Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7

[edit]

Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a combination of classical music and military history: a concert during the Siege of Leningrad, supported by a Soviet military action. It's a great and touching story, and I hope you all enjoy "the symphony of heroes". Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the lead:

  • First sentence gives insufficient context. Under siege from whom, and in what conflict?
  • You should also identify the city, which for the past 22 years has been called St Petersburg. Young readers won't necessarily know this
  • Dmitri or Dmitry?
  • "both the performers" suggests there were only two of them - "both" should be omitted. And I would specify "physical" condition
  • "...while the broadcast of the performance was ongoing" is ugly phrasing, followed by a repetition of "broadcast" and an inderterminate "it". Perhaps "throughout the duration of the performance", followed by "The symphony was broadcast..."
  • "one of the most important performances of the war" - perhaps qualify: "concert performances" or "artistic performances", maybe? And regarded as such by whom - military historians? music scholars? Give a brief indication.

Great subject; not I think a great symphony musically (that thumping ostinato!), but redeemed by its circumstances. I will add more comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 09:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed everything so far, looking forward to more. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional prose comments: I've not finished reading through, but I have picked up some prose concerns (a few others I've fixed myself):

  • Why is the French spelling of "première" in the English Wikipedia?
  • Strictly, it is a French word, the English spelling of which is "premiere", though the use of the French form is accepted in English prose. Probably the best argument for it is that the grave accent indicates the proper pronunciation of the word. Brianboulton (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The hiatus in musical broadcasts was quickly ended by Andrei Zhdanov, a Soviet politician involved in the defence of Leningrad, to allow for the première and provide a boost in morale for the city". I think this needs to read: "to allow preparations for the premiere"
  • Why is "dystrophy" in quotes?
  • "hot bricks were used for radiant heat" would read better as "hot bricks were used to radiate heat", and the parenthetical note following can probably be dispensed with. It's the second such in the paragraph.
  • "while rehearsals were ongoing" is an unnecessarily awkward and passive-voice way of saying "during rehearsals"
  • "Posters went up around the city requesting all Leningrad musicians to report to the Radio Committee to be incorporated into the orchestra." I think: "for incorporation into the orchestra".
  • "A concert of Tchaikovsky excerpts was held on 5 April". This is surprising - just three days after Zagorsky and Babushkin's announcement. Do we know what forces were gathered to perform this concert?
  • Gathering of musicians and start of rehearsals predated the announcement, so while the source does not clarify, I would assume the same ensemble that performed the Shostakovich (although perhaps without some of the supplementary military performers). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Musicians were also made to copy out their individual parts by hand from the score (although some sources suggest a team of copyists was employed). There are two opposing assertions here. Your wording gives priority to the first statement, when surely the true position is "Although some sources suggest a team of copyists was employed, according to other sources musicians were made to copy out their individual parts by hand from the score". Also, the parentheses ar unnecessary.
  • "Members of the military orchestra" - first mention of this group. Were they being incorporated into the orchestra for the performance?
  • "one oboist was asked for a cat in exchange for a repair". Can you amplify?
  • "dressed like cabbages" requires some explanation.
  • "noted for the emotions raised" should surely be "notable for the emotions raised"

Will continue later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

  • "Practices were moved to the Philharmonic Hall in June, and in late July rehearsals were increased to 5–6 hours a day". I assume "practices" means rehearsals - in music the word is normally associated with learning to play an instrument. I recommend: "Rehearsals were moved to the Philharmonic Hall in June, and in late July were increased to 5–6 hours a day".
  • I imagine Hitler planned to celebrate the fall of the city, not the expected fall, so I'd delete that word
  • We have "began", "begun", "began" in a single line. This is avoidable, e.g. "since rehearsals had begun" → "since the start of rehearsals".
  • "The blockade was broken in early 1943 and eventually ended in 1944." Probably "breached" rather than "broken", and "eventually" is unnecessary
  • "But there was no official recognition..." Beginning the sentence with "But" is slightly POV-ish
  • "in 1945 it largely stopped being performed outside of the Soviet Union". I don't think you mean just "in 1945", rather "from 1945". The word "of" is redundant.
  • "The veracity of Volkov's account, which claims to be rooted..." - it is Volkov's claim, rather than the account's claim, so "The veracity of Volkov's account, which he claims is rooted..."
  • "repurposed for propaganda purposes" Ugly repetition

Strong story, generally convincingly told. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments; they should all be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim Really interesting, just a couple of niggles before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • orchestra was only able to perform the symphony all the way through — you have used "perform" in the previous sentence, but more to the point it implies an audience. "played"?
  • The symphony received its broadcast première in Europe by — radio premier I assume, it was broadcast by loudspeakers in Leningrad, which is in Europe.
  • I'm surprised neither the Kuibyshev or Moscow performances were on radio, especially as the latter involved a radio orchestra. Are you sure of that, since they predate the London broadcast, and would be the European premiere. Or did you mean western Europe?
  • I haven't found a reliable source that discusses the broadcast of either of the Russian performances, but as a few blogs have said the first was broadcast and the London concert was the Western première, I've changed this to Western Europe. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The première in North America — I'm not sure why this is particularly significant as opposed to the first performance in any continent outside Europe
  • Of course it was that too, but in the era Europe and North America were almost always the only continents considered in discussing classical performances - I'd prefer leaving it as-is for that reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • References should be in numerical order, couple of instances where they are not (:

