![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Per WP:OPENPARA, Chopin should be described as a Polish composer. There's not much to argue about here. Thank you for your time, and please drop the edit warring and childish user talk page blanking. Thank you. Toccata quarta ( talk) 09:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems a bit ridiculous that a guy with a French name and French nationality would be listed as "Polish" without qualificagtion. Personally I have no dog in this fight, but I do believe that you're trying to pull the wool over the reader's eyes by denying that someone called "Frédéric Chopin" is in any sense French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.222.192.243 ( talk) 23:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I've added a reliable source saying he was Polish-French. No sources previously existed saying he was either Polish-French or Polish. 2Awwsome Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 19:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Even my compromise saying his nationality was disputed has been undone, and the sources I used removed. We need further discussion 2Awwsome Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 09:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
One of the users continuously keeps writing that Chopin was "Polish-French" in this article. I specially created a subsection called "Nationality" in which I use documented evidence to prove that Chopin viewed himself as a Pole, not as being French, and felt foreign when exiled in France. I used the sources that user keeps putting back in to that section. From the sources I use, it is clear that Chopin viewed himself as a Pole, and so did contemporaries as have historians. Thus the sources that call him "Polish-French" are few, the exception, and largely inaccurate. Chopin is linked to Polishness; his music reflects Polish nationalism strongly, and he was a passionate Polish patriot. I even use a source that says that it was never disputed that Chopin was a Pole. Also, it is worth noting that Chopin's French-born father (Gunter Grass's mother was of Polish-Kashubian origin, so why don't we call him a "Polish-German" writer? Why isn't Albert Camus - who was born in Algeria and whose mother was a Spaniard - a "French-Spanish-Algerian" writer? We don't but this user's logic we should) had Polish ancestry and moved to Poland at the tender age of 16 and fought in Poland's anti-Russian insurgencies and became assimilated into Polish society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazurczak88 ( talk • contribs) 18:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Like others have said there is nothing really wrong how it is, even the Polish article on him says Polish composer because that is what he was, his French ancestry and residing is mentioned within the whole article. What is the exact problem?-- Windows66 ( talk) 15:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
As the memorials section on this page was disputed because of its eclecticness, partiality, queries of relevance, absence of inclusiveness, etc., I have moved it to a separate article, which is noted in the secion on 'influence'. The new article can doubtelss be greatly extended.-- Smerus ( talk) 09:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The following paragraph in the article's " Polish nationalism in Chopin's music" subsection seems illogical and pointless. Since when does the posited modeling of a composer's works on a putative tradition of composition contravene a particular sense of national identity? Jean Sibelius' Finlandia clearly builds on earlier European compositional traditions, yet is thought a supreme musical expression of Finnish patriotism. I propose that this paragraph be dropped:
Richard Taruskin writes that "it was only because Chopin's nationalism was an oppressed and offended nationalism that Schumann noticed it as nationalism at all... Schumann... was used to thinking of the values of his [own] nation... as the general values of humanity, thus professing an unwitting double standard – we now call it ethnocentrism – that perpetuated the oppression with which he consciously sympathised on Chopin's behalf." [1] Taruskin notes that this ambivalent attitude to Polish nationalism on the part of non-Poles has persisted; and that in some ways Chopin may be felt to have shared in these parallel attitudes: "He felt his Polish patriotism deeply and sincerely" but consciously modeled his works on the tradition of Bach, Beethoven, Schubert and Field. [2] [3]
Nihil novi ( talk) 20:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The example you choose rather undermines your case. Finlandia is specifically written, as its title implies, as a piece of musical patriotism. Chopin wrote no piece called Polonia and nowhere explicitly claims his pieces as examples of, or summonses to, patriotism. That was 'read into' his music (rightly or wrongly) by others. Attitudes such as Schumann's, claims Taruskin, are also patronizing, classifying Chopin's music generically as interesting because it comes from a 'quaint' (non-German in this case) point of view. Whereas, he suggests, to Chopin the 'Polish' elements of his music were, rather, one of the means by which he extended the musical tradition. (Imo, the same applies pari passu to Sibelius, by the way). This is clearly presented in the article as Taruskin's POV, and as he is a notable authority I see no reason to remove it. The whole point of WP is that it should include various opinions of authorities, including those with which we do not happen to agree. That is what WP:NPOV is about.-- Smerus ( talk) 09:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
