The Wood Nymph has been listed as one of the
Music good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 6, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello, fellow Sibelian and welcome to the wonderful world of the Sibelius tone poems! I am sure we are of one mind: the 13 Sibelius examples in this form represent, along with his seven symphonies and the violin concerto, the height of his orchestral powers. As such, I have taken the liberty over the last year of giving some of these tone poems (namely, The Wood Nymph and The Oceanides) the expanded treatment I think they deserve.
As part of this expansion project, I have added infoboxes onto each of the tone poem pages (save for Finlandia and Luonnotar and two that don't yet exist, The Dryad and Pan and Echo) to assist our readers in having the most important information about each piece at their fingertips. I feel that standardization of infobox information and form is something we should strive to maintain among these pieces, and as such, I suggest that any changes be agreed to by the community. If you're interested, I have the following opinions:
Okay, thanks for reading! If you are so inclined to add the infobox to the seven symphonies (or the four tone poems mentioned above) or some of his incidental music, please be my guest. My focus, for now, is on the tone poems.
Sgvrfjs ( talk) 18:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: I have included this message on the talk pages of each of the existing tone poems that have infoboxes.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Concertmusic ( talk · contribs) 20:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am grabbing this article for a GA review. I hope to get this review done by next week, or possibly earlier if time permits. It will be done in stages, where I will post edits to this page with my signature and time stamp to indicate updates.
Generally, I will try to indicate a suggested edit by saying "I would", versus an edit that should be made, where I will say "please add" or the like. After reading through the article several times (and I always read it more than once before I ever agree to do a GA review), this article is an informative and enjoyable read, and I learned quite a bit already.
As I usually do, I will make detailed comments below, and will explain any high-level GA-specific points in the Assessment section. Also as usual, I will make numerous comments that may improve the article in my opinion, but are not strictly necessary to pass the GA review. Please feel free to take them or leave them. Anything that must be updated to meet the GA criteria will be highlighted as such.
The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation.BlueMoonset ( talk) 16:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I hope to add more comments later today, and certainly on Friday. Thank you! -- Concertmusic ( talk) 01:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
This article is in great shape, and just needs the minor attention itemized above. Please review and leave me any comments of your own to consider, and I will monitor this closely over the next few days. Thank you - I enjoyed reviewing this article very much! -- Concertmusic ( talk) 01:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The note with the GAN says that the review will be wrapped up in early May per nom and reviewer, but now both sides haven't edited since April. Not sure how we should proceed on this one? Someone did step in and make fixes so I'd lean towards passing. Wizardman 00:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I hope to add more comments later today, and certainly on Friday.... and never came back. (Also was prepared to failed it around March 31, but removed that note a couple of weeks later and went with the May proposal.) It can be renominated if the nominator ever does return. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Apparently Akseli Gallen-Kallela illustrated Skogsrået: https://books.google.com/books?id=929lNk1fqXoC&pg=PA202 . if a free image of this could be found, it would be an excellent addition to the article. NPalgan2 ( talk) 08:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I just came across this article and was impressed by the quality of the work already here, mostly done by Sgvrfjs. I've made some edits and tried to address the points raised by Concertmusic and Triplecaña. See my notes at Talk:The_Wood_Nymph/GA1. I'm interested in finishing the GA process and seeing how to take this to FA status maybe. NPalgan2 ( talk) 09:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Sgvrfjs, I noticed that TWN is listed as 1894 in this article and the list of compositions. However, I can't find RSs that say it was finished by the end of the year... just wanted to check before changing it to 1894 and 1895. NPalgan2 ( talk) 00:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Adam Cuerden ( talk · contribs) 00:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
A few oddities should probably be addressed:
Not done Sibelius used that key signature in the score and its quoted thus in 2ndry sources - maybe because it's fiddly to keep writing out all the sharps of C# major all the time. I considered adding the string harmonics but the midi file would be much less clear then currently. I don't think it's sufficiently unusual or important to note in article. NPalgan2 ( talk) 03:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much! NPalgan2 ( talk) 03:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Done On further consideration, I decided to remove the piano arrangement from the lead, it's not sufficiently important and is as you say slightly confusing. NPalgan2 ( talk) 04:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that's all the major issues. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 00:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Adam Cuerden, Thanks for your suggestions and passing the article! I'm sorry that I've been editing while you review, I've never done a GA review before and was expecting to sit in a queue for months! As you see I've recast the second paragraph of the lead. Thanks again and let me know if you have any ideas for bringing it to FA level. Thanks again, NPalgan2 ( talk) 07:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Gerda Arendt, Tim riley, Ipigott, Sgvrfjs, and Brianboulton: Fellow Sibelians, for those of you who don't know me, I recently came across The Wood Nymph and was impressed by the work Sgvrfjs had put into it and struck by the stalled GA nomination. I made some more edits and I am pleased to say that the article has just passed to GA status. I would greatly appreciate if you could cast an eye over the article now as I believe it is close to FA level. Some issues:
Best, NPalgan2 ( talk) 09:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
"Throughout his career, Sibelius was troubled with creative 'blocks' and bouts of depression. This led him to commit score to the flames when he felt unable to revise them to the level he demanded. This was the fate most notoriously of the Symphony No. 8, but also of many works from the 1880s and 1890s." This seems such a commonplace to say about Sibelius, but I cant find an RS that says precisely this for a cite... NPalgan2 ( talk) 06:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The Wood Nymph has been listed as one of the
Music good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 6, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello, fellow Sibelian and welcome to the wonderful world of the Sibelius tone poems! I am sure we are of one mind: the 13 Sibelius examples in this form represent, along with his seven symphonies and the violin concerto, the height of his orchestral powers. As such, I have taken the liberty over the last year of giving some of these tone poems (namely, The Wood Nymph and The Oceanides) the expanded treatment I think they deserve.
