Talk:Stabat Mater (Dvořák)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) 15:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Planning to review this article within the next few days. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you for reviewing! I'm on vacation for the rest of the week, so offline for most of the time, and at the place where I stay, no (stable) connection in the room. Please don't be surprised about little response, - I'll listen eventually. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  Back home, I thank for thorough reviewing. I'll make changes in the articles, and will comment in the upper section of the review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

First reading

This section was never meant for interleaving comments. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comments upon a first reading of the article (a more systematic approach will follow, these are some preliminary comments, rather like first impressions): Infobox: Image caption (see WP:GACR 6.a): the image is neither a title page nor the score (it is a Klavierauszug: the English translation of that German word is given in the image) taken --GA "1876-1877" wrong dash between the two years taken --GA "solists" – not an English word taken, but can't help thinking that a simple correction of such a typo would cause you less work --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC) Lead sentence too cluttered (see MOS:LEADSENTENCE, Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure): Parenthesis with unused opus number (and reference for that obsolete number) does not help for recognisability of the topic of the article, not lead sentence material (is a rather remote bit of information, that should be treated in the body of the article exclusively) taken --GA Also Burghauser number: not helpful in lead sentence: not commonly used (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Opus numbers and catalog numbers: Dvořák not listed among the composers whose compositions are usually indicated with a catalogue number) taken --GA "for soloists, choir and orchestra" – "organ" is missing (it is in the infobox: why not in the lead sentence?) taken --GA "... sacred cantata ...": WP:SEAOFBLUE; also, WP:REDFLAG the work is imho not usually called a sacred cantata (←that is the non-SEAOFBLUE link), so needs very strong sources to confirm that characterisation. What do you suggest? I'd like some hint at religious/sacred because readers may be unfamiliar with the Latin title, and how better say that it is an extended piece in several movements for voices and orchstra than cantata? --GA Rest of lead section: As the lead follows the article, I will look here last. --GA "soon also performed in Budapest and London": the "soon" is not confirmed in the article (no dates are given, nor for the Budapest performance, nor for the London performance) "performance ... established ... international recognition" – weird phrasing: a performance as such does not "establish" recognition: recognition may (or may not) follow after a performance, but the performance itself does not "establish" anything apart from how a composition sounds. "It has been regarded as one of his three most popular works" – WP:REDFLAG big time: there are at least a handful of Dvořák's compositions many times more popular, so this needs multiple very reliable sources confirming this. History section, first paragraph: "commission" can have a double meaning: the sentence might suggest Dvořák was never paid for it. What would you suggest instead? --GA "seven movements" → "ten movements": unclear whether Dvořák in his first version only set part of the text, or that he repositioned the text to the notes to make possible to write three more movements? Understand, but would not spontaneously know how to say it. Also: is this detail needed in the history? --GA "... 1877, when ..." – strange chronology: wording seems to indicate that Dvořák was composing while his children were dying. I used after instead of when. --GA Next paragraph: better to include the date of the Royal Albert Hall performance (see above, suggestions regarding lead paragraph). year added --GA Last paragraph of History section: "Stabat Mater was published in ..." Wouldn't use "Stabat Mater" without definite article (when referring to the composition), or preceded by "Dvořák's" when referring to his composition. taken --GA "... piano vocal score ..." – not really a valid expression afaik: "piano reduction" exists, "vocal score" exists ... "piano vocal score" not really I think. See also comment regarding image caption above. taken --GA General about History section: too much reception-related topics (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure) – and a proper section on Reception is missing: particularly on the circumstances how this composition was such a breakthrough for Dvořák will think about that --GA Music section: I'd prefer a short intro regarding the content of the section, that is between the section title and the first subsection title. What should that contain, please. --GA First paragraph of Structure and scoring section: "... structured Stabat Mater ..." – definitely an article or a "his" missing between "structured" and "Stabat" (see comparable suggestion above) taken --GA "symphony orchestra" – in English rather: "symphonic orchestra" not sure, Orchestra has a redirect symphony orchestra --GA "... independent part accompanying the women's chorus in the fourth movement, but is not used otherwise." – seems a rather convoluted way to say something rather simple: suggest rephrasing. agree, - that was one of the sentences from an earlier version of the article, - I only expanded - will think. --GA "Though not specified in the score, it can be played by one of the two oboists, as they are not playing during this section." – also rather convoluted way of saying something simple. same --GA Table: The Stabat Mater sequence has 20 stanzas: would like an indication which stanzas are set in which movement (I mean: would help in the table, not only in the prose below). See also suggestion above about the three "inserted" movements: which text belongs to which movements (text incipits alone don't clarify this)? good idea, will take time, later --GA Layout: on my screen the table is at full width and the image of the front page with signatures right of the table; I suppose that is the case on your screen too. However, on smaller screens that layout may not work: suggest no image right of table (put it elsewhere: front page with signatures is rather a reception topic). taken, will move when that section comes --GA Voices column: the subtleties of what the difference would be between SATB S A T B vs S A T B SATB elude me; above the choir was defined as SATB, but, according to the table there are movements with "SSAATB and "TTBB" – this supposes a SSAATTBB choir (not simply SATB). Also, using capitalised letters (without special marking) for both soloists and choir parts is very confusing: then it only depends on spaces whether a capital letter indicates a soloist or a choir part ... not very workable. will think about how to show best in table form how the composer used different voice combinations of soloists and choir, sometimes together, sometimes one in the foreground, sometimes the choir beginning, sometimes a