Jump to content

Talk:Sergei Prokofiev/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 07:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on. I seem to have become the editor who's done most (but not enough) for this article, so I'll try to tidy up or otherwise respond to issues you identify as and when I have a moment. Alfietucker (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The toolbox to the right shows over 20 dead links in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see this is down to 14 dead links.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only 8 more left.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All dead links now replaced or at least removed. Alfietucker (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It also shows a couple of dab issues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that this is a genuine dab issue - it's just the standard direct to the dab page for other Prokofiev articles, which naturally includes this one. Alfietucker (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
somewhere in the article the wikilink Prokofiev is used which points back to the top of this page. Such a link is frustrating for a reader.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I found it here - now removed. Alfietucker (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a different type of circularity. The problem remains.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ask at the help desk.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you posted a request?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet - unfortunately have to dash now for a RL appointment, but will get back to this. Alfietucker (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request now posted. Alfietucker (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:PrimeHunter has confirmed that this is a side-effect of the coding inside {{redirect}} template. The dablinks report is a false positive and can safely be ignored. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD
Maybe this needs to be discussed on the article's talk page, but I don't think the absence of an infobox is a bar against qualifying for GA status, since it's not one of the six good article criteria to have one. Alfietucker (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes are mentioned in at least two of the blue links in WP:WIAGA 1b.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked this carefully: yes, MOS articles linked from 1b do *mention* infoboxes, but nowhere do any of those say that infoboxes are compulsory. Indeed, two of them - Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section (see Elements of the lead} and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout (see The lead section} - explicitly say that having an infobox is "optional", while the remaining third - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (see see Section organization) - implies that having an infobox is optional by mentioning it in the same sentence as a disambiguation hatnote (not an element one would expect to see in every article!). Alfietucker (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After consultation at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Infoboxes_optional.3F, I will let this one rest.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it best not to repeat the construction "was a", but see your point about natural phrasing. Hope the rewrite I've done seems both more natural and digestible. Alfietucker (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think "ferociously dissonant" works, since they are not only undeniably dissonant but are aggressively so. Would perhaps "aggressively dissonant" be preferable? I've "spelled out" what is meant by "highly successful". Any other adverbs that should be addressed? Alfietucker (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It can be misread, I suppose, so I've reworded this. Alfietucker (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to Chicago Opera Association. Alfietucker (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Formal education and controversial early works
Fixed all these. Alfietucker (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Life abroad
Done. Alfietucker (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Alfietucker (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Alfietucker (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Alfietucker (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see your point, but I'm not sure what to do about this, given that there are already several articles about various productions based on Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet. Maybe it deserves a little subsection of its own in the Sergei Prokofiev article, but I think the priority for now is to get the rest of that article up to scratch. Alfietucker (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you possibly buff up "Today, this is one of Prokofiev's best-known works" to something like "There have been prominent ballet choreographies to this work and Today, this is one of Prokofiev's best-known works" with the proper citations? Let me know if you are uncomfortable with this because I also feel I might be trying to cram in a mention for my own work.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've hesitated to add comment about the various choreographies done to Romeo and Juliet, as it seems to me more pertinent to the ballet itself than to the article devoted to its composer (particularly as the major alternative choreographies were done after his death). However I agree that not quite enough had been said about the ballet's importance, so I've now added a fair bit of pertinent material to that effect. Alfietucker (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, thanks again for all your work. Just a small request: though I am the editor who has done the largest number of edits on the article, that is not to say I have done them all. The article has been around for considerably longer than I have been editing here, and I must admit my work on it has been very piecemeal rather than systematic until now. Would you mind saying something like "the article understates" rather than "you understate" - the process will feel a bit more collaborative then. I am happy to work on this not because I "own" the article, but because a) apart from you, I seem to spend more time on this than any other editor (which is a pity); b) I do have some relevant books in my library. :-) Alfietucker (talk) 08:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noting my plea. Very glad to have your input/prompts for improving this article. Alfietucker (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit more detail - is that enough? Alfietucker (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First visits to the Soviet Union
Expanded. Alfietucker (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Alfietucker (talk) 09:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Return to the Soviet Union
Have almost totally rewritten that paragraph, which is now fully covered by citations. Alfietucker (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-war
Expanded a bit. Alfietucker (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images
Thank you - and thank you for having taken the time to read and report on the article. It's all the better for it. Alfietucker (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sergei_Prokofiev/GA1&oldid=611195344"