Talk:Glenn Gould/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Lampman (talk · contribs) 22:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks really good. A few things right away: I'll be back with more. Lampman (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref 64 is messed up
 * Ref 68 contains a bare URL, which is also dead (collectionscanada) ✅
 * There is also a bare URL in the external links (Genius Within)✅
 * Three more dead links in the external links:
 * Writings and Works✅
 * Glenn Gould Broadcasts
 * GlennGould Magazine
 * One category is a redlink

Before we go any further though: does the nominator have any serious involvement with the creation of the article? It doesn't seem so from the history. This is no requirement, I just want to make sure you will be able to deal with any suggestions for improvement that may come along. Do you, for instance, have access to the books that have been used as the main sources for the article? I also see that you have a failed nomination for the article on Johann Sebastian Bach; are you sure you are entirely familiar with the nomination process? I just want to make sure before we continue with this. Lampman (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the status of this review? Have any of the article's contributors come forward to implement improvements? My suggestion would be to finish the review (using the GA criteria and then put it on hold if it needs to sit for a few days. Right now, it looks as though it has been untouched for 5 days. AstroCog (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been a week and no action has been taken, so I could fail it right away. I could, however, contact some of the actual contributers to see if they want to collaborate, cause it's not that far away from a GA, I think. Lampman (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Been another couple weeks, so might as well be failed now. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 17:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Extended review
Apoligies for the delay. At closer scrutiny, the article seems to have some major sourcing issues. This goes both for statements that can be seen as POV or OR, and statements that are direct or indirect quotes from Gould himself. This is why I believed it was important that an editor working on a GA review should be familiar with, and have access to the literature.

Various issues: Then for the lack of referencing: And finally the unreferenced direct or indirect quotes: These are some serious issues. I will put the article on hold for a week, but please let me know if it is realistic to expect that they will be addressed. Lampman (talk) 07:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The infobox template (Infobox writer) is being considered for merging, but most likely it will end in oppose. I can also see why this template has been used rather than the more relevant "Infobox musical artist", seeing how this one allows for more parameters, such as "works" and "awards". I have no issues with this.
 * The image File:Glenn Gould and Alberto Guerrero.jpg lacks a proper rationale (I assume the uploader is not the photographer.) It could probably carry the same rationale as the previous image, seeing how it's more than 50 years old.
 * Is Leo Smith not Leo Smith (composer)?✅
 * The "Legacy and honours" section is far too choppy, with too many headings, short sections, and single-sentence paragraphs. It should be reorganized in accordance with WP:BODY.
 * "Gould was known for his vivid musical imagination..." – this paragraph contains too much subjective assessment not to have any references.
 * "Gould developed a formidable technique" – same with this paragraph; it is unclear whether the final ref covers it all. Also, "formidable" is a WP:PEACOCK term, and probably should be avoided altogether, but certainly not stand unreferenced.✅ found it on a blog site?
 * "It seems that Gould was able... This is all the more staggering considering..." – again, a word like "staggering is used without any reference.✅
 * "The two recordings are very different..." – this is a personal interpretation. If it's the scholarly consensus, this needs to be shown.✅: Appears to have been fixed some time ago
 * New York Philharmonic concert of April 6, 1962 – there is no references on this event whatsoever, as far as I can see.✅
 * "Some speculate that his extensive use of prescription medications..." – who?✅
 * "His writing style was highly articulate but sometimes florid, indulgent, or rhetorical." – again, unsupported opinion.✅
 * "Gould claimed he almost never practised on the piano..."
 * "The piano, Gould said, "is not an instrument for which...""
 * "No, I don't. I play it in a weak moment – maybe once a year or twice a year for myself. But it doesn't convince me."✅
 * "Gould said that if he had not been a musician, he would have been a writer."✅
 * "Thus, the act of musical composition, to Gould..."
 * "Gould likened his process to that of a film director..."✅
 * "Gould referred to himself repeatedly as "the last puritan""✅


 * Thanks Lampman for the extended review. The nominator for this GA reivew has not been online since she nominated this article.  I'd say yes close this nomination.  I'll start adressing the issues you've raised.  It will take more than a week.  The article has not had a proper copy edit (as far as I can tell) for over a year.  Argolin (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)