soloist ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC) Movements section: "shades of scoring, ..." sounds awkward (rather a poetic description than something for an encyclopedia article) Which word would you suggest for subtle variety? --GA "While nine movements remain in slow tempo ..., the final movement offers a vision of paradise" – and why should a "vision of paradise" not be in a slow tempo? I think too much much layers are compressed in one sentence: try to split in two or three sentences. will think, - needs expansion --GA Rogier van der Weyden image: not very suitable for the Music section. If explaining the original text of the medieval sequence that image might work to accompany such explanation: it doesn't work as an illustration of a broad composition embedded in the high tide of Romanticism: try to find an image of the second half of the 19th century for that, or failing that, a high-tide-of-Baroque kind of image (closer to the Romantic spirit that exudes from this Stabat Mater than Rogier van der Weyden). Also Cross with Mary and John is a somewhat standardized imagery for the scene: in music (i.e. in the Stabat Mater sequence) there is however no mention of John. Images of the Calvary scene where Mary is more central than John are less frequent: nonetheless I'd try to find such an image, if one depicting the biblical scene is desirable for this article. I just happened to see that image when preparing for the concert. - The lead image for the St Matthew Passion structure article was taken from the German Wikipedia, questioned here as wrong period, but defended - not by me - as something the composer may have seen. Any better suggestion here is welcome. --GA Evaluation section: doesn't work for me. Also: only a single source for the entire section. Also: only two sentences. Also: "Evaluation" is imho a misnomer: try "Reception" (see also other related suggestions above) – "Evaluation" suggests too much of weighing values of one composition against another: not an encyclopedia topic, and certainly not when based on a single source. (FYI: Rusalka's "Song to the Moon" is second most popular Dvořák around where I live) taken, will have to think --GA Recordings section: Neither of the two recordings I own is listed. Might be coincidence, but I would nonetheless suggest somewhat more body to the Recordings section. That section was taken without change from the earlier version. Yes, it should be expanded, with reviews. --GA Last sentence of the section (Engerer recording) is unreferenced: this seems to be the one for which a reference is most needed. That's another sentence from the earlier version. I couldn't find a ref, - we could live without it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC) Quality seems OK on first sight, apart from the above suggestions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Francis, this is as far as I got today. More perhaps tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC) @Gerda Arendt: thanks, will look at this ASAP (probably somewhere later this afternoon). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC) @Gerda Arendt: would like to invite to give precedence to the nine urgent sourcing-related issues listed in #Criteria section below. Thus far I see (above) only a comment regarding 2b/U3 ("I couldn't find a ref" etc) — weak excuse, I typed "engerer" "stabat mater" in Google, and didn't have to click to a second results page to see that there are plenty references for this recording, including an article in The Guardian (published more than a decade ago, so would surprise me if a simple search like the one I mentioned above wouldn't have turned it up). Removing info about the recording as you seem to suggest ("we could live without it") would of course be the opposite of what I suggest in 2b/U3 below, thus rather unhelpful. Sorry, it took longer than I anticipated. You mentioned "urgent" and demand urgency - if I get it right - to source something which was in this article for many years. Really? What was urgent for me is that two people were in Deaths in 2020, one with a terrible barely sourced article, the other with no article in English yet. That one went on the Main page the same day it was created. - I'd prefer if you could keep indented remarks below the points where they belong, but as you prefer. Sorry also for sloppy wording, - "couldn't find" was short for "had no time to even look". - Sorry even more: so far, I had no time to even look below. This is the first GA review with two sections, and I thought that the closed section was more or less a repetition but closed. Learning ... --GA Re. "a simple correction ... would cause you less work" — true, but I know myself: before I realise it I'd be applying other simple corrections, some evident tags, or even simpler, WP:CHALLENGEs, etc. Next, you wouldn't recognise the article any more, something I'd like to avoid explicitly. So, seems better I don't edit the article for the time being. Again, as you prefer. - When I do FA reviews, I correct typos. I don't do GA reviews, because I don't feel that I could judge prose. --GA Further, for all of the improvement suggestions I wrote on this page it is true that applying them directly in the article would cost me less time (and a much quicker result for an improved article): but that defeats the purpose of the exercise if this is going to be a GA you initiated. Same answer. I see a big difference between correcting obvious typos and making bigger changes. --GA Re. "What do you suggest?" — regarding the "sacred cantata" there's already a suggestion below (1b/U2). Further, in general, I'd like not to suggest too much, for the same reasons as said above: if typing out the suggestion takes more time than directly improving the article it's kind of counterproductive, and also, as above, it's your GA proposal: if I suggest too much or too concretely it would be rather my solutions applied to the article, than what you would consider yours. I see a big difference between making a suggestion when asked, and when not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Re. "What should that contain, please" (about some text between a section title immediately followed by a subsection title): not sure whether there's a rule about that, so might rather be a "room for improvement" suggestion not affecting the GAN. Without making too concrete suggestions (see above), something like the text between the Bist du bei mir#History and Bist du bei mir#1707–1732 section and subsection headers. I'll look that up, interested, but not now. Thank you for the improvements for that article, btw! --GA Re. "symphony orchestra" — yes, I looked it up: my Oxford English dictionary knows "symphony" only as a substantive (so not as an adjective – in that case "symphony orchestra" is incorrect), my Webster's has "symphony orchestra" as a separate entry in the dictionary, so at least in American English it is correct. But I explained that already (with a suggestion) in 1b/RfI1 below. As long as we have List of symphony orchestras in Europe, and only two of the names contain Symphonic Orchestra, I am sure it will be understood. --GA I'll look below now, and see what I can understand and do. If the next person dies who has a shameful article, I'll interrupt again, though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Criteria