You are making heavy weather of this! :-) This section, like the rest of the article is a work in progress - mainly it seems by me at present, with others shouting from the sidelines. You are very welcome to help writing the article yourself and find citations supporting points of view which may be under-represented (or toning down those which may be over-represented)! In the meantime, in response to your comments, I have reduced Taruskin but I have added others who dispute the traditional 'patriotic' point of view, to try to give some balance of modern opinion.-- Smerus ( talk) 09:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Lots of hits here for a recent diagnosis of epilepsy. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Jhgvui has several times in the past two days placed WP:UNDUE or otherwise non-relevant material in the article. This has been reverted by me and (independently) by another editor. I have requested him/her on his/her talkpage to avoid this disruptive editing.-- Smerus ( talk) 20:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
According to a current story, Chopin used to say to his pupils: "Play freely with the right hand, but the left one act as your conductor and keep time." We do not know whether the story should be afforded the benefit of the doubt. Even if it be exact, the great composer contradicted it most energetically in such wonderful compositions as the Etude in C-sharp minor, preludes No. 6 and No. 22, the Polonaise in C minor, and in so many fragments of others of his masterpieces, where the left hand does not play the part of a conductor, but most distinctly that of a prima donna. Another contradiction of this theory, or rather of the way Chopin put it into practice, is the testimony of some of his contemporaries. Berlioz affirms most emphatically that Chopin could not play in time, and Sir Charles Hallé pretends to have proved to Chopin, by counting, that he played some Mazurkas 4/4 instead of 3/4 time. [...] Chopin played from his heart. His playing was not national; it was emotional. To be emotional in musical interpretation, yet obedient to the initial tempo and true to the metronome, means about as much as being sentimental in engineering. Mechanical execution and emotion are incompatible. To play Chopin's G major Nocturne with rhythmic rigidity and pious respect for the indicated rate of movement would be as intolerably monotonous, as absurdly pedantic, as to recite Gray's famous Elegy to the beating of a metronome. [4]
It is amusing to note that even some serious persons express the idea that in tempo rubato "the right hand may use a certain freedom while the left hand must keep strict time." (See Niecks' Life of Chopin, II, p. 101.) A nice sort of music would result from such playing! Something like the singing of a good vocalist accompanied by a poor blockhead who hammers away in strict time without yielding to the singer who, in sheer despair, must renounce all artistic expression. It is reported by some ladies that Chopin himself gave them this explanation, but – they might not have understood him [...] [5]
The article seems to pass B-class requirements at this point. A number of issues remain before it can receive a higher grade (see my comments below). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I will take a break here. Please improve the underlinking in the remaining sections, and I'll review them once this has been done. If there's a reply here, please WP:ECHO me. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Continuing review:
@ Piotrus:Thanks for this, but I would resist going overboard to include non-essential facts just because they are in the Polish WP article (which I note is not rated GA and need not therefore not be taken as an exemplar for the present purposes). The Polish WP article is poorly cited, and I am unable to assess the Polish sources it does quote. This, however, is the English WP article, and it stands or falls by what it contains. There is no obligation on an article in one language to include all the details from the same topic in another Wikipedia. Moreover, many of the issues you raise seem to me to be WP:UNDUE as regards an English article on Chopin. The issue should be whether or not the English article stands by the GA criteria, rather than to stuff it with bits and pieces. (There are acres of stuff which could be added from English sources, were it not that they would overload the article). I don't feel that the absence of inclusion of the elements you raise detracts from the balance or integrity of the article, or that their inclusion would improve them. I would agree that Grzymala is notable; have no comment on others. Adolf Gutman is already named in the article as a pupil.
Let me remind you of the GA criteria at WP:GACR, particularly - "it addresses the main aspects of the topic - (note) this requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics".
Best,-- Smerus ( talk) 17:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
On the creation of a template for Chopin's works, if anyone wishes to tackle this they are welcome to do so. It is not however a prerequisite for GA status.-- Smerus ( talk) 20:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Piotrus:I reverted the links to French nationality and French passport because these articles relate to the situation of 1990 and later, and are therefore not relevant to the article. But I believe in any case such links are unnecessary per WP:OVERLINK - ("everyday words understood by most readers in context").-- Smerus ( talk) 08:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Piotrus that some items of information that have been deleted or, indeed, totally passed over in the article would have been useful in limning the milieu in which Chopin lived and worked. For example, I don't believe mention has been made that Jan Matuszyński, one of the Chopin family's Warsaw boarders — a physician and an accomplished flutist — shared Chopin's Paris apartment for some years, helping look after his health and joining him and another former Warsaw boarder, the pianist Julian Fontana, in impromptu music-making. Matuszyński unexpectedly predeceased Chopin, succumbing to tuberculosis.
