Jump to content

Talk:Sängerfest/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review (1st)

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: RainCity471 (talk · contribs) 22:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Ok, so over the next few days I'll review (hopefully). I can't do a lot of editing during weekdays (too much homework) and will be away from the 16th to the 21st of November.

The article does not have any cleanup tags, and in my opinion looks reasonable in relation to the criteria. It looks like a lot of work has been put into it, and I look forward to reviewing it. RainCity471(whack!) 22:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly commenting on this article in relation to the GA criteria. There are some things I'm pointing out that are not required for GA, but could be implemented to get the article to a better state; I'll note this when I mention them. You don't need to implement the beyond-GA changes at all if you feel they are a mis-judgment or incorrect. If you think I've made an incorrect comment or judgement, please let me know—you're probably right! RainCity471 (whack!) 17:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now going through carefully and nit-picking at minor bits of prose in the article body; these comments will mostly be related to criterion 1 (well-written). I'll try to fix ones that don't need any ref checking myself. I'll also start commenting on verifiability and so on. RainCity471 (whack!) 20:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer note: prose check completed; now undergoing reference verification
I'm afriad I'm on a Wikibreak until the 21st at the earliest (I have to go earlier than I thought I would). I've dropped a note at WT:GAN asking if someone could finish this review for me. I'm really sorry about this, and good luck with the article. Best wishes, RainCity471 (whack!) 23:18, 9 November 2013 (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. Now undergoing detailed checking. All fine after some tweaking by both of us. No suspicion of copyright problems, as the text looks in a typical Wikipedia style and was added over several edits.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Fairly confident on this, though I will check soon. (The fiction and list incorporation guidelines do not apply to this article.)
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. The references layout look fine, although I have not yet done a detailed check on sources as required.
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). There are many inline citations, although I will do a detailed check soon. I would recommend archiving the web urls with WebCite (go to http://www.webcitation.org/archive?url=(WEB_ADDRESS)&email=(EMAIL_ADDRESS), replacing (WEB_ADDRESS) with the website address and (EMAIL_ADRESS) with a valid email). As the urls are not bare, this isn't required for GA but it would help with verifiability in the future.
2c. it contains no original research. Nothing that sticks out, although I will be more confident after I've completed reference verification.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The largest section is the North America history, and the "Current events" section seems to be pretty short compared to it. I do have experience in classical music but I'm not familiar with singing, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'll ask for a second opinion when the rest of the review's mostly done.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Over-detail does not appear to be a problem.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Looks ok, though I have yet to do a complete read-through. I'm a bit concerned that the article focuses mostly on Saengerfests in north America though. As Maile has pointed out, this is more a sourcing problem. I'll do a full read through when I get the chance.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Has settled down after expansion and does not appear to have had edit wars.
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. All fine. In my opinion, maybe the Liederkranz Quartettverein image could go to the Current events section to ease the big block of text after the start of the article, but this is not required for GA.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Good. The archive photo (File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-06264, Wien, Umzug zum Sängerbund-Fest.jpg) seems to have a caption/id numbers at the bottom of it; I might crop that off and put it on the file page instead. This isn't required for GA either.
7. Overall assessment.

Here are some phrases I think could be put a bit better:

  • "The closing day of the fest was full of pomp and circumstance with a parade and speeches.[28]" in the North America section.
I'm glad you mentioned this, because I had to correct a typo on the inline citation page numbers. I might not have otherwise caught that. However, given the final day of the event, "celebratory" just doesn't quite convey it, either. My American dictionary describes "pomp and circumstance" as "a splendid celebration with ceremony and fuss" - to my way of thinking, it was precisely pomp and circumstance. But you may differ. Here's the verbatim description (and their punctuation) of that day from the source:
"Friday, September 1, was the closing day of the Saengerfest. Early in the morning an immense concourse of people, numbering in many thousands, assembled at the west front of the Capitol. The different singing societies with their banners waving and bands playing, met at that point, and thence a grand procession was formed for a picnic in the City Park, in the southern part of the City. From a large platform erected on the grounds, speeches were made by Dr. J. Eberhardt, of Wheeling, in German, and R.B. Warden, of Columbus, in English. Then followed a superb banquet, songs, toasts, speeches, and general hilarity. In the evening, after the distribution of the prizes awarded to the different societies, a grand ball took place at Wenger and Zettler's halls, so as to unite them as one. Capacious as they were, these halls were densely crowded. Music and dancing formed the grand finale of the festival."— Maile (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you mean; "pomp and circumstance" is more of a description not a claim. Now I think more carefully I think the bit I wasn't sure about was "full of". I'm a bit short of time but I'll think about it.
I took out the words "a parade", because I'm not sure that actually happened. How about if we compromise between your wording and mine. "The closing day was celebrated with pomp and circumstance." Or something like that. — Maile (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that'll be good. Thanks! RainCity471 (whack!) 13:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noun vs. verb? Perhaps I was not clear in that wording. In my mind, "singing groups as an expression for social reform" is the same as "singing groups as vehicle for social reform". It (the singing groups) was something they used to help achieve a result. It just sounds better to me to say an "an expression" rather than "a vehicle".— Maile (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you mean; I've just done a bit of grammar tweaking (diff) RainCity471 (whack!) 13:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to neutrality and your concern that it is mostly focused on North America, this is what I have been able to reference. It's not so much a lack of neutrality as it is a lack of non-American sources. i.e., in one sentence in the section for Europe, it is mentioned that the saengerfest also spread to Australia via churches. I would have loved to have done a section on Australia, but was unable to find sources available to me. I am located in the United States. Perhaps outside the US, sources are available. Probably many in the German language in Europe. I just don't have that available to me.— Maile (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your point; your argument fits with the criteria that the article "represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each". I have to do a bit of checking myself, but if most of the refs are north American, then that means the north American viewpoint is probably more significant. RainCity471 (whack!) 20:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if it helps balance it a little bit, I have no problem eliminating the "Current events" section. I'm not wedded to that section, because it's not all that detailed. But to prevent that elimination from being immediately reverted by someone else, I would suggest merging it within the body of the rest of North America. — Maile (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's anything wrong with keeping the Current events section. The info's relavent and useful so there's no reason to remove it. RainCity471 (whack!) 13:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who made numerous journeys through Germany beginning in 1819 to encourage the formation of male singing groups for the purpose of social reform.[3]" → "who made numerous journeys across Germany from 1819 to encourage the formation of male singing groups for social reform"?
Yes, I like this, and I've made the change. — Maile (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with hundreds or thousands of vocalists were popular with the masses" → "with hundreds or thousands of vocalists were popular with many people"?
Go ahead and be picky. I think you're supposed to. However "the masses" is a phrase synonymous with "the common people". It does not mean "many people", but refers to the great mass of common people. It's a standard phrase used in writing, journalism, television reporting, political speeches, etc.— Maile (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I see. I agree with you that the masses is just a normal term; I think I mispercive it from the way I usually see it written. Thanks for all your comments, RainCity471 (whack!) 21:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It could also be the difference between the way Americans use English language phrases and how it's used in the U.K.— Maile (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right. Thanks, RainCity471 (whack!) 20:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Christian church organizations known as Christlicher sängerbund"
I don't understand what you're saying here. "Christlicher sängerbund" is how those specific groups were/are named in Europe, and the exact term used in the source. It is not all Christian church choir organizations, but an organization that existed within some Christian churches who preferred using the German spelling. I guess it's like some modern churches adopted the name "the Hallelujah choir" because they have a specific style of music, and others just say "the church choir" when they used standard hymnals.— Maile (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry about that: it's a mistake! I meant to remove that bit before I saved but I forgot! Sorry, RainCity471 (whack!) 21:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the article is titled Saengerfest, it says sängerfest in the actual content. I believe this isn't required for GA, but it probably would be worth sorting out. Should the article be moved or the sängerfests changed to saengerfest? RainCity471 (whack!) 20:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is OK the way it is, but thank you for noticing. You have a good eye. Whoever originally created the article on English wikipedia used anglicized spelling, which is fine The first sentence of the lead explains the different spelling. The rule of thumb at Wikipedia is to go with the spelling in the sources, which is sängerfest, and be consistent in the text of the article. Where it would be of concern is if the article went back and forth on the spelling. I understand your concern, but it's fine. I would not recommend either moving the article, which is likely to cause move-and-revert wars, or change sängerfest, because is aligns with the sourcing.— Maile (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, thanks for pointing that out. This isn't covered by the GA criteria anyway, so i was being very fussy. RainCity471 (whack!) 21:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine. You're doing a good job. — Maile (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. RainCity471 (whack!) 20:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At their peak, the sängerfests were prestige events" and "So popular were these sängerfests among the public"
Both phrases removed.— Maile (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "5,000 singers from more than a hundred sängerbunds"
Can you access Page 22? The exact phrase is "5,000 singers representing more than a hundred organizations in 40 cities." — Maile (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering if there was an exact number, but if there isn't then it doesn't matter. I couldn't access the page as of the time I previously commented; it said something like "either you have reached a page unavailable for viewing, or you have reached your viewing limit for this book".
I reworded this a bit and added a secondary source. I didn't even know if this little story was wanted in the article, but it was a funny story so I gave it a shot. — Maile (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since I guess there aren't any daughter articles that would cover it, it probably would fit here. It did get into the NYT, so it's probably worth a mention. RainCity471 (whack!) 23:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There as a (November 11th) request for someone to finish this review. It looks like nobody has volunteered. I'd be happy to do it and will. I'll wait a day or 2 for comments in case I have misunderstood the situation. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had to start a new review to get it back into the system. Talk:Saengerfest/GA2 North8000 (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sängerfest/GA1&oldid=1147682922"