@Gerda Arendt: I've put my detailed analysis, which is not complete yet, on hold for the time being: reason: WP:GAFAIL#3 ("It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags (See also {{QF}})"): I encountered too many cases where content of the indicated source is misrepresented, or where no apparent source covers the content of the Wikipedia article. This includes following issues, indicated as "unacceptable" (U) below:

• Crit. 2a: U2
• Crit. 2b: U1, U2, U3, U4
• Crit. 2c: U1, U2
• Crit. 4: U2, U3

... which would require "large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags". In accordance with the WP:GAFAIL guidance, "the nominator is given a chance to address any issues raised by the reviewer before the article is failed" – since you're away for the week, I'd say, try to get these issues handled within a week after your return from vacation. I'd strongly suggest to also, within that period:

• implement the suggestions at Crit. 2a U1 and "Room for improvement" (RfI) RfI1
• check the remainder of the article and references, and correct similar issues, if any, before I resume my detailed review (within two weeks or so)

Let that not stop you from addressing other issues in the mean while, but the "sourcing"-related issues seem most urgent. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: do you need more time to handle sourcing-related issues? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Short answer: yes.

Longer answer: Perhaps I am too spontaneous, but I am driven by things that need more immediate attention. On Thurday, I heard of a 100th birthday, and expanded Maria, Königin des Friedens, then Franz Mazura died, and expanding took most of yesterday. same day Gudrun Pausewang died which will take some of today. I am also behind regarding requests for help and reviews due for DYK nomination. I just did one for Jean Delumeau, making minor edits to the article (such as introducing the interlanguage template) and telling the author to take them as examples. I do hope to get to this later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll continue writing my report next Thursday or Friday (originally I had planned Monday or Tuesday). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the expansion. This is the first of several GA reviews that I am told that a section other than the list of the criteria was not meant for interleaving comments. Some, such as Talk:Clara Schumann/GA1, don't even close that section. I'll do the following: copy your comments from below to the talk, and interleave comments because I believe in dialogue. I resumed working on Monteverdi's Vespers today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Excerpts of remaining concerns 27 January, and replies