Why was the evocative description deleted, of the ailing Chopin, in the final weeks of his life, visiting the poet Mickiewicz and playing the piano to lift his compatriot's spirits?
This article has at various times been subjected to a Procrustean bed that tends to force Chopin's biography into a template of preconceptions.
Preconceptions may account for some errors that have been introduced into the article. Thus, the information that the building in which Chopin and his family lived in 1817-27 belonged to Warsaw University, has been deleted and replaced by a footnote that the building is "Now part of Warsaw University."
Similarly, I think calling Chopin's Żelazowa Wola birthplace "presently museum of the composer" is misleading on several grounds.
I think a fetish has been made of relying, in principle, exclusively on English-language sources. On some occasions, perfectly apropos information has been deleted because it came from Polish-language sources — and, pointedly, only reinstated after it had been rediscovered in English-language sources that themselves draw on Polish-language ones. Unfortunately, some such items still await rediscovery in English.
Nihil novi ( talk) 08:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Pinging User:Smerus - we are waiting for your replies to various points raised above. Cheers, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I have made edits where I consider them appropriate (and, by corollary, not where I do not consider them necessary for GA). I am now awaiting the formal GA review. Best -- Smerus ( talk) 11:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)-- Smerus ( talk) 11:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
A very prosy and affected quote from Sand about life at Nohant in the 1840s, cited by Maurois, and included in the article by a previous editor, turned out on examination to be from Sand's Impressions et Souvenirs, written at the end of her life in 1873, thirty years after the events. I have therefore replaced it with a quote from a contemporary letter of 1842 from Delacroix describing Nohant, which gives a similiar but more genuine impression.-- Smerus ( talk) 21:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tim riley ( talk · contribs) 10:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Will review. Beginning first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley ( talk) 10:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Preliminary observation: At the moment the main text contains a mixture of American and English spellings: "kilometers", "parlor", "favorable", "traveled", "catalog", "modeled" and "realized" from the US, and "organised", "rumours", "realising", "rumour", "centre", "subsidised", "pedalling", "colouring", "utilised" and "patronising" from Britain. As British spellings are in the majority, it might make sense to adopt them throughout, but either way, I think you should standardise. – Tim riley ( talk) 11:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I disapprove of any GA reviewer who thinks his/her job is to tell nominators how to write even though their original prose is perfectly fine, so my comments below are the merest suggestions, to be followed or ignored as you think fit, and don't affect the promotion of the article, which I have much pleasure in effecting, below.
That's all from me so far as GA is concerned. I hope you will be taking the article to FAC. I shall have a few additional minor drafting points if you do, what with the more pernickety standard for prose in FAs (e.g. quite a lot of places where the text would flow more smoothly if "Chopin" were replaced by "he" or "him"), but this is plainly a potential FA, in my opinion. I have greatly enjoyed reviewing it, and have learned a lot. As the only substantive point, the mid-Atlantic spelling, is now dealt with I have much pleasure in declaring this GA open:
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The 1 March 2014 DYK includes the erroneous statment that "Frédéric Chopin... left his homeland of Poland in 1831 and never returned". He left Poland in 1830, shortly before the eruption of the November 1830 Uprising. Nihil novi ( talk) 07:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Type in "nationality" into the field in the archive box. There's at least ten relevant discussions in the past.
