Talk:Grotrian-Steinweg/GA1

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 03:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I will review this! MathewTownsend (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Grotrian piano performance competition
 * citations needed for this section


 * I have supplied a cite for the fact tagged paragraph. More improvements to come. Binksternet (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * unfortunately I just lost the rest of my review in an edit conflict. I will try to do what I can to reconstruct it. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ach! I'm sorry about that. Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * This article is difficult for me to follow.
 * lede
 * does not follow WP:LEAD - "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."


 * "the rights to the Grotrian, Helfferich, Schulz, Th. Steinweg Nachf brand." - confusing - is this one long brand or several brands?
 * jumps from 1865 in Germany to 1975 in the US with no transition or explanation.
 * "landmark decision" - is there a citation for this, as it has a somewhat specific meaning?
 * 19th century
 * "started making pianos in 1835" - "Steinweg built a square piano in 1835, one that Grotrian had designed" - 1935 mentioned twice in same sentence
 * also, why did Grotrian go to Steinweg to built his piano when he owned a piano building factory?
 * "Soon after taking ownership of his father's old factory, Steinweg moved it to Wolfenbüttel near Braunschweig. Grotrian met Steinweg in Wolfenbüttel." - don't understand this - this is many years after Steinweg built Grotrian's piano.
 * "In 1854, G.F.K. Grotrian's uncle" - are all these Grotrians the same person -
 * Georg Friedrich Karl Grotrian, called Friedrich
 * Grotrian
 * G.F.K. Grotrian
 * this is also confusing since there is the brand called "Grotrian"


 * when Grotrian moved back to Germany, did he move from Moscow or had he moved to Saint Petersburg?
 * "In 1857, Steinweg and Grotrian moved the piano factory to Braunschweig" - atho it's mentioned that they met, it's not made clear that they owned a factory together (or did I miss that somehow?) - oh, I see farther down that they did form a partnership in 1856. This needs to be in chronological order.
 * also, what is the name of the piano factory moved to Braunschweig?

Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "In 1865, Steinweg was need by his family in America after his brothers Henry and Charles died." - need to either explain more why he went to America or just say Steinweg moved to America and ... In New York City, C.F. Theodor Steinweg changed his name to C.F. Theodore Steinway and served as the leader and chief technician of Steinway & Sons for fifteen years.
 * American vs US - do you use America when you want to include Canada or what?
 * "He did not like living in America," - so here US is meant as he is in NYC.
 * "started a new Steinway piano factory in Hamburg" - the name of this factory
 * "The Hamburg factory was successful in competing against Grotrian-Steinweg—both companies were known for producing premium pianos" - so does this mean that two branches of the Steinweg/Steinway were competing?
 * "In the 1880s, Wilhelm "Willi" Grotrian Jr" - Kurt Grotrian - needs to be said earlier that G.F.K. Grotrian had sons - seems like so much mention of the Steinweg/Steinway family but little of the Grotrian family up to this point.
 * "the company was named purveyor to the king and to noble houses" of France, right?
 * Trademark conflict
 * Looks good
 * Today
 * This is not a good heading per MoS. And it starts in 1974, the last century.
 * For some reason I can't get the company website to open. How many countries is Grotrian-Steinweg sold in? Are most sales in the US?
 * It would be helpful if the names of the companies and the people were consistent throughout.
 * Please feel free to ask me any questions and provide feedback. Sorry for my screwup yesterday.

A great many points, all very apt. I will lay into them this Friday and Saturday. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Great! I didn't want to overwhelm you. It's an interesting article and not far from GA. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply


 * Responses by Binksternet
 * I expanded the lead section to accommodate WP:LEAD. I dumped the confusing "Grotrian, Helfferich, Schulz, Th. Steinweg Nachf" brand for the plain English "the right to market their pianos as successors to the Steinweg brand". The landmark decision bit is removed.
 * I have tried to sort the confusion about the Grotrian men and the Grotrian piano company, but I fear it will forever be difficult to tell everybody apart. The various Steinway names add to the chaos.
 * I changed America to US or New York City where appropriate.
 * More work is on the way. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I edited the article in response to many of the concerns that were expressed. I pushed for consistency in naming the company and the people, and I tried to make it more clear who was doing what when and where. Some of the concerns I was unable to answer:
 * "How many countries is Grotrian-Steinweg sold in? Are most sales in the US?" I have to say I don't know either answer, but I think most sales are in Europe. Sources are mum.
 * Purveyor to the King of France? The sources are vague. I found one saying 30 Kaisers, Kings, etc., but no specifics. France is not named.
 * I do not know why old Friedrich Grotrian was in so many places such as St. Petersburg, Seesen and Wolfenbuttel. His main business was in Moscow, a music shop that is described as "lucrative" in a new source. He probably traveled for business, to find new sources. This is perhaps why he contracted for a piano from Mr. Steinweg in Seesen even though he held interest in a little piano factory in St. Petersburg.
 * I will let you consider the changes now, to see if I missed anything important. Binksternet (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A new change is incorrect. "Soon after taking ownership of his father's old factory, H.E. Steinweg" should be C.F. Theodor Steinweg. Binksternet (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * reply
 * ok, I spend considerable time this morning trying to figure out who was who. There's a "Willi" that's unclear. Also unclear is who ran the company at certain times, and who was the son of whom. Appreciate any clarification, as I can't figure it out, obviously!
 * I'm just kind of exhausted to keep listing the confusions. Sorry. Please make sure that is it clear who all the names are.
 * Also, please keep a chronological order, and not flip back and forth decades in a section.

MathewTownsend (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I regret that the topic is as confusing as it is. I have to think that is why nobody else saw fit to tackle it!
 * I fixed a chron order flip between 1893 and 1895.
 * I agree this GAN is certainly exhausting!
 * I fixed an error that you introduced, one which would surely cause confusion: I added "C.F. Theodor" in place of "H.E." Steinweg where appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Have to admit its an exhausting read. But its very interesting and I'm really glad you wrote it. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
 * B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Provides references to all sources:
 * B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Main aspects are addressed:
 * B. Remains focused:
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Excellent - thanks for being so cooperative. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Excellent - thanks for being so cooperative. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Excellent - thanks for being so cooperative. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent - thanks for being so cooperative. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent - thanks for being so cooperative. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sticking it out! Your review was spot on... Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)