• (references, currently #1: name="Döge") "Döge, Klaus. "Antonín Dvořák (1841–1904) / Stabat mater Op. 58 / Urtext edited by Klaus Döge (solos,ch,orch) duration: 86'". breitkopf.com. Breitkopf & Härtel. Retrieved 23 June 2019.": it should at least be indicated that the "Preface" is the section (or "chapter") of the source used as reference. Preferably, because the webpage links to a pdf which shows the "Preface" pages with page numbers, the {{cite web}} template should be converted to a {{cite book}} with page numbers for the content of the publication that is used as reference (WP:CITEHOW)

  I'll think about the "Preface" and "cite book" --GA

  N – not resolved (yet). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• (references, currently #5: name="Dvořák") ""Antonín Dvořák (1841–1904) / Stabat mater Op. 58 / Urtext edited by Klaus Döge (solos,ch,orch) duration: 86'". antonin-dvorak.cz. Retrieved 8 October 2019.": "title" parameter of the cite template does not correspond with the title of that web page: in fact, nothing of that web page has content or titles remotely relating to "Urtext edited by Klaus Döge (solos,ch,orch) duration: 86'" (WP:CITEWEB)

  sorry, left title unchanged in copy, fixed --GA

  Y – OK. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• (references, currently #2: name="Berná") "Berná, Lucie Harasim (September 2016). "Foreword to Antonín Dvořák (1841-1904) / Stabat Mater / op. 58" (PDF). Carus-Verlag. pp. 4–5. Retrieved 20 November 2019." – suggesting to convert the current {{cite web}} template to a {{cite book}}, for similar reasons as given above for the name="Dvořák" template.

  will think, as above --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  N – not resolved (yet). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• (History section) "... was dedicated to František Hušpauer "as a souvenir to the friend of his young days."", referenced to Döge 2004: I could find no such information in that source. (see also suggestion above to give page numbers for this source, might be I just didn't find it; as such we seem to have an unresolved WP:V issue).

  You may have seen that this text was already in the version I found. Your comment helped me to find the source, [1] [2] [3] (mirrored), of which the whole section was a copy, copyright-vio I believe, so changed. --GA

  N & unacceptable answer:

  • Re. "You may have seen that this text was already in the version I found" – as if that makes any difference: you check what is in the article *before* submitting a GAC, and not leave it to the GAC reviewer to sort it out. In fact your implicit admittance that you didn't thoroughly check the article before submitting the GAC would be, in itself, enough reason to stop the procedure as making everybody waste time by writing comments on this page instead of using that time more efficiently for improving the article.
  • Re. "... the source, [4] ..." – absolute nonsense: that page was never used as a source for the Wikipedia article (read that page entirely, and you'll see that I'm right). I think your biggest error in the matter is that you removed the legitimate references (including the one for this content), supplanting them by references that didn't cover the content, here. This also should, in itself, be enough reason to abort the GAC procedure, returning to a version prior to when this damage was done. What you also did, in contravention of WP:CITEVAR, was changing the two-step referencing system (i.e., the references in a references list referring in a second step to sources in a sources list) to a one-step system, thus further obscuring the role of the Bärenreiter source. Until you had no clue yourself any more what damage you had done, and then "finding" a so-called source which under no circumstances can have been the source for that content. Messing with legitimate references like that is not only disrepectful for the work others have done before you, it also considerably lowers the quality of the article, and is thus harmful for Wikipedia's reputation.

  --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• (History section) "However, Dvořák had to postpone the orchestration of the work due to other obligations" no such reasons for a delay of the orchestration given in the indicated source, i.e. antonin-dvorak.cz

  same --GA

  N – unresolved and/or unacceptable answer per above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• (History topic) Positioning of Dvořák's Stabat Mater within the era of Romantic music ("Romantic" not even mentioned once in the article), and w.r.t. comparable treatments of standard Christian texts by composers of that era needs at least to be sketched.

  later perhaps --GA

  N – not resolved (yet). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• (Reception topic) More systematic treatment of early performances needed, and of how Dvořák's Stabat Mater contributed to his rise in fame.

  same --GA

  N – not resolved (yet). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• (History topic) Comparison with a few very significant Stabat Mater settings outside of the era of Romantic music (illustrating by comparison e.g. relative duration and breadth of scoring) might be useful.