Unless there's some brand new development or completely novel argument, please respect WP:CONSENSUS and drop the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and the edit warring. Thanks. Volunteer Marek 18:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
And for this kind of article, and this issue in particular, the Telegraph is simply not a reliable source. Not to mention that it doesn't say what you claim it says. Volunteer Marek 18:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
A middle ground might be an option presented at the Curie article, Polish, French-naturalized. I definitely would not say French-Polish, if the compromise isn't accepted, then Polish would be my vote. I do agree that anyone who does start a lame edit war in the lame edit war article should be completely ignored. :) Does the editor questioning the article actual write any articles? I'm just looking at the User contribution listing ... Ajh1492 ( talk) 16:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Per WP:OPENPARA, Chopin should be described as a Polish composer. There's not much to argue about here. Thank you for your time, and please drop the edit warring and childish user talk page blanking. Thank you. Toccata quarta ( talk) 09:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems a bit ridiculous that a guy with a French name and French nationality would be listed as "Polish" without qualificagtion. Personally I have no dog in this fight, but I do believe that you're trying to pull the wool over the reader's eyes by denying that someone called "Frédéric Chopin" is in any sense French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.222.192.243 ( talk) 23:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I've added a reliable source saying he was Polish-French. No sources previously existed saying he was either Polish-French or Polish. 2Awwsome Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 19:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Even my compromise saying his nationality was disputed has been undone, and the sources I used removed. We need further discussion 2Awwsome Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 09:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
One of the users continuously keeps writing that Chopin was "Polish-French" in this article. I specially created a subsection called "Nationality" in which I use documented evidence to prove that Chopin viewed himself as a Pole, not as being French, and felt foreign when exiled in France. I used the sources that user keeps putting back in to that section. From the sources I use, it is clear that Chopin viewed himself as a Pole, and so did contemporaries as have historians. Thus the sources that call him "Polish-French" are few, the exception, and largely inaccurate. Chopin is linked to Polishness; his music reflects Polish nationalism strongly, and he was a passionate Polish patriot. I even use a source that says that it was never disputed that Chopin was a Pole. Also, it is worth noting that Chopin's French-born father (Gunter Grass's mother was of Polish-Kashubian origin, so why don't we call him a "Polish-German" writer? Why isn't Albert Camus - who was born in Algeria and whose mother was a Spaniard - a "French-Spanish-Algerian" writer? We don't but this user's logic we should) had Polish ancestry and moved to Poland at the tender age of 16 and fought in Poland's anti-Russian insurgencies and became assimilated into Polish society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazurczak88 ( talk • contribs) 18:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Like others have said there is nothing really wrong how it is, even the Polish article on him says Polish composer because that is what he was, his French ancestry and residing is mentioned within the whole article. What is the exact problem?-- Windows66 ( talk) 15:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
As the memorials section on this page was disputed because of its eclecticness, partiality, queries of relevance, absence of inclusiveness, etc., I have moved it to a separate article, which is noted in the secion on 'influence'. The new article can doubtelss be greatly extended.-- Smerus ( talk) 09:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The following paragraph in the article's " Polish nationalism in Chopin's music" subsection seems illogical and pointless. Since when does the posited modeling of a composer's works on a putative tradition of composition contravene a particular sense of national identity? Jean Sibelius' Finlandia clearly builds on earlier European compositional traditions, yet is thought a supreme musical expression of Finnish patriotism. I propose that this paragraph be dropped:
Richard Taruskin writes that "it was only because Chopin's nationalism was an oppressed and offended nationalism that Schumann noticed it as nationalism at all... Schumann... was used to thinking of the values of his [own] nation... as the general values of humanity, thus professing an unwitting double standard – we now call it ethnocentrism – that perpetuated the oppression with which he consciously sympathised on Chopin's behalf." [1] Taruskin notes that this ambivalent attitude to Polish nationalism on the part of non-Poles has persisted; and that in some ways Chopin may be felt to have shared in these parallel attitudes: "He felt his Polish patriotism deeply and sincerely" but consciously modeled his works on the tradition of Bach, Beethoven, Schubert and Field. [2] [3]
Nihil novi ( talk) 20:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The example you choose rather undermines your case. Finlandia is specifically written, as its title implies, as a piece of musical patriotism. Chopin wrote no piece called Polonia and nowhere explicitly claims his pieces as examples of, or summonses to, patriotism. That was 'read into' his music (rightly or wrongly) by others. Attitudes such as Schumann's, claims Taruskin, are also patronizing, classifying Chopin's music generically as interesting because it comes from a 'quaint' (non-German in this case) point of view. Whereas, he suggests, to Chopin the 'Polish' elements of his music were, rather, one of the means by which he extended the musical tradition. (Imo, the same applies pari passu to Sibelius, by the way). This is clearly presented in the article as Taruskin's POV, and as he is a notable authority I see no reason to remove it. The whole point of WP is that it should include various opinions of authorities, including those with which we do not happen to agree. That is what WP:NPOV is about.-- Smerus ( talk) 09:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
