend that the guild of copy editors be requested to give the article a thorough copy edit. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed Handel, date and header, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of those, Gerda. However, the major issue still stands: the prose is not up to GA standards in a number of places. If something is not done in the next few days—a comprehensive copyedit, or at least WP:GOCE request for one, for example—then I don't see any option but to begin a Good Article reassessment. CookieMonster755, since you were the original nominator, I'll leave this in your hands to address. In addition, you'll want to make sure the recently added "clarification needed" templates are addressed in the article, since they generally indicate a place that has fallen short of GA standards. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, BlueMoonset I am new to this process. I looked at your userpage and understand your editing experience. Can anyone jump in after a GA review and say what you said- wait, too soon ?

Re: "Vocal education" is to be preferred over "Voice education". What are your sources for this statement?

Re: the edits you see necessary. Why do you not make them, but kind of command them? (naive question- I want to understand what is going on here.) Thank you. --Wuerzele (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wuerzele, while the article has been made a Good Article, anyone can look at an article at any time and say whether they think it qualifies. Sometimes that happens during the review process, sometimes it isn't noticed until after the review has concluded. Since it had just concluded, I thought it made sense to post here, since people would probably still be looking at it. If you'll look at the article's talk page, the box that says it is a Good Article also says the following: If you can improve it further, please do, and if it no longer meets these criteria, it can be reassessed. To specifically answer your questions:

Anyone can jump in; indeed, it happens with some frequency. Not all reviewers can catch important things, some aren't as experienced and miss things they should check, and not all have the English language skills to properly judge prose quality. While I can't undo a proper GA listing once the review has closed, I can point out problems that occurred. Anyone can call for a GA reassessment at any time.
"Voice education" vs. "Vocal education" didn't strike me as a source issue, but one of language. Both are about learning how to sing, use the vocal mechanism, and also (presumably) matters of phrasing, pronunciation, style, etc. But no one I know would use the phrase "voice education" in a sentence, while "vocal education" makes sense grammatically.
I don't have the time to give the article the thorough going-over that it needs, which is why I suggested asking the Guild of Copy Editors to do so. I work a lot in the DYK space (and to a lesser extent here at GA), and there aren't enough hours in the day to fix all the problems I see, which would properly involve reading through sources to make sure my edits properly convey the original meanings when sentences are as unclear as the ones I mentioned above. So if I see something is wrong, I point out the problems; if they're very simple and I have the time, I'll fix them myself as the GA box wording suggests, but here there was enough that it wasn't feasible for me to proceed. (Gerda did the simple fixes herself.) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No clarification needed tags are left. There is one saying "attribution needed", which - to my understanding - requests for a quotation to state who said so. Until recently I thought to have an inline citation right behind the quotation sufficed, but was told that - at least on FA level - it is not enough. I am not sure about GA level: would it be enough to place ref #6 behind the quotation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your calification on the matter Gerda and Wuerzele. CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt, all quotes in any article should have an inline source citation, including both this one and the quote later in that paragraph (the one from her teacher). This is another example of something the review should have identified as an issue, and not been closed until they were fixed. I don't know about FA rules, but for a GA I believe it's sufficient to list the inline source no later than the end of the sentence in which the quote appears. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]