  same --GA

  N – not resolved (yet). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• (History section) "He began the composition of Stabat Mater in 1875, six months after the death of his daughter, Josefa, who was only two days old", referenced to Dotsey 2018 and Vaughan 2005: Döge 2004 doubts the causality (death of daughter → composition of Stabat Mater), and www.antonin-dvorak.cz has a nuanced version (explaining both the "traditional" view of the causality, and the more up-to-date view doubting that causality): suggesting to rewrite the sentence so that it conforms to Wikipedia's core content policies, which would be nearest to the "nuanced view" of antonin-dvorak.cz

  taken but not today --GA

  N – not resolved (yet). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• (History section) "Stabat Mater is Dvořák's first work on a religious theme", referenced to Berná 2016: (1) not exactly what Berná says (this author mentions "the group of sacred works on Latin texts composed by Dvořák", which includes four compositions with opus numbers, and of these four the Stabat Mater is the first: nowhere said or inferred that that work "is Dvořák's first work on a religious theme"); (2) Döge 2004 names two sacred compositions on a Latin text which were written by Dvořák before his Stabat Mater. (apart from the misrepresentation of the content of the Berná 2016 source this is also a WP:BALASPS issue)

  I added a qualifier "major", and reference to the early works will be useful --GA

  Y – not fully resolved yet: whether the earlier religious compositions were "major" or not is unknown because they are lost: a composition going lost does not necessarily mean it is "minor", nor is that what the sources say. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• (History section) "The sketch was written between 19 February and 7 May 1876, ...", referenced to Döge 2004: (1) Döge 2004 does not describe this first version of Dvořák's Stabat Mater as a sketch; (2) antonin-dvorak.cz says about that first version that "it may still be regarded as a fully-fledged composition", which is something else than a "sketch" (apart from doing no justice to the Döge 2004 source, this is also a WP:BALASPS issue)

  no, this also a "earlier version copy" problem, - now "first version" instead of "sketch" --GA

  N – unresolved and unacceptable answer (see also above). The Bärenreiter source does in fact call it a "sketch", but that was obscured while you had removed that source. Thus, insufficient coverage of the main aspects, and a WP:BALASPS issue sticking out like a sore thumb, only further deteriorated by removing the content as you did. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• (History section) "It contained seven movements, the later 1–4 and 8–10", referenced to Berná 2016: Döge 2004 doubts this, see also endnote 9 p. 8 of Döge's Preface. (WP:BALASPS) --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  PS: according to Döge's 9th endnote the manuscript of the early version of Dvořák's Stabat Mater is inaccessible, even to researchers: this may also explain somewhat contradictory information in antonin-dvorak.cz ("fully-fledged composition" vs. "he added another three movements (nos. 5-7)"), which may mean that my first-reading suggestion, i.e. "unclear whether Dvořák in his first version only set part of the text, or that he repositioned the text to the notes to make possible to write three more movements?", can possibly not be clarified with what is available in reliable sources – nonetheless suggesting to explain the situation, based on available reliable sources.

  yes, nice to point the contradiction out, but again not today. --GA

  N – unresolved and/or unacceptable answer per above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

End of notes to self, more after sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Summary 28 Jan: Francis, I fixed some problems, but am unable to do the more creative work (comparisons, reception) on this topic, today and for weeks to come. Without much ado, you can fail the GA. You might, however, point out what needs to be done to avoid false information, opposed to additional information that would be nice to have, and may come in the future. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Re. "Without much ado, you can fail the GA." – will do so. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

By criteria report

1. Well-written

1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

Unacceptable (rewrite needed for GA):

1. (infobox) "solists" (spelling) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   Y – resolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

2. (lead section) "... performance ... established his international recognition ..." (unclear phrasing) --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   N – unresolved (rephrasing in lead not much better, and moving the questionable phrasing alsewhere does of course also not resolve the matter). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

3. (lead section) "... It has been regarded as one of his three most popular works ..." (WP:WEASEL – especially as only a single source is given in support further down in the article; see also further comments below) --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   N – essentially unresolved, despite a rephrasing that has occurred in the mean while. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

4. (lead section) "... is performed and recorded frequently" (weasel wording – what is "frequently"? – see also below regarding this statement not being sufficiently referenced to reliable sources) --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   N – unresolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