As part of this expansion project, I have added infoboxes onto each of the tone poem pages (save for Finlandia and Luonnotar and two that don't yet exist, The Dryad and Pan and Echo) to assist our readers in having the most important information about each piece at their fingertips. I feel that standardization of infobox information and form is something we should strive to maintain among these pieces, and as such, I suggest that any changes be agreed to by the community. If you're interested, I have the following opinions:
Okay, thanks for reading! If you are so inclined to add the infobox to the seven symphonies (or the four tone poems mentioned above) or some of his incidental music, please be my guest. My focus, for now, is on the tone poems.
Sgvrfjs ( talk) 18:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: I have included this message on the talk pages of each of the existing tone poems that have infoboxes.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Concertmusic ( talk · contribs) 20:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am grabbing this article for a GA review. I hope to get this review done by next week, or possibly earlier if time permits. It will be done in stages, where I will post edits to this page with my signature and time stamp to indicate updates.
Generally, I will try to indicate a suggested edit by saying "I would", versus an edit that should be made, where I will say "please add" or the like. After reading through the article several times (and I always read it more than once before I ever agree to do a GA review), this article is an informative and enjoyable read, and I learned quite a bit already.
As I usually do, I will make detailed comments below, and will explain any high-level GA-specific points in the Assessment section. Also as usual, I will make numerous comments that may improve the article in my opinion, but are not strictly necessary to pass the GA review. Please feel free to take them or leave them. Anything that must be updated to meet the GA criteria will be highlighted as such.
The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation.BlueMoonset ( talk) 16:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I hope to add more comments later today, and certainly on Friday. Thank you! -- Concertmusic ( talk) 01:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
This article is in great shape, and just needs the minor attention itemized above. Please review and leave me any comments of your own to consider, and I will monitor this closely over the next few days. Thank you - I enjoyed reviewing this article very much! -- Concertmusic ( talk) 01:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The note with the GAN says that the review will be wrapped up in early May per nom and reviewer, but now both sides haven't edited since April. Not sure how we should proceed on this one? Someone did step in and make fixes so I'd lean towards passing. Wizardman 00:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I hope to add more comments later today, and certainly on Friday.... and never came back. (Also was prepared to failed it around March 31, but removed that note a couple of weeks later and went with the May proposal.) It can be renominated if the nominator ever does return. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Apparently Akseli Gallen-Kallela illustrated Skogsrået: https://books.google.com/books?id=929lNk1fqXoC&pg=PA202 . if a free image of this could be found, it would be an excellent addition to the article. NPalgan2 ( talk) 08:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I just came across this article and was impressed by the quality of the work already here, mostly done by Sgvrfjs. I've made some edits and tried to address the points raised by Concertmusic and Triplecaña. See my notes at Talk:The_Wood_Nymph/GA1. I'm interested in finishing the GA process and seeing how to take this to FA status maybe. NPalgan2 ( talk) 09:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Sgvrfjs, I noticed that TWN is listed as 1894 in this article and the list of compositions. However, I can't find RSs that say it was finished by the end of the year... just wanted to check before changing it to 1894 and 1895. NPalgan2 ( talk) 00:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Adam Cuerden ( talk · contribs) 00:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
A few oddities should probably be addressed:
Not done Sibelius used that key signature in the score and its quoted thus in 2ndry sources - maybe because it's fiddly to keep writing out all the sharps of C# major all the time. I considered adding the string harmonics but the midi file would be much less clear then currently. I don't think it's sufficiently unusual or important to note in article. NPalgan2 ( talk) 03:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much! NPalgan2 ( talk) 03:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Done On further consideration, I decided to remove the piano arrangement from the lead, it's not sufficiently important and is as you say slightly confusing. NPalgan2 ( talk) 04:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that's all the major issues. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 00:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Adam Cuerden, Thanks for your suggestions and passing the article! I'm sorry that I've been editing while you review, I've never done a GA review before and was expecting to sit in a queue for months! As you see I've recast the second paragraph of the lead. Thanks again and let me know if you have any ideas for bringing it to FA level. Thanks again, NPalgan2 ( talk) 07:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Gerda Arendt, Tim riley, Ipigott, Sgvrfjs, and Brianboulton: Fellow Sibelians, for those of you who don't know me, I recently came across The Wood Nymph and was impressed by the work Sgvrfjs had put into it and struck by the stalled GA nomination. I made some more edits and I am pleased to say that the article has just passed to GA status. I would greatly appreciate if you could cast an eye over the article now as I believe it is close to FA level. Some issues:
Best, NPalgan2 ( talk) 09:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
"Throughout his career, Sibelius was troubled with creative 'blocks' and bouts of depression. This led him to commit score to the flames when he felt unable to revise them to the level he demanded. This was the fate most notoriously of the Symphony No. 8, but also of many works from the 1880s and 1890s." This seems such a commonplace to say about Sibelius, but I cant find an RS that says precisely this for a cite... NPalgan2 ( talk) 06:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)