You are making heavy weather of this! :-) This section, like the rest of the article is a work in progress - mainly it seems by me at present, with others shouting from the sidelines. You are very welcome to help writing the article yourself and find citations supporting points of view which may be under-represented (or toning down those which may be over-represented)! In the meantime, in response to your comments, I have reduced Taruskin but I have added others who dispute the traditional 'patriotic' point of view, to try to give some balance of modern opinion.-- Smerus ( talk) 09:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Lots of hits here for a recent diagnosis of epilepsy. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Jhgvui has several times in the past two days placed WP:UNDUE or otherwise non-relevant material in the article. This has been reverted by me and (independently) by another editor. I have requested him/her on his/her talkpage to avoid this disruptive editing.-- Smerus ( talk) 20:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
According to a current story, Chopin used to say to his pupils: "Play freely with the right hand, but the left one act as your conductor and keep time." We do not know whether the story should be afforded the benefit of the doubt. Even if it be exact, the great composer contradicted it most energetically in such wonderful compositions as the Etude in C-sharp minor, preludes No. 6 and No. 22, the Polonaise in C minor, and in so many fragments of others of his masterpieces, where the left hand does not play the part of a conductor, but most distinctly that of a prima donna. Another contradiction of this theory, or rather of the way Chopin put it into practice, is the testimony of some of his contemporaries. Berlioz affirms most emphatically that Chopin could not play in time, and Sir Charles Hallé pretends to have proved to Chopin, by counting, that he played some Mazurkas 4/4 instead of 3/4 time. [...] Chopin played from his heart. His playing was not national; it was emotional. To be emotional in musical interpretation, yet obedient to the initial tempo and true to the metronome, means about as much as being sentimental in engineering. Mechanical execution and emotion are incompatible. To play Chopin's G major Nocturne with rhythmic rigidity and pious respect for the indicated rate of movement would be as intolerably monotonous, as absurdly pedantic, as to recite Gray's famous Elegy to the beating of a metronome. [4]
It is amusing to note that even some serious persons express the idea that in tempo rubato "the right hand may use a certain freedom while the left hand must keep strict time." (See Niecks' Life of Chopin, II, p. 101.) A nice sort of music would result from such playing! Something like the singing of a good vocalist accompanied by a poor blockhead who hammers away in strict time without yielding to the singer who, in sheer despair, must renounce all artistic expression. It is reported by some ladies that Chopin himself gave them this explanation, but – they might not have understood him [...] [5]
The article seems to pass B-class requirements at this point. A number of issues remain before it can receive a higher grade (see my comments below). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I will take a break here. Please improve the underlinking in the remaining sections, and I'll review them once this has been done. If there's a reply here, please WP:ECHO me. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Continuing review:
@ Piotrus:Thanks for this, but I would resist going overboard to include non-essential facts just because they are in the Polish WP article (which I note is not rated GA and need not therefore not be taken as an exemplar for the present purposes). The Polish WP article is poorly cited, and I am unable to assess the Polish sources it does quote. This, however, is the English WP article, and it stands or falls by what it contains. There is no obligation on an article in one language to include all the details from the same topic in another Wikipedia. Moreover, many of the issues you raise seem to me to be WP:UNDUE as regards an English article on Chopin. The issue should be whether or not the English article stands by the GA criteria, rather than to stuff it with bits and pieces. (There are acres of stuff which could be added from English sources, were it not that they would overload the article). I don't feel that the absence of inclusion of the elements you raise detracts from the balance or integrity of the article, or that their inclusion would improve them. I would agree that Grzymala is notable; have no comment on others. Adolf Gutman is already named in the article as a pupil.
Let me remind you of the GA criteria at WP:GACR, particularly - "it addresses the main aspects of the topic - (note) this requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics".
Best,-- Smerus ( talk) 17:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
On the creation of a template for Chopin's works, if anyone wishes to tackle this they are welcome to do so. It is not however a prerequisite for GA status.-- Smerus ( talk) 20:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Piotrus:I reverted the links to French nationality and French passport because these articles relate to the situation of 1990 and later, and are therefore not relevant to the article. But I believe in any case such links are unnecessary per WP:OVERLINK - ("everyday words understood by most readers in context").-- Smerus ( talk) 08:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Piotrus that some items of information that have been deleted or, indeed, totally passed over in the article would have been useful in limning the milieu in which Chopin lived and worked. For example, I don't believe mention has been made that Jan Matuszyński, one of the Chopin family's Warsaw boarders — a physician and an accomplished flutist — shared Chopin's Paris apartment for some years, helping look after his health and joining him and another former Warsaw boarder, the pianist Julian Fontana, in impromptu music-making. Matuszyński unexpectedly predeceased Chopin, succumbing to tuberculosis.