5. (History section) "He began the composition of Stabat Mater ... old. Stabat Mater is Dvořák's ..." (poor phrasing without an article or "his" or "Dvořák's" preceding "Stabat Mater": see similar remark about phrasing in Evaluation section below) --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   N – unresolved (at least not handled systematically). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

6. (History section) "He chose the work, unusually for him, without a commission" (WP:CONFUSE because of the multiple meanings of "commission": although the source for this statement also uses "commission" the context of the phrasing there is clear which meaning of the word is intended) --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   N – unresolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

7. (Evaluation section) "Stabat Mater is regarded as one of Dvořák's ..." (as similar phrase in lead, see above; also: specific for this phrasing: "Stabat Mater" without preceding definite article or "Dvořák's ..." seems poor phrasing, should be something like "Dvořák's Stabat Mater is regarded as one of his...") --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   N – unresolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Room for improvement (rewrite suggested):

2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Unacceptable (rewrite needed for GA):

1. (lead sentence) " (originally Op. 28),^[1] B. 71" (WP:LEADSENTENCE; Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure; Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Opus numbers and catalog numbers) --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   N – incorrectly handled: the catalogue number should of course be mentioned somewhere in the article. As if there are only two options: propping it all in the lead sentence or not mention it at all, really, does everything need to be spelled out? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

2. (lead sentence) "[[religious music|sacred]] [[cantata]]" (WP:SEAOFBLUE – whether "sacred cantata" is an appropriate qualifier for the composition is another topic: see below). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   N – inappropriately handled. The Bärenreiter source does in fact call it a sacred cantata, thus removing it is not an appropriate solution. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Room for improvement (rewrite suggested):

1. (lead section vs infobox content) – Lead sentence has: "..., for soloists, choir and orchestra, ..."; infobox has: "Vocal  SATB choir and solists" (about the typo in that one, see above) and "Instrumental  Orchestra · organ". Doesn't match very well: I'd suggest a better match between the two, e.g.,
   → Lead sentence: "..., for vocal soloists, choir and symphonic orchestra, ..."
   → Infobox: "Vocal  soloists and choir" and "Instrumental  symphonic orchestra"
   ... and leave further descriptions like "organ" and type of choir to the body of the article. (regarding one of my preliminary remarks: "symphony orchestra" seems correct too, but I gather that is rather American English: maybe it would be a good idea to add {{Use American English}} or {{Use British English}}, and similar templates for date formats, to the lead, and let the symphony/symphonic choice depend on that preference). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   N – not fully handled. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

2. (lead section) Suggesting to expand the lead section a bit: MOS:LEADLENGTH seems to suggest rather two paragraphs than one: e.g. a first paragraph summarizing key characteristics of the composition, and some of its genesis history, followed by a second paragraph about reception topics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   Y suggestion followed – but the current two-paragraph lead section has still many problems. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

2. Verifiable with no original research

1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

Unacceptable (rewrite needed for GA):

1. (references, currently #1: name="Döge") "Döge, Klaus. "Antonín Dvořák (1841–1904) / Stabat mater Op. 58 / Urtext edited by Klaus Döge (solos,ch,orch) duration: 86'". breitkopf.com. Breitkopf & Härtel. Retrieved 23 June 2019.": it should at least be indicated that the "Preface" is the section (or "chapter") of the source used as reference. Preferably, because the webpage links to a pdf which shows the "Preface" pages with page numbers, the {{cite web}} template should be converted to a {{cite book}} with page numbers for the content of the publication that is used as reference (WP:CITEHOW) --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   N – unresolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

2. (references, currently #5: name="Dvořák") ""Antonín Dvořák (1841–1904) / Stabat mater Op. 58 / Urtext edited by Klaus Döge (solos,ch,orch) duration: 86'". antonin-dvorak.cz. Retrieved 8 October 2019.": "title" parameter of the cite template does not correspond with the title of that web page: in fact, nothing of that web page has content or titles remotely relating to "Urtext edited by Klaus Döge (solos,ch,orch) duration: 86'" (WP:CITEWEB) --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   Y – resolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Room for improvement (rewrite suggested):

1. (references, currently #2: name="Berná") "Berná, Lucie Harasim (September 2016). "Foreword to Antonín Dvořák (1841-1904) / Stabat Mater / op. 58" (PDF). Carus-Verlag. pp. 4–5. Retrieved 20 November 2019." – suggesting to convert the current {{cite web}} template to a {{cite book}}, for similar reasons as given above for the name="Dvořák" template. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   N – unresolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

