The article was kept 14:07, October 21, 2007.
Nominated & passed FA back in 2004, but while the bar has risen for FAs, the quality of the Shostakovich article has remained inert and I don't think this now passes FACR#1. While the article is good, it has varied problems, ranging from excessive reliance from too few scholarly sources (and way too much rehashing from Groves - a typical problem with composer articles) to language and flow issues. Comments and suggestion for improvements most welcome. Eusebeus 15:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Closing: I'd have liked more comments here and there are a couple of unreferenced sections, but I'll trust Rel's work. Marskell 14:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was kept 14:07, October 21, 2007.
Nominated & passed FA back in 2004, but while the bar has risen for FAs, the quality of the Shostakovich article has remained inert and I don't think this now passes FACR#1. While the article is good, it has varied problems, ranging from excessive reliance from too few scholarly sources (and way too much rehashing from Groves - a typical problem with composer articles) to language and flow issues. Comments and suggestion for improvements most welcome. Eusebeus 15:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Closing: I'd have liked more comments here and there are a couple of unreferenced sections, but I'll trust Rel's work. Marskell 14:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC) reply