Why was the evocative description deleted, of the ailing Chopin, in the final weeks of his life, visiting the poet Mickiewicz and playing the piano to lift his compatriot's spirits?
This article has at various times been subjected to a Procrustean bed that tends to force Chopin's biography into a template of preconceptions.
Preconceptions may account for some errors that have been introduced into the article. Thus, the information that the building in which Chopin and his family lived in 1817-27 belonged to Warsaw University, has been deleted and replaced by a footnote that the building is "Now part of Warsaw University."
Similarly, I think calling Chopin's Żelazowa Wola birthplace "presently museum of the composer" is misleading on several grounds.
I think a fetish has been made of relying, in principle, exclusively on English-language sources. On some occasions, perfectly apropos information has been deleted because it came from Polish-language sources — and, pointedly, only reinstated after it had been rediscovered in English-language sources that themselves draw on Polish-language ones. Unfortunately, some such items still await rediscovery in English.
Nihil novi ( talk) 08:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Pinging User:Smerus - we are waiting for your replies to various points raised above. Cheers, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I have made edits where I consider them appropriate (and, by corollary, not where I do not consider them necessary for GA). I am now awaiting the formal GA review. Best -- Smerus ( talk) 11:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)-- Smerus ( talk) 11:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
A very prosy and affected quote from Sand about life at Nohant in the 1840s, cited by Maurois, and included in the article by a previous editor, turned out on examination to be from Sand's Impressions et Souvenirs, written at the end of her life in 1873, thirty years after the events. I have therefore replaced it with a quote from a contemporary letter of 1842 from Delacroix describing Nohant, which gives a similiar but more genuine impression.-- Smerus ( talk) 21:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tim riley ( talk · contribs) 10:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Will review. Beginning first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley ( talk) 10:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Preliminary observation: At the moment the main text contains a mixture of American and English spellings: "kilometers", "parlor", "favorable", "traveled", "catalog", "modeled" and "realized" from the US, and "organised", "rumours", "realising", "rumour", "centre", "subsidised", "pedalling", "colouring", "utilised" and "patronising" from Britain. As British spellings are in the majority, it might make sense to adopt them throughout, but either way, I think you should standardise. – Tim riley ( talk) 11:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I disapprove of any GA reviewer who thinks his/her job is to tell nominators how to write even though their original prose is perfectly fine, so my comments below are the merest suggestions, to be followed or ignored as you think fit, and don't affect the promotion of the article, which I have much pleasure in effecting, below.
That's all from me so far as GA is concerned. I hope you will be taking the article to FAC. I shall have a few additional minor drafting points if you do, what with the more pernickety standard for prose in FAs (e.g. quite a lot of places where the text would flow more smoothly if "Chopin" were replaced by "he" or "him"), but this is plainly a potential FA, in my opinion. I have greatly enjoyed reviewing it, and have learned a lot. As the only substantive point, the mid-Atlantic spelling, is now dealt with I have much pleasure in declaring this GA open:
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The 1 March 2014 DYK includes the erroneous statment that "Frédéric Chopin... left his homeland of Poland in 1831 and never returned". He left Poland in 1830, shortly before the eruption of the November 1830 Uprising. Nihil novi ( talk) 07:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Type in "nationality" into the field in the archive box. There's at least ten relevant discussions in the past.
Unless there's some brand new development or completely novel argument, please respect WP:CONSENSUS and drop the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and the edit warring. Thanks. Volunteer Marek 18:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
And for this kind of article, and this issue in particular, the Telegraph is simply not a reliable source. Not to mention that it doesn't say what you claim it says. Volunteer Marek 18:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
A middle ground might be an option presented at the Curie article, Polish, French-naturalized. I definitely would not say French-Polish, if the compromise isn't accepted, then Polish would be my vote. I do agree that anyone who does start a lame edit war in the lame edit war article should be completely ignored. :) Does the editor questioning the article actual write any articles? I'm just looking at the User contribution listing ... Ajh1492 ( talk) 16:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)