2. 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)

Unacceptable (rewrite needed for GA):

1. (lead section) "... premiered in Prague and soon also performed in Budapest and London ..." (WP:V – should have a reference to a decent source, either in the lead, or (preferably), without footnoted reference in the lead, but explained in the body of the article and there with a reference to a WP:RS). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   Y – resolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

2. (lead section; Evaluation section) "It has been regarded as one of his three most popular works"; "Stabat Mater is regarded as one of Dvořák's most popular works, along with his Ninth Symphony and the Slavonic Dances" (see also above regarding multiple style issues; source writes "most well-­known": even that seems more than a bit over the top, but is certainly not the same as "most popular"; also, the source doesn't say nor implies that "[Dvořák's] altogether most well-­known works" are limited to three, only that there are at least three compositions in the group of his "altogether most well-­known works": afaik the Cello Concerto (Op. 104), 7th and 8th symphony, the American string quartet, the Dumky Trio and maybe a dozen or more other works are also in that group. So WP:REDFLAG big time, which means that this requires "multiple high-quality sources" to keep this in the article. The editor of the score of the Stabat Mater is in this matter also not the most "independent" source: if that is the only source the statement has to go. I include, i.e. hidden in order not to break "by criteria" layout, an ordered list of most popular works by Dvořák according to number of commercially available recordings at the www.arkivmusic.com website, which is only a very approximate approach to popularity too, but clear enough to say categorically that Dvořák's Stabat Mater is certainly *not* "one of his three most popular works")

   "Most popular" approached via number of commercial recordings available at www.arkivmusic.com (Dvořák's Stabat Mater comes 24th in this approach):

   1. New World Symphony: 205 recordings ([5])
   2. Cello Concerto Op. 104: 115 recordings ([6])
   3. Symphony No. 8: 110 recordings ([7])
   4. Humoresque Op. 101 No. 7: 101 recordings ([8])
   5. Zigeunermelodie Op. 55 No. 4: 86 recordings ([9])
   6. Carnival Overture: 80 recordings ([10])
   7. Rusalka's "Song to the moon": at least 75 recordings ([11])
   8. Violin Concerto: 68 recordings ([12])
   9. Symphony No. 7: 64 recordings ([13])
   10. American string quartet: 62 recordings ([14])
   11. Silent Woods, Op. 5 No. 5: 61 recordings ([15])
   12. Dumky trio: 60 recordings ([16])
   13. Most popular of the Slavonic Dances (Op. 46 No. 1): 52 recordings ([17])
   14. Serenade for Strings: 51 recordings ([18])
   15. Piano Quintet No. 2: 45 recordings ([19])
   16. Symphony No. 6: 44 recordings ([20])
   17. Romantic Pieces Op. 75: 41 recordings ([21])
   18. Piano Trio No. 3: 41 recordings ([22])
   19. Romance for Violin and Orchestra: 39 recordings ([23])
   20. Sonatina Op. 100: 35 recordings ([24])
   21. Serenade for Winds: 34 recordings ([25])
   22. Scherzo capriccioso Op. 66: 33 recordings ([26])
   23. Piano Concerto: 32 recordings ([27])
   24. Stabat Mater: 29 recordings ([28])

   --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   N – unresolved (see also above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

3. (lead section; Recordings section) "... is performed and recorded frequently" (WP:V: only one performance outside recordings is apparent in the remainder of the article, i.e. the Wiesbaden image; ten referenced recordings, + one unreferenced (Engerer), also do not really demonstrate "frequent" recordings with reliable sources) --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   N – unresolved (see also above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

4. (History section) "... was dedicated to František Hušpauer "as a souvenir to the friend of his young days."", referenced to Döge 2004: I could find no such information in that source. (see also suggestion above to give page numbers for this source, might be I just didn't find it; as such we seem to have an unresolved WP:V issue). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   N – unresolved (see also above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Room for improvement (rewrite suggested):

3. it contains no original research

Unacceptable (rewrite needed for GA):

1. (lead sentence) "sacred cantata" qualifier unreferenced, meaning nor referenced in the lead nor elsewhere in the article; probably also rather "oratorio" than "extended sacred cantata", e.g. [29] (WP:REDFLAG) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   N – unresolved (see also above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

