Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lieutenant Kijé (Prokofiev)/archive1

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 via FACBot (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2016 [1].

Lieutenant Kijé (Prokofiev)

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After a gap of several months, I'm making a modest return to FAC with this account of Prokofiev's short but brilliant Kijé music, first written to accompany a film, then made into an orchestral suite. The music has been further adapted into multiple forms, and heard so often that most people know bits of it without being able to identify what it is. Special thanks to Wehwalt, and to the sadly retired Tim riley, for their unofficial peer reviewing, and to User:Profbounds for creating the musical examples. Brianboulton (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support had my say at the unofficial peer review. I join in the sentiments expressed above re Tim.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've carried out a few minor formatting errors and read as I went. A fine article and one, I should imagine, that'll be widely visited during the festive season in a few months, thanks to Troika. Cassianto ^Talk 07:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's a lovely piece of work. --John (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to you all. Brianboulton (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

File:Kije1934.jpg: what is the original source?

File:Kije1934.jpg is an offcut from File:Kije.jpg. In that file's page, the link to the original source now provides irrelevant information. I have tried searching for the original link through Wayback, without success. What further steps should I take? Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the copyright status of the music itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The music examples were created by Profbounds, using a system which is quite impenetrable to me. But I imagine that these short extracts are in the same category as the brief prose quotations that are commonly found in WP articles, and are independent from any copyright that exists over the music itself.
(Later) I have discussed the question of copyright with Profbounds, who says: "I believe that the examples might constitute "fair use" under the "Amount and Substantiality" factor. The examples are fragments of the complete score and are further removed from the original context because they are not photocopied from the score. The piano midi sound file is, also, removed from the orchestral timbre associated with the original." This view is broadly in line with my own, concerning brief quotations. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria:: Could you revisit and comment in the light of the above? Brianboulton (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "quotations" are fine. For the film poster, I wonder if you have a source confirming authorship? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this does that. I have altered the source details in the File:Kije.jpg file to link to this source. Brianboulton (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Syek88

Support

I only have only a few small suggestions, the fourth and fifth being of very little significance. First, the score excerpt of the fanfare should have a ritardando and a smorzando. Each is important, reinforcing the "distant" and "mournful" nature of it. Second, it might be worth saying that the optional baritone part appears not only in the Romance but in the Troika. I'm basing this on the Ashkenazy recording later mentioned. Jaffe's programme note also mentions the Troika having been written as a song (not just based on a traditional Hussar song). Third, and speaking of the Troika, I don't think that it is right to say that the song theme "interrupts" the "ride". The theme is an integral part of the "ride", right from the third bar of the quicker section. If there are interruptions, they come from elsewhere, like the little trombone interlude. Fourth, I'd suggest placing the excerpt from the Romance an octave higher, which is how it first appears, but it certainly does appear later in the G-below-middle-C register. Fifth, in the image caption, "Boston Opera House" should probably be "The Boston Opera House". Syek88 (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these points.

As explained above, the music excerpts were placed by another editor. I don't know the system he's used, but I can ask him if he will deal with this point.

This has now been done. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have dealt with the two issues you raise concerning the Troika
I don't know how to raise the Romance excerpt by an octave, but will enquire.

User:Profbounds has subsequently commented as follows: "Although it appears to be written an octave higher, because it is scored for Contrabasso it will sound an octave lower than scored. I have notated it in the sounding octave, which also matches the octave of the singer in the original version. Notating it an octave higher would match the look in the score but not the actual sounding octave." Thus, I am inclined to leave the example as it stands. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caption altered as requested. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am very happy to support. Syek88 (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am most grateful for your helpful comments and for your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

This will be in fits and starts, but a couple of thoughts on the sources:

Books: you have some US states as "Conn" and others as "CA"; for some (eg. New Haven, Boston, Honolulu, Berkeley), there is no state.
Newspapers: You have two online newspaper stories, one with an access date, one without

More to follow – Gavin (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both these points addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expatriate

"western Europe or Western Europe?

I prefer the former, since "Western Europe" tends to suggest an officially recognised geographic area.Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Film music

"prolific career" – sounds a bit like editorialising

Well, he wrote 35 film scores, so I think "prolific career as a composer of film sound-tracks" is probably factual. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

The "Above all, it must be melodious..." quote doesn't have closing quote marks

Done. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – regardless of the very minor points above, with which I shall leave you to decide whether to take action. Thanks Brian. – Gavin (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your diligence and support. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

I think we still need a source review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are appropriately and consistency cited with the following exceptions:

The Gable source has a . after the CT in a way inconsistent with the other state abbreviations which are all the standard postal abbreviations. (I'm offline or would just remove it)
I would standardise ISBNs at 13 digits since most seem to be.
I might argue that Boston is at least as prominent as Oxford to go without disambiguation, but there's enough tea in the harbour already.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Boston, MA", "New Haven, CT", "Westport, CT", "Berkely, CA", "Honolulu, HI" – note that MOS:POSTABBR seems to recommend not to use any abbreviations, although it's a bit ambiguous about it since User:SMcCandlish's edit in December 2012. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor source review fixes (punc, isbn) done – thanks, Wehwalt, for the review. As to abbreviations, I read MOS:POSTABBR to mean thus: "...abbreviations of place names (e.g. Calif. (California), TX (Texas), Yorks. (Yorkshire) should not be used to stand in for the full names in normal text" (my emphasis added). That does not seem ambiguous to me, and appears to be the general interpretation. Brianboulton (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Followup discussion

@Michael Bednarek and Brianboulton: Agreed with Brianboulton. There is no ambiguity in that section of MoS; it correctly distinguishes between what MoS recommends for in-article text and what people do in citations, which is controlled (or, rather, left to utter chaos) by WP:CITEVAR, a separate guideline that was PoV-forked from MoS when certain parties didn't get their way. It's an unnecessarily drama-generating situation, but we seem to be stuck with it for the foreseeable future. (It is apparently more important for certain otherwise productive editors to fight to the death in defense of particular citation styles they have adopted from off WP (or even made up in their own heads, I kid you not) than for WP to have a consistent one that everyone can agree to follow, like we all agree to follow every other arbitrary rule in life, on or off WP.) While it would be, in my view, desirable for WP to consistently approach things like how to represent US state names, it's sufficient and presently correct to observe that we have a rule to not abbreviate them in article prose, but an "un-rule" that it's permissible and common to abbreviate them in citations. This is most common when a specific citation style someone is mimicking on WP from a particular off-WP source, like Vancouver, Harvard, MLA, MHRA, AMA, Turabian, or whatever citation style) is being used, in which such abbreviation is conventional or required. I don't remember which particular cite style(s) expect(s) this, and I doubt anyone cares other than fans of that/those particular format(s). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.