Comments from Gerda

I had the great pleasure to watch the article grow from DYK to PR, remembering the emotions on the first reading. I have minor wording questions, and please tell me if it's my lack of English:

  • In the opening sentence, I find the linked "Second Word War" at the end of the sentence surprising. I would move it right behind 1942.
  • "for the piece's world première to be performed" sounds a bit complicated, - do we need "the piece's" after the article is about just that?
  • I am not enthusiastic about the term "world première" anyway.
  • I use simply "premiere", you would say "première", - if that seems not strong enough I would add world, but only first time.
  • ps: I see you did that already, reading my mind? Gerda Arendt (talk)
  • "but because of the siege that group – and later Shostakovich himself – was evacuated from the city" - after "and", the singular "was" sounds strange, - it's probably correct, but the sentence could perhaps be phrased without the detour to Shostakovich while we still don't know the verb.
  • "play the symphony all the way through on one occasion before the concert" - I had to read it a second time to understand. The later wording "only once" seems clearer than "on one occasion".
  • I smiled when I read in "Reception": "The première made Eliasberg a "hero of the city". He married Nina Bronnikova ..." - that's possibly not intended ;)

General: I could imagine a bit more of the emotion raised in the article to appear in the lead. Great Peace music - thanks for the phrase, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done all except the one noted, though I could use more feedback on the lead. Thanks for commenting. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for changes! I will think about the lead, but have a few other things on my mind. You might stress that in this case, the "world p" was less significant than this later performance or the other way round, this of special significance. - In "Reception", I felt a bit uneasy about the term "music critiques" when the reported importance is other than the music itself, but can't quite word that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • a bit more:
  • "the orchestra was able to play the symphony all the way through only once before the concert, and musicians frequently collapsed during rehearsals." - I would mention the first last, sort of chronological, that "once" was like the last rehearsal.
  • "featuring the surviving musicians", - how about "featuring surviving musicians", or something about them playing, - I guess not all surviving could make it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Great work. - Dank (push to talk) 22:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (US-Gov, CC 3.0, own work). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Ref 10 (Reid 2011) needs page references
  • Likewise ref 37 (Dimbleby 2010)
  • "History in an Hour" does not sound too convincing as a high-quality historical source. Rupert Colley, who edits the series, does not appear to be a historian or a musician; I would have thought that sufficient mainstream histories have covered this event to render this source unnecessary.

One further point: it is not always possible from the text to see which citations are supporting what information. For example, the penultimate para of the Performance section ends with a string of 4 citations. Otherwise, sources and cite formats all OK. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– and an afterthought; probably the YouTube link to the Toscanini performance, currently in ref 7, should be listed as an "Extenal link", since the link is not actually used as a source. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly done. The Dimbleby is an ebook without pagination or place numbers - should be possible to verify by searching the quote. I've reduced the number of citations to the Colley source, but it's actually an excerpt from a book published by a reputable press, so I think it's okay. Nikkimaria (talk)
A new, unpaginated Reid ref (No. 26) has appeared. As to the Dimbleby ebook. I presume it is arranged in chapters or similar divisions, so it should be possible to give at least some closer indication of the source's location. The link to the Toscanini performance now seems to have disappeared altogether, replaced in the External links by a documentary about "Shostakovich versus Stalin". Is there a reason for this? I thought the Toscanini link was great, and would like to see it listed in the External links. Brianboulton (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, all done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments

Quite happy with this, just a few minor formatting comments:

Preparation

*"...It was also considered an important political act because of its potential value as propaganda?"

  • "...held on 5 April."[26][18][27] -- Ref order
Performance
  • "The performance received an hour-long standing ovation, with Eliasberg being given a symbolic bouquet of Leningrad-grown flowers by a young girl."[22][11] -- again here.
Reception and legacy
  • "Is there a reason why refs [11] and [41] are repeated? In the event of there being no other ref given in between, I think we only need to give these references once for that portion of text.
References
  • We are missing two page numbers on refs [26] and [36].
Done except for the first - I'm not sure what you're looking for? It was considered an important political objective, prior to the concert. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, now I'm confused. It appears that you have adopted my suggestion. My query was only to check if there was a word missing, which in this case looked like "was". -- CassiantoTalk 01:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, I misunderstood. Fixed accidentally! Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Congratulations on a fine article. -- CassiantoTalk 07:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Excellent article on a subject I love dearly. I do not see anything outstanding major or minor that runs afoul of the criteria, or that remains in need of a copyedit or revision. On a matter of orthographical preference regarding an above comment, I disagree with Brianboulton's criticism of the use of "première" and agree with Nikkimaria. Exceptional work, and deserving of FA promotion.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you read, you will see I did not criticise, merely requested a justification, which I got and accepted. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I was the GA reviewer for this article, and it has improved enormously from an already high standard. Reading through a couple of times, I found no prose issues, and I think the context is explained extremely well. A very interesting piece of work. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Nice work Nikki.PumpkinSky talk 12:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Leningrad_première_of_Shostakovich%27s_Symphony_No._7/archive1&oldid=1089733368"