2. (History section) "However, Dvořák had to postpone the orchestration of the work due to other obligations" no such reasons for a delay of the orchestration given in the indicated source, i.e. antonin-dvorak.cz (WP:OR) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

   N – unresolved and/or inappropriately handled. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Room for improvement (rewrite suggested):

4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism

Unacceptable (rewrite needed for GA):

Room for improvement (rewrite suggested):

3. Broad in its coverage

1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic

Unacceptable (rewrite needed for GA):

1. (History topic) Positioning of Dvořák's Stabat Mater within the era of Romantic music ("Romantic" not even mentioned once in the article), and w.r.t. comparable treatments of standard Christian texts by composers of that era needs at least to be sketched. (WP:SCOPE; Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   N – unresolved (see also above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

2. (Reception topic) More systematic treatment of early performances needed, and of how Dvořák's Stabat Mater contributed to his rise in fame. (WP:SCOPE; Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   N – unresolved (see also above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Room for improvement (rewrite suggested):

1. (History topic) Comparison with a few very significant Stabat Mater settings outside of the era of Romantic music (illustrating by comparison e.g. relative duration and breadth of scoring) might be useful. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   N – unresolved (see also above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Unacceptable (rewrite needed for GA):

Room for improvement (rewrite suggested):

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

Unacceptable (rewrite needed for GA):

1. (History section) "He began the composition of Stabat Mater in 1875, six months after the death of his daughter, Josefa, who was only two days old", referenced to Dotsey 2018 and Vaughan 2005: Döge 2004 doubts the causality (death of daughter → composition of Stabat Mater), and www.antonin-dvorak.cz has a nuanced version (explaining both the "traditional" view of the causality, and the more up-to-date view doubting that causality): suggesting to rewrite the sentence so that it conforms to Wikipedia's core content policies, which would be nearest to the "nuanced view" of antonin-dvorak.cz (WP:BALASPS) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

   N – unresolved (see also above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

2. (History section) "Stabat Mater is Dvořák's first work on a religious theme", referenced to Berná 2016: (1) not exactly what Berná says (this author mentions "the group of sacred works on Latin texts composed by Dvořák", which includes four compositions with opus numbers, and of these four the Stabat Mater is the first: nowhere said or inferred that that work "is Dvořák's first work on a religious theme"); (2) Döge 2004 names two sacred compositions on a Latin text which were written by Dvořák before his Stabat Mater. (apart from the misrepresentation of the content of the Berná 2016 source this is also a WP:BALASPS issue) --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   N – not completely resolved (see also above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

3. (History section) "The sketch was written between 19 February and 7 May 1876, ...", referenced to Döge 2004: (1) Döge 2004 does not describe this first version of Dvořák's Stabat Mater as a sketch; (2) antonin-dvorak.cz says about that first version that "it may still be regarded as a fully-fledged composition", which is something else than a "sketch" (apart from doing no justice to the Döge 2004 source, this is also a WP:BALASPS issue) --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   N – unresolved (see also above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

4. (History section) "It contained seven movements, the later 1–4 and 8–10", referenced to Berná 2016: Döge 2004 doubts this, see also endnote 9 p. 8 of Döge's Preface. (WP:BALASPS) --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
   PS: according to Döge's 9th endnote the manuscript of the early version of Dvořák's Stabat Mater is inaccessible, even to researchers: this may also explain somewhat contradictory information in antonin-dvorak.cz ("fully-fledged composition" vs. "he added another three movements (nos. 5-7)"), which may mean that my first-reading suggestion, i.e. "unclear whether Dvořák in his first version only set part of the text, or that he repositioned the text to the notes to make possible to write three more movements?", can possibly not be clarified with what is available in reliable sources – nonetheless suggesting to explain the situation, based on available reliable sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   N – unresolved (see also above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Room for improvement (rewrite suggested):

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: OK --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: OK --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Unacceptable (rewrite needed for GA):

1. (lead image) "Title page of the score" (WP:IMAGECAPTION) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

   Y – resolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

For clarity: the analysis above remains an only partially finished job – that is: many other issues are apparent, but are not further detailed here, while the whole procedure has become extremely counterproductive. The energy can be put to much better use elsewhere, e.g. by improving the article. The article was far from ready for a GAC (next time: also check what others have written before you instead of using the lame excuse that it was there before you started to get it ready for GAC; and check the references they used instead of just deleting these references and replacing them by references that